Ai? That’s just it.

Machine Learning: Intelligence Without Consciousness

Machine learning displays intelligence in the sense that it applies reason. It is not, however, truly artificial: it arose naturally as an extension of human thought. Nor is it conscious—and, according to Roger Penrose, it cannot logically become so.

Machine learning is a tool, capable of either empowering or destroying. Yet rationality without feeling or relationship is pure I–It: concrete, isolated, and empty. “I-It” is a term used by Martin Buber to describe one mode of being in the world.

Martin Buber: Meaning Through Relationship

The essence of Martin Buber’s philosophy is that meaning arises through relationship. He distinguishes between two fundamental modes:

  • I–Thou (Ich–Du): an authentic encounter in which each participant remains open to the other.
  • I–It (Ich–Es): an instrumental mode of relating in which the other is reduced to an object or projection.

From I–Thou springs the creative potential of existence: something new emerges in every encounter between the two poles of relationship. Buber calls this process “dialogue”. It begins as an attitude—a choice about how to be and how to exist—and unfolds in the “between” (Buber’s Zwischen), where relationship opens onto new depths and possibilities.

I–It is the opposite. Because it focuses on something concrete and clearly defined, it can feel productive. Yet this apparent clarity reveals the trap: instead of meeting the other, one relates to a projection. In this sense, I–It is fundamentally narcissistic and becomes the essence of loneliness.

Gadamer, Bohm, and Genuine Dialogue

Hans-Georg Gadamer developed Buber’s insight by describing genuine dialogue as a “fusion of horizons”. When conversation gives equal priority to attentive listening and clear expression, perspectives can merge, broaden, and create new understanding.

David Bohm’s work reflects a similar vision. He grounds dialogue in physics, offering both a quantum-mechanical perspective and a connection with Eastern philosophy. Across these approaches, genuine conversation becomes a creative encounter with possibilities that extend beyond either participant’s original viewpoint.

Have a look at..

Martin Buber – “Ich und Du” (I and Thou)

Hans-Georg Gadamer – “Warheit und Methode” (Truth and Method)

David Bohm – “On Dialogue”, “ Wholeness and the Implicate Order”, “The Undivided Universe: an Ontological Interpretation of Quantum Theory”, “The Ending of Time”, “On Creativity”

Sir Roger Penrose – “Shadows of the Mind: A Search for the Missing Science of Consciousness”, “Consciousness and the Laws of Physics”, “The Emperor’s New Mind: Concerning Computers, Minds, and the Laws of Physics”

 

 

Have a look at..

Martin Buber – “Ich und Du” (I and Thou)

Hans-Georg Gadamer – “Warheit und Methode” (Truth and Method)

David Bohm – “On Dialogue”, “ Wholeness and the Implicate Order”, “The Undivided Universe: an Ontological Interpretation of Quantum Theory”, “The Ending of Time”, “On Creativity”

Sir Roger Penrose – “Shadows of the Mind: A Search for the Missing Science of Consciousness”, “Consciousness and the Laws of Physics”, “The Emperor’s New Mind: Concerning Computers, Minds, and the Laws of Physics”

“A Pulse in the Eternal Mind, no Less”

(Rupert Brooke, The Soldier)

It feels as if we are approaching a huge change to humanity. To those of us who are children of the 60’s this may just be “the dawning of the age of the Aquarius”Aquarius . Let the Sunshine In  Transformation. I believe so, and argue for that below.

But,

It feels like we’re rushing toward extinction. After all this is what confronts us:

 Environmental devastation: A crisis most feel powerless to stop, thwarted by greed, nationalism, and predatory capitalism.  

 Erosion of community: Natural, face-to-face human connection is increasingly interrupted and mediated by apps and social media.  

Spiritual vacuum: Materialism has become our de facto religion, while traditional faiths—which explicitly call for love and forgiveness—are routinely distorted by politicians.  

Existential technological risk: Human egotism has already driven leaders to terrible actions, yet a coldly rational, potent AI that cares nothing for the planet could simply extinguish us all.  

Yet,

These dangers may simply be the birth pangs of a new stage in the evolution of consciousness—an emergency giving way to glory. Perhaps we are in the throes of an emergence, something akin to the Age of Aquarius!  

This is the future that evolutionary biologist Pierre Teilhard de Chardin predicted half a century ago. For him, the universe has always been conscious, with matter and spirit acting as the inner and outer layers of reality. He traced this accretion from uncoordinated plasma after the Big Bang, through quarks, atoms, and molecules, driving chemistry toward the birth of life and biological evolution. Self-awareness arrived with Homo sapiens, and with it, the agglomeration of ideas into a web of knowledge no longer strictly bound by biology.  

What gives evolution its impetus and purpose? Teilhard believed that the underlying reality is the force of love—what Dylan Thomas called the “green fuse that drives the flower.” It is a love that leads to integration rather than fragmentation and loneliness.  

Teilhard would surely have recognized the grave dangers of AI. However, these threats primarily concern the human species within its current physical incarnation. In common with most deep thinkers, he believed in our transcendental coexistence within “all that is.” He saw within evolution the inevitability of consciousness becoming fully aware of itself. At each stage, humanity crosses thresholds: from the physical to the chemical, and from the chemical to the biosphere. We are now crossing into the evolution of pure ideas within the noosphere, leading toward an ultimate, blinding flash of awareness: the realisation of consciousness and God. This is my hope and belief.  

This entire discussion is teleological; it speaks to purpose. So much of the modern world is devoted to the physical questions of “How?” rather than “Why?” and “Whither?” To move beyond mere mechanics and ask why we are here naturally connects us to Eastern rather than Western patterns of thought—traditions that have deeply inspired thinkers such as Carl Jung, Martin Buber, David Bohm, and Philip Goff.  

Is this teleological view consistent with the determinism of physical theories of the universe, such as Tim Palmer’s Rational Quantum Mechanics and block universe, or Milo Wolff’s Wave Theory? Perhaps by exploring the role of underlying quantum structures and wave mechanics, we might begin to bridge the gap between physical determinism and cosmic purpose—ultimately understanding both the Why and How of existence.

I am probably having a conversation with myself, but it helps to write it down. I’d be delighted if someone were to challenge or add to these inquiries?

Penrose and Purpose

I heard Roger Penrose interviewed on Desert Island Discs. Certainly he is a proper grounded mathematician and scientist (look up his Wikipedia entry). He’s worth listening to (unlike soap-box orators like Richard Dawkins).

I was struck by his representation of Artificial Intelligence as fundamentally an algorithm – since it will forever lack mind and consciousness. So I’ve been looking into his views. Just a couple of quotes below. Science is certainly NOT consistent with materialist atheism as some would have us believe ..

There is a certain sense in which I would say the universe has a purpose. It’s not there just somehow by chance. Some people take the view that the universe is simply there and it runs along-it’s a bit as though it just sort of computes, and we happen by accident to find ourselves in this thing. I don’t think that’s a very fruitful or helpful way of looking at the universe, I think that there is something much deeper about it, about its existence, which we have very little inkling of at the moment.

Intelligence cannot be present without understanding. No computer has any awareness of what it does.

I would say the universe has a purpose. It’s not there just somehow by chance.

our present picture of physical reality, particularly in relation to the nature of time, is due for a grand shake up