Let's think : By Dr.King, Swami Satyapriya

    [Preview books]  [Borrow books] 

[Pause]

    In the last few episodes, we discussed consciousness. We spoke about the four states of consciousness: the waking state, the dream state, the deep sleep state, and the indescribable state of Turiya. All living beings experience one of these four states of consciousness at different times.

Our discussion was based on the Mandukya Upanishad, one of the ancient Upanishads of India.

At the end of the previous episode, I hinted that many Advaita philosophers of India hold a different view regarding these states of consciousness. In this episode, I will briefly discuss the alternative viewpoint presented by Gaudapada in his famous Mandukya Karika—that is, his exposition on the Mandukya Upanishad.

Who was Gaudapada?

Gaudapada was the original philosopher of the Advaita tradition. He belonged to the 6th century CE. He was the paramaguru (teacher's teacher) of the famous Advaita philosopher Shankara.

What did Gaudapada say?

 According to Gaudapada, the first three states of consciousness described in the Mandukya Upanishad are merely appearances and are not real. The only true state is Turiya, and it is that alone which appears as the other three states.

To explain how the one state of consciousness appears as the other three states, Gaudapada gives various analogies.

The Dream Analogy:

When a person dreams, he sees many people, many places and many events. But in reality, all of them are the creation of a single mind—that is, the mind of the dreamer. Likewise, Gaudapada says that the one universal consciousness creates the illusion of the existence of many living beings, each of whom appears to be in a particular state of consciousness.

These living beings have no independent existence. They are like the appearances seen in a dream. Outside the dream, all the dream objects disappear, because they never really existed. They merely appeared to exist. Likewise, the diversity that appears to exist in reality.

To explain how this multiplicity appears even though there is only one consciousness, Gaudapada gives another analogy.

The Pot Analogy:

Suppose you have many pots. Inside each pot there is some space (empty space). This space has a definite shape and characteristics. There is also space outside the pots. Does that mean there are many different spaces—the space inside the pot and the space outside the pot?

No, In reality, there is only one space. It is the pot that brings about this multiplicity. The pot makes the one space appear as different spaces. It creates the illusion of dividing the one unified space into many parts. Likewise, different physical forms create the illusion that there are different consciousnesses. But in reality, there is only one universal consciousness.

Gaudapada then gives a third analogy.

The Analogy of the Burning Torch:

When you hold a burning torch in a place where there is no wind, its flame burns steadily by itself. But when the wind blows, the flame moves. And this movement makes the flame assume different shapes. After some time, it appears as though the flame itself has many forms. If the torch is rotated in a circle, it appears like a wheel of fire.

None of these shapes were present in the flame. Nor will they ever be. When there is a flow of air or movement, these shapes merely appear to exist. The moment this movement stops, the appearance of these shapes also comes to an end.

Likewise, Gaudapada says that because of the vibrations arising in the universal consciousness, many objects in the world merely appear to exist. They are not created by consciousness. But because of the vibrations in the universal consciousness, they merely appear to exist.

And it is this universal consciousness that the Upanishad calls Turiya. The remaining three—the waking state, the dream state and the deep sleep state—are merely appearances of that consciousness.

Each of these analogies is extremely profound. Gaudapada has written at great length about each one of these concepts. Although these analogies are very consistent, they raise many questions. They give rise to several paradoxes. I have discussed them in my book "Unraveling the Hidden Mysteries of The Vedas Part 2: Amazing Upanishads", In that book, you will find more details, as well as my own resolution to these paradoxes and answers to these questions.

Now, coming back to Gaudapada's theory of the unified consciousness, two things become clear from Gaudapada's explanation:

• This world is merely an appearance arising from the vibrations in the universal consciousness.

• And when these vibrations stop, the appearance of this world also comes to an end.

To realize this universal consciousness, Gaudapada recommends the path of meditation.

Finally, I conclude this discussion with these words of Gaudapada—

"Yadā na līyate cittaṁ, na ca vikṣipyate punaḥ,
Aniṅganam anābhāsaṁ niṣpannaṁ brahma tattadā."

— Mandukya Karika: Advaita Prakarana, Verse 46.

He says that when an individual's mind—

• does not sink into deep sleep, and

• is not scattered in the waking and dream states, and

• remains steady like the flame of a lamp placed in a calm, windless place, and

• ceases to acquire false identities,

that person's mind identifies itself with that universal consciousness.

Join me again in the next episode with another interesting topic.

Please let me know your thoughts on these profound ideas about consciousness proposed by the ancient philosophers of India. Watch on YouTube 
   --------------------------------------------------------------------

If

this  resonated with you, I invite you to join my weekly readership. I

publish a new deep-dive every Saturday, moving beyond the surface to

look at the questions that truly matter. No paywalls, no "bait"—just a

direct share from my mind to yours. Click to subscribe.   Haga clic para españolKlicken Sie hier für die deutsche Versionहिंदी के लिए क्लिक करेंతెలుగు కోసం క్లిక్ చేయండిಕನ್ನಡಕ್ಕಾಗಿ ಕ್ಲಿಕ್ ಮಾಡಿ 

 

© Dr. King, Swami Satyapriya 2026

You can borrow audio books directly from the author at https://tinyurl.com/mylibrary1234 at highly affordable prices.

    [Preview books]  [Borrow books] 

[Pause]

  In the previous episode, we discussed the three states of consciousness described by our ancient Indian philosophers. We based our discussion on one of the Upanishads—the Mandukya Upanishad.

This Upanishad speaks about the three states of consciousness: the waking state, the dream state, and the deep sleep state. These are the three states that we observe every day in all living beings. It then goes on to speak about a fourth state called Turiya.

What is this state of Turiya?

 Whenever you introduce a new concept, it is natural to compare it with other things that are already familiar, or to distinguish it from them. This Upanishad does exactly that at the outset.

The Upanishad says that the state of Turiya is not like the waking state. In the waking state, our consciousness engages with the external world. But in the state of Turiya, there is no such external engagement.

The Upanishad also says that this consciousness does not create any dreams. This means that it is different from the dream state as well.

Could this Turiya be a state that is half dream and half wakefulness? The Upanishad rejects that possibility too.

In that case, the only remaining alternative would seem to be that Turiya is a completely dormant state of consciousness like deep sleep. That is what we observe in deep sleep. But the Upanishad rejects that possibility as well.

At the same time, the Upanishad says that Turiya is neither a state of blank unconsciousness nor a state of awareness of any particular object.

The Upanishad summarizes all these observations in the following words:

"Na antaḥ-prajñam, na bahiḥ-prajñam, na ubhayataḥ-prajñam, na prajñānaghanam, na prajñam, na aprajñam."

Then what exactly is Turiya?

To describe something by saying "it is like this," it must be something that can be perceived by the senses. But the Upanishad says that Turiya is not an object that can be perceived by the senses.

Sometimes, something can be described by explaining what it can be used for. But according to the Upanishad, Turiya is not something that can be used to perform any function.

It also says that it has no characteristics of its own. Therefore, we cannot even think about it. Then can it at least be communicated through words? According to the Upanishad, that too is impossible, because Turiya is beyond words.

This is how the Upanishad expresses it:

"Adṛśyam, avyavahāryam, agrāhyam, alakṣaṇam, acintyam, avyapadeśyam."

If you observe carefully, you will notice that instead of telling us what the state of Turiya is, the Upanishad tells us what it is not. In philosophy, this is known as defining something through negation.

When something cannot be defined within a direct conceptual framework, it is often defined by saying, "It is not this." This excludes everything that is not the state of Turiya. After excluding everything else, what finally remains is Turiya. Even so, we cannot point to it and say, "This is it."

The Upanishads speak about this limitation of human-language on many occasions. Our language can describe only something that possesses characteristics, or something that can be compared with another thing that we already know, or something that can be explained based on its use.

For example, we can describe a cow as an animal with four legs, two horns, and a loose fold of skin hanging below its neck. But Turiya possesses none of the characteristics familiar to our worldly experience. Therefore, we have no way of describing it using adjectives.

Turiya is unique in its own way. There is nothing else that is comparable to it. Therefore, we cannot compare it with any other concept or phenomenon and say, "It is like that."

A spoon can be described as an instrument used for eating. But Turiya has no worldly use whatsoever. Therefore, you cannot describe it as being like some kind of tool.

Then how can we be certain that such a state really exists?

The Upanishad says that it is the state experienced in deep meditation. That experience itself is the proof of its existence.

Is there any benefit in experiencing such a state of consciousness?

The Upanishad says, "Yes." It says that by experiencing that state, you become free from all worldly suffering. It is the remedy for all the misery that arises from your involvement with this world. It is the most peaceful state. It is the most auspicious state. Instead of seeing a fragmented world centered only around yourself, it enables you to perceive a single, unified reality.

Above all, the Upanishad declares that this is your true nature. Therefore, it says that you must realize it.

This is what the Upanishad says about the Turiya state of consciousness, and why we should realize it:

"Ekātma-pratyaya-sāram, prapañcopaśamam, śāntam, śivam, advaitam, caturtham, sa ātmā, sa vijñeyaḥ."

While saying all this, I should mention one thing. In explaining these verses of the Upanishad, I have been careful not to do anything that would compromise the integrity of the original text. I have not imposed my own philosophical viewpoint upon it.

Those who strictly follow the Advaita philosophy may feel that my explanation does not fully agree with the well-known interpretation of Advaita philosophers such as Shankaracharya.

Advaitins hold a somewhat different perspective. They do not regard Turiya as merely the fourth state of consciousness. We shall discuss exactly how they understand this state of consciousness in the next episode.  --------------------------------------------------------------------

If

this  resonated with you, I invite you to join my weekly readership. I

publish a new deep-dive every Saturday, moving beyond the surface to

look at the questions that truly matter. No paywalls, no "bait"—just a

direct share from my mind to yours. Click to subscribe.   Haga clic para españolKlicken Sie hier für die deutsche Versionहिंदी के लिए क्लिक करेंతెలుగు కోసం క్లిక్ చేయండిಕನ್ನಡಕ್ಕಾಗಿ ಕ್ಲಿಕ್ ಮಾಡಿ 

 

© Dr. King, Swami Satyapriya 2026

You can borrow audio books directly from the author at https://tinyurl.com/mylibrary1234 at highly affordable prices.

    [Preview books]  [Borrow books] 

[Pause]

  In the previous episode, we were discussing how the ancient Indians viewed the concept of consciousness. As a specific example, I had chosen one of the Upanishads, the 'Mandukya Upanishad'. The Mandukya Upanishad is a part of the Atharva Veda.

This short Upanishad explains how the Ultimate Reality manifests through the four states of consciousness. It calls that Ultimate Reality 'Omkara'. It identifies the four states of consciousness as the waking state, the dream state, deep sleep, and Turiya.

These states exist among the countless forms assumed by that Omkara. As we discussed earlier, this is certainly possible because Omkara transcends space and time. The various forms of Omkara are the living beings spread throughout the universe. Since those forms are subject to the laws of space and time, they can exist in only one state at a time.

In this episode, let us understand the first three of these four states.

 The very first state is the waking state, or what is called the 'Jaagrata' state of consciousness. While in this state, the living being interacts with the external world outside its body.

It uses its five sense organs, such as the eyes and ears, to gather information from the world outside its body. It then processes that information using its mind, intellect, ego, and other mental faculties.

After the information has been processed, the body uses its five organs of action, such as the hands and legs, to interact with those external objects. The five vital energies, such as Prana, support the body and the mind during this process.

Fundamentally, the waking state is the state of consciousness that deals with the gross objects existing outside the body.

The Upanishad describes it as follows.

How does neuroscience look at this?

In the terminology of neuroscience, this is called access consciousness. Neuroscientists know quite a lot about how the body and the brain handle this form of consciousness.

The brain contains various specialized regions that process the information arriving from the external sense organs. Once the information has been processed, the brain decides what action should be taken based on the incoming information, the current state of the brain, and the evaluation made by its various decision-making centers. It ultimately activates the motor regions of the brain as required, to engage the external organs of action in appropriate activities.

The Upanishad speaks about the second form of consciousness, known as the 'Svapna' or dream state. It is very similar to the waking state, except that the entire drama takes place within the mind.

Instead of external gross objects, there are subtle objects created by the mind itself. Instead of the gross sense organs, there are subtle internal senses created by the mind. These internal senses operate upon the objects created by the mind and produce results that are themselves created by the mind.

Just as a person in the waking state experiences external objects using the body's organs and mental faculties, the person created within the dream also experiences the objects created within that dream. There is a close similarity between the external world and the internal world created in dreams.

The Upanishad describes it as follows.

Neuroscience also views it in much the same way, except that instead of using the abstract terminology of the Upanishad, it refers to specific regions of the brain.

According to neuroscience, the dream world is created entirely by the brain as a result of random interactions among the various memories already stored within it.

Except for the fact that the objects are created by the mind, everything else remains largely the same as in the waking state. The same processing regions of the brain continue to function, but the physical sense organs and organs of action are not activated.

The third state of consciousness spoken of by the Upanishad is 'Sushupti', or deep sleep. According to the Upanishad, in this state of consciousness it neither responds to the external world nor experiences dreams.

Since no information comes either from external objects or from objects created by the mind, there is no processing of such information either. The Upanishad says that because consciousness is completely disconnected from both the external and internal worlds, there are no desires in this state.

The Upanishad says that consciousness appears to remain dormant. That does not mean it is a state of nothingness. The previously acquired knowledge is still there. However, that knowledge remains in a frozen state.

The Upanishad speaks of another wonder. It says that this state of consciousness is blissful. However, this bliss does not arise from any sensory pleasure. Rather, it exists because the mental disturbances that are present in the other two states of consciousness are absent in this state. It is bliss that arises because there are no obstacles to bliss.

The Upanishad also calls this state of consciousness the gateway between the other two states of consciousness. It is from this state that a person enters either the waking state or the dream state.

Overall, the Upanishad describes this state as follows.

Neuroscience also speaks about the state of deep sleep, in which a person neither responds to external events nor experiences dreams. Furthermore, while sleeping, a person periodically transitions from this state either to the waking state or to the dream state.

The Upanishads speak about these three states of consciousness as matters of fact. Although their descriptions do not go into great depth, they do not come into conflict with the explanations provided by neuroscience.

Neuroscience remains silent about who the ultimate experiencer of all these processes is. Or, at least, it does not take any definite position on the matter.

The Upanishad, on the other hand, firmly believes that there is a power behind all these activities, and that this power is the experiencer of their results. It says that this power uses the body as an instrument. As the Indian Sankhya philosophers point out, if there were no experiencer, all these processes would be meaningless.

In the previous episodes, we also discussed the views of cognitive philosophers such as David Chalmers regarding consciousness.

People like Chalmers focus primarily on the first state of consciousness. Although they avoid speaking about any underlying power behind all this, they acknowledge that consciousness possesses a subjective aspect. They argue that this subjective aspect cannot be explained merely in terms of the functioning of the brain.

In a way, whether they like it or not, they acknowledge that there is something underlying consciousness that transcends the sense organs and the organs of action, something that goes beyond the brain and its mechanisms.

However, the fourth state of consciousness spoken of by the Upanishad would astonish both neuroscientists and cognitive philosophers. It would make them reconsider their respective positions.

Let us discuss that state in the next episode.  --------------------------------------------------------------------

If

this  resonated with you, I invite you to join my weekly readership. I

publish a new deep-dive every Saturday, moving beyond the surface to

look at the questions that truly matter. No paywalls, no "bait"—just a

direct share from my mind to yours. Click to subscribe.   Haga clic para españolKlicken Sie hier für die deutsche Versionहिंदी के लिए क्लिक करेंతెలుగు కోసం క్లిక్ చేయండిಕನ್ನಡಕ್ಕಾಗಿ ಕ್ಲಿಕ್ ಮಾಡಿ 

 

© Dr. King, Swami Satyapriya 2026

You can borrow audio books directly from the author at https://tinyurl.com/mylibrary1234 at highly affordable prices.

    [Preview books]  [Borrow books] 

[Pause]

    In our previous episodes, we discussed how modern neuroscientists explain consciousness. They tie consciousness directly to our brain and its mechanics. In their view, consciousness is merely "the brain in action"—a unique phenomenon born out of the brain's functioning.

On the flip side, we also discussed how cognitive philosophers like David Chalmers disagree with this argument. According to thinkers like Chalmers, consciousness is a completely subjective phenomenon. They argue that it can never be confined to the mechanics of physical elements like neurons in the brain. In their view, consciousness is not physical; it is an independent force that exists on its own. The brain is merely a tool that expresses it.

Then, there are those who call themselves "panpsychists." They detect consciousness in physical matter itself, right down to atoms and subatomic particles. Their argument is that the consciousness of these microscopic particles combines to emerge as human consciousness!

Come, let's turn back the wheel of time by thousands of years. I want to lay before you some completely different perspectives on consciousness.

 These are thoughts held by the ancient philosophers of India thousands of years ago; specifically, the perspectives of the sages of the Upanishads. These seers did not possess the modern vocabulary of today's Western philosophers, nor did they have the cutting-edge equipment used by today's neuroscientists.

Yet, I am deeply amazed by the clarity they possessed in such an ancient era. I respect their thoughts not just because I completely agree with them, but because their philosophy possesses an immense capacity to bind everything—the conscious and the unconscious, the living and the non-living—into a single unified thread.

For today's discussion, I am drawing from one of the most ancient philosophical texts: the Mandukya Upanishad. This is an Upanishad that forms a part of the Atharva-Veda. Though it is incredibly brief in size, scholars like the Advaita philosopher Shankaracharya have considered it to be the most vital one. This Upanishad primarily addresses the very thing driving our curiosity right now: "consciousness."

This Upanishad begins with a reference to the sound of "Om." In ancient Indian philosophy, especially in the Upanishads, this Omkaara is used as a symbol of the ultimate reality. This ultimate reality is the final destination of all spiritual quests.

Unlike conventional religious texts, the Upanishads do not call this as "God." They never talk about worshipping this ultimate reality or surrendering to it. Instead, they repeatedly emphasize the need to experience this ultimate reality. And the path to achieving that experience is meditation.

With this brief introduction, I would like to step inside the Upanishad.

In the first two verses , the Upanishad introduces us to the following characteristics of Omkaara:

- Omkaara is indestructible.

- Omkaara is all-encompassing.

- Omkaara transcends time—it exists beyond the past, the present, and > the future.

- Omkaara exists even beyond everything that falls within the concept of > time.

- Omkaara is the inner essence of all living beings.

In a way, these two verses capture the essence of the entire Upanishadic philosophy. Now, let's look at the implications of these assertions.

The Upanishads are very clear about the eternality of existence. They speak of cycles of contraction and expansion of existence, but never of absolute destruction.

The Upanishads do not differentiate between the "creator" and the "creation." To tell you the truth, creation does not exist as a separate entity there. That is why they say the ultimate reality is everything. It is not just the sum of individual objects, nor did someone create them. Instead, it is everything.

In the subsequent lines, it is said that Omkaara is timeless. It was there yesterday, it is here today, and it will be there tomorrow. The Upanishad does not stop there; it states that it transcends the very concept of time. Is there a difference between saying something exists in the past, present, and future, versus saying it is timeless?

There absolutely is. Let me explain why.

The Vedas speak of a state where time itself does not exist. One of the famous Vedic hymns, the Nasadiya Sookta, states that before time was born, "That" existed.

In this world that we see with our own eyes, we perceive every object to be different from one another. No two things are exactly alike. But what this verse is saying is that even though forms appear different, they are all one. They are all Omkaara.

How is it possible for different things to be the exact same thing?

In our world bound by space-time, no two objects can occupy the same place at the same time. Similarly, the same object cannot be in more than one place at the same time.

But Omkaara transcends these limitations of space-time. It can exist in more than one place and in more than one form simultaneously. All those existences belong to the same ultimate reality. There is no multiplicity there. This difference appears to us only when we look at this world through our eyes, which are limited by space and time.

Now, the Upanishad makes a deeply thrilling proclamation.

It says, "Everything is Omkaara. Each one of us is Omkaara. This Omkaara can exist in 4 states." It calls these states Vaishvanara, Taijasa, Prajna, and Turiya. In each of these states, the forms of Omkaara can exist in multiple places at once.

These forms can coexist simultaneously because the foundational energy that assumed these forms exists beyond time.

Broadly speaking, we can call these states "different dimensions of consciousness." However, this concept is vastly different from the first three arguments we discussed at the beginning. At best, those modern arguments might only parallel the first three states of this grand consciousness.

We will talk about these different states of consciousness in much greater detail in our next episode.  --------------------------------------------------------------------

If

this  resonated with you, I invite you to join my weekly readership. I

publish a new deep-dive every Saturday, moving beyond the surface to

look at the questions that truly matter. No paywalls, no "bait"—just a

direct share from my mind to yours. Click to subscribe.   Haga clic para españolKlicken Sie hier für die deutsche Versionहिंदी के लिए क्लिक करेंతెలుగు కోసం క్లిక్ చేయండిಕನ್ನಡಕ್ಕಾಗಿ ಕ್ಲಿಕ್ ಮಾಡಿ 

 

© Dr. King, Swami Satyapriya 2026

You can borrow audio books directly from the author at https://tinyurl.com/mylibrary1234 at highly affordable prices.

    [Preview books]  [Borrow books] 

[Pause]

   According to estimates by organizations such as Goldman-Sachs, AI could automate around 300 million full-time jobs globally. They have stated that nearly two-thirds of the jobs currently existing in America and Europe could be affected by AI automation to one degree or another.

The International-Labour-Organization (ILO) takes a somewhat more conservative view and estimates that approximately 2.3 percent of global employment, or about 75 million jobs, is at risk of complete automation.

At the same time, labor researchers have observed that large-scale sudden layoffs are unlikely. Instead, hiring for entry-level white-collar positions and workers engaged in physical "grunt work" may slow down.

Nevertheless, some doomsday-prophets have already begun predicting how AI will eventually overpower humanity itself!

Can AI ever surpass humans? 

Certainly, in some specific roles, yes.

AI systems are trained on vast reservoirs of knowledge that no single human being could ever master alone. They possess a tireless ability to ingest enormous amounts of data, process it, and produce results at speeds that humans cannot even think at.

But does that make them equal to humans, or superior to them?

I do not think so. At least not in their present form.

In their current state, they are highly mechanical. They perform tasks that humans find extremely boring or exhausting, using immense computing power and without any conscious purpose.

Today's AI can do an excellent job of predicting the correct answer based on patterns. However, as I discussed in previous episodes, it does not possess the ability to truly "understand" what it is inferring. Nor does it have any motivation for the tasks it performs. It has no intention of surpassing humans. Nor is it currently equipped to do so.

No matter how vast its knowledge may appear, it is limited to information that is publicly available in documented form. This represents only a tiny fraction of what humanity has accumulated over millions of years, across countless languages and under diverse living conditions. It would not be wrong to say that AI can never truly become equal to humans in this respect.


Therefore, the fear that AI will independently take control of humanity, as portrayed in science-fiction stories, is merely a fictional fear.

However, yes, as I listed earlier, there are limited risks.

Customer service representatives, data-entry clerks, medical transcriptionists, junior software developers, administrative assistants, and bookkeepers are among those who are more vulnerable than others.

Another large community that is being affected consists of translators and voice actors. This is because current AI systems are exceptionally proficient at text-to-text manipulation. As a result, publishers are aggressively pushing for AI integration.

According to a survey conducted by the Society of Authors, more than one-third of translators have already lost work because of generative AI. Many literary translators are being asked to shift toward "Machine Translation Post-Editing." This involves correcting awkward AI-translated text. However, these translators often receive only a small fraction of the per-word translation fees they once earned.

The development of highly reliable and emotionally expressive text-to-speech models has significantly disrupted the voice-over industry. Before the advent of AI, this was an extremely lucrative field for professional voice actors. These voice artists often charged hundreds of dollars per finished hour of audio. Most small authors could never afford to hire them. Some narrated their own books, while others simply watched helplessly.

Now, because of AI intervention, considerable unrest has emerged within the voice-acting community. Many feel that their very existence is under threat. Supported by their forums and unions, they appear to be attempting to prevent AI from entering the field.

There was a time when an author had to struggle for months to translate and narrate a book in another language. Today, AI can accomplish the same task in just a few hours. That is what has created the fear of AI.

However, such an attitude only restricts the market. If handled properly, it could bring about a major transformation in the publishing industry, which has long been waiting for lower-cost alternatives.

Just imagine. Instead of a good book being confined to a single language, it could reach millions of people who speak different languages. That would be a revolution in the dissemination of knowledge.

Considering the growing popularity of audiobooks, the entry of AI into the audiobook production pipeline could be a tremendous blessing. Not only would it reduce the monopoly of a small number of voice artists who charge substantial fees, but it would also make books available to a much wider audience.

Yes, I can understand the fears of these professionals. But can AI truly replace them?

No matter how smart current AI systems may appear, they still cannot match human-level precision in either linguistic perfection or the subtle expression of emotions.

There will always be demand for top-level voice artists. Best-selling authors and those who can afford them will continue to hire them.

Most authors could never justify hiring them because of their high fees, and because subscription-based stores often pay such tiny pool shares that the economics simply did not work.

These authors may now turn to AI and find a way to sustain themselves. After all, it is not only voice artists who need to survive. Authors who previously had no option but to pay expensive voice-acting fees also need to survive.

As the audiobook industry continues to grow, good voice artists will find more opportunities as well. In the long run, they have little reason to believe that they are truly under threat.

There are also frequent complaints that translation professionals have been severely affected by AI. Many of them are said to have been reduced to tasks such as proofreading, while AI performs the primary translation work. Naturally, they are paid less than they were before.

However, as AI translates more books, these proofreaders will also receive more work. The overall volume of work matters. Needless to say, both authors and readers stand to benefit from this.

Therefore, instead of fighting against a phenomenon that appears to be inevitable, it is better to make the best possible use of technology. In the long run, that will help everyone.

My point is that instead of focusing excessively on the immediate effects of AI, we should pay more attention to the long-term dangers that AI could create in the hands of a small number of self-serving individuals.

The real danger does not come from the technology itself. Rather, it comes from the misuse of that technology by human beings.

Whether it is communication, energy supply chains, essential services, or countless other sectors, the rapid penetration of AI could become a genuine threat if it falls into the wrong hands.

AI is like a sharp knife. In the hands of a skilled surgeon, a sharp knife can save lives. In the hands of a master chef, it can create delicious meals. In the hands of a great sculptor, it can contribute to magnificent works of art.

But if it falls into the wrong hands, it can cause destruction.

That is what we should be far more concerned about.  --------------------------------------------------------------------

If

this  resonated with you, I invite you to join my weekly readership. I

publish a new deep-dive every Saturday, moving beyond the surface to

look at the questions that truly matter. No paywalls, no "bait"—just a

direct share from my mind to yours. Click to subscribe.    Haga clic para españolKlicken Sie hier für die deutsche Versionहिंदी के लिए क्लिक करेंతెలుగు కోసం క్లిక్ చేయండిಕನ್ನಡಕ್ಕಾಗಿ ಕ್ಲಿಕ್ ಮಾಡಿ 

 

© Dr. King, Swami Satyapriya 2026

You can borrow audio books directly from the author at https://tinyurl.com/mylibrary1234 at highly affordable prices.

    [Preview books]  [Borrow books] 

[Pause]

   This very question caused a former Google employee named Blake Lemoine to lose both his job and his reputation. You have probably read about it.

In 2022, while testing one of Google's AI systems called Lamda, Blake felt that the AI was conscious. He did not stop there. Instead, he began advocating for the rights of that AI. That eventually cost him his job.

Before talking about the consciousness of AI systems, let us first understand our own conscious experience. 

How we acquire conscious experience has long been a puzzle that troubled neuroscientists. When modern tools such as functional MRI scanners were invented, neuroscientists became capable of explaining various perceptual processes of the human brain. They could identify the precise locations in the brain responsible for specific perceptions.

However, in the beginning, there was little clarity about how complex experiences, which may involve regions distributed throughout the brain, are actually realized.

For example, suppose you are looking at a tree. You immediately recognize it as a particular species of tree. Neuroscientists were able to point to specific regions of the brain that recognize the leaves of the tree, its fruits, its trunk, and so on.

But your actual experience is processed using various regions of the brain. Yet there is no single specific region in the brain that assembles the complete image of the tree and delivers to you the experience, "Ah! That is a mango tree!"

Neuroscientists called this problem the "Binding Problem." In other words, it is the problem of assembling scattered pieces of information distributed throughout the brain and fitting them together into a coherent whole.

In the latter part of the twentieth century, an American neuroscientist named Bernard Baars proposed a theory called the "Global Workspace Theory" to explain this phenomenon. The theory was highly metaphorical.

Baars' metaphor attracted considerable criticism because it seemed to imply the existence of a separate entity that undergoes experience. Scientists do not accept the existence of any such mysterious force.

Later, a revised theory known as the "Global Neuronal Workspace Theory" emerged. Today it is widely accepted as an explanation for our conscious experiences.

However, this explanation did not satisfy cognitive philosophers such as David Chalmers. He argued that, neuroscientists had solved only an "easy problem" of consciousness. Many fascinating aspects of human experience, he maintained, still remain unexplained. He referred to them as the "Hard Problem of Consciousness."

This tug-of-war continued. Neuroscientists claimed that they could explain everything, while philosophers such as Chalmers challenged them by arguing that their explanations were still incomplete.

I am not entirely sure how philosophers such as Chalmers define the term "consciousness." In one of his lectures, Chalmers describes consciousness as an inner movie that is continuously playing. He argues that it is a subjective experience. According to him, it cannot be explained in terms of any activity of the brain.

Before deciding how right Chalmers is, let us consider a few facts.

The Global Neuronal Workspace Theory is capable of explaining how the brain integrates information distributed within itself. Therefore, it appears that the brain possesses at least the capacity to generate some form of conscious experience.

By implanting electrodes into certain regions of the brain and stimulating them electromagnetically, it is possible to induce specific experiences. A person can also undergo a variety of experiences by consuming certain psychoactive substances. The brain mechanisms behind these phenomena are fairly well understood. This means that the brain can serve as a vehicle of consciousness.

Some researchers have found that intense belief can create specific experiences in the brain even without dependence on any external object. In certain temples of South India, devoted worshippers pierce their tongues. They suspend themselves from poles using hooks driven deep into their backs. Yet they remain immersed in spiritual experiences without any sensation of pain. It has been found that, in such situations, the brain produces chemicals similar to opiates. This means that the brain can radically alter experiences in ways we might not expect.

When the same brain is placed under general anesthesia, however, the person becomes completely incapable of experiencing anything at all. This indicates that the brain plays a central role in conscious experience. If the brain is not active, a person cannot have any experience—whether subjective or otherwise.

The implications of all these observations are:

• The brain is capable of generating conscious experience by integrating external inputs. Moreover, its mechanisms are now reasonably well understood.

• Even in the complete absence of sensory inputs, the brain can generate experiences with the help of external substances or methods.

• Beyond both external and internal inputs, the brain can modify experiences based on its own internal state.

• Consciousness cannot arise without a functioning brain.

Are these observations not sufficient to conclude that what we call subjective experience, occurs within the brain itself?

But Chalmers does not agree. He firmly believes that, "These explanations describe only how the brain functions, but they fail to explain subjective experience." He is searching for a mysterious explanation that lies beyond the brain.

If Chalmers were to broaden his inquiry somewhat, and speak about meditative experiences, I might agree with him. The highest meditative experiences occur when one transcends the boundaries of the mind, or when the mind becomes completely still. Since the brain is almost inactive at such times, it is difficult to say that such experiences occur within the brain.

Ironically, even there, there is no room to speak of subjective experiences. For that state transcends subjectivity itself.

I view consciousness from the perspective of a neuroscientist. In my opinion, for a system to possess consciousness, it must at least have the capacity to alter its own mental states.

Merely having the ability to change internal states is not enough. A system that claims to be conscious, must possess many additional capacities as well.

Returning to the original question: do AI systems possess those capacities?

Certainly not the AI systems that are publicly available today. They may display an appearance of intelligence. But—

• They do not possess internal states that can be continuously modified or updated in response to inputs. As Blake Lemoine reported, the AI appeared to claim during conversations that it could change its own state based on inputs. Even if it seemed so on the surface, that does not make it true.

• Today's AI systems do not possess states that change in response to fear, happiness, preferences, dislikes, or similar emotions.

• Their input mechanisms are extremely limited. At present, they can read or listen to prompts. They can "see" images and read files. That is all.

Therefore, there is no basis for concluding that Blake Lemoine's experience was genuine. Besides, AI systems are masters at sounding confident on the basis of partial information. They are remarkably good at behaving like humans and leading people astray!

Nevertheless, I do not rule out the possibility that future AI systems may possess consciousness—at least a form of consciousness analogous to the kind that is limited to the brain.  --------------------------------------------------------------------

If

this  resonated with you, I invite you to join my weekly readership. I

publish a new deep-dive every Saturday, moving beyond the surface to

look at the questions that truly matter. No paywalls, no "bait"—just a

direct share from my mind to yours. Click to subscribe.    Haga clic para españolKlicken Sie hier für die deutsche Versionहिंदी के लिए क्लिक करेंతెలుగు కోసం క్లిక్ చేయండిಕನ್ನಡಕ್ಕಾಗಿ ಕ್ಲಿಕ್ ಮಾಡಿ 

 

© Dr. King, Swami Satyapriya 2026

You can borrow audio books directly from the author at https://tinyurl.com/mylibrary1234 at highly affordable prices.

    [Preview books]  [Borrow books] 

[Pause]

   Esta misma pregunta llevó a un antiguo empleado de Google llamado Blake Lemoine a perder tanto su trabajo como su reputación. Probablemente usted haya leído sobre ello.

En 2022, mientras probaba uno de los sistemas de IA de Google llamado LaMDA, Blake tuvo la impresión de que aquella IA poseía conciencia. Y no se detuvo ahí. Comenzó a defender los derechos de aquella IA. Eso terminó costándole su empleo.

Antes de hablar de la consciencia de los sistemas de IA, comprendamos primero nuestra propia experiencia consciente. 

La manera en que obtenemos la experiencia consciente ha sido durante mucho tiempo un enigma que ha intrigado a los neurocientíficos. Cuando se inventaron herramientas modernas como los escáneres de resonancia magnética funcional (fMRI), los neurocientíficos pudieron explicar diversos procesos perceptivos del cerebro humano. Fueron capaces de identificar las regiones exactas del cerebro responsables de percepciones específicas.

Sin embargo, al principio no estaba claro cómo se materializan las experiencias complejas que pueden involucrar regiones distribuidas por todo el cerebro.

Por ejemplo, supongamos que usted observa un árbol. Inmediatamente reconoce que pertenece a una especie determinada. Los neurocientíficos podían señalar regiones específicas del cerebro que identifican las hojas del árbol, sus frutos, su tronco, etcétera.

Pero su experiencia real es procesada utilizando diversas regiones cerebrales. Sin embargo, no existe una región específica que reúna toda la imagen del árbol y le entregue la experiencia de: «¡Ah! ¡Es un mango!»

Los neurocientíficos llamaron a este problema el «Problema de la Integración» . Es decir, el problema de reunir los fragmentos de información dispersos por todo el cerebro y encajarlos entre sí.

A finales del siglo XX, un neurocientífico estadounidense llamado Bernard Baars propuso una teoría denominada «Teoría del Espacio Global de Trabajo» para explicar este fenómeno. Aquella teoría era altamente metafórica.

La metáfora de Baars recibió numerosas críticas porque parecía sugerir la existencia de una entidad separada que experimenta las percepciones. Los científicos no aceptan la existencia de ninguna fuerza misteriosa de ese tipo.

Más tarde surgió una versión revisada llamada «Teoría del Espacio Global de Trabajo Neuronal» . Hoy en día es ampliamente aceptada como una explicación de nuestras experiencias conscientes.

Sin embargo, esta explicación no satisfizo a filósofos cognitivos como David Chalmers. Él afirmó que los neurocientíficos solo habían resuelto un «problema fácil» de la conciencia. Sostenía que muchos aspectos fascinantes de la experiencia humana seguían sin explicación. A estos los denominó el «Problema Difícil de la Conciencia» (Hard Problem of Consciousness).

Este tira y afloja continuó durante años. Mientras los neurocientíficos afirmaban que podían explicarlo todo, filósofos como Chalmers respondían que sus explicaciones seguían siendo incompletas.

No estoy completamente seguro de cómo filósofos como Chalmers definen la palabra «conciencia». En una de sus conferencias, Chalmers describe la conciencia como una película interior que se proyecta continuamente. Sostiene que se trata de una experiencia subjetiva. Según él, no puede explicarse basándose en ninguna actividad cerebral.

Antes de decidir hasta qué punto tiene razón Chalmers, consideremos algunos hechos.

La Teoría del Espacio Global de Trabajo Neuronal es capaz de explicar cómo el cerebro integra la información distribuida en su interior. Por lo tanto, parece que el cerebro posee, al menos, la capacidad de generar alguna forma de experiencia consciente.

Mediante la implantación de electrodos en ciertas regiones cerebrales y su estimulación electromagnética, es posible inducir experiencias específicas. Una persona también puede experimentar diversos estados mediante el consumo de determinadas sustancias psicoactivas. Los mecanismos cerebrales que subyacen a estos fenómenos son razonablemente bien conocidos. Esto significa que el cerebro puede actuar como un vehículo de la conciencia.

Algunos investigadores han descubierto que una creencia profunda puede generar experiencias específicas en el cerebro sin depender de ningún objeto externo. En algunos templos del sur de la India, devotos fervientes se perforan la lengua. También se suspenden de postes mediante ganchos clavados profundamente en sus espaldas. Sin embargo, permanecen inmersos en una experiencia espiritual sin sentir dolor alguno. Se ha observado que, en tales circunstancias, el cerebro produce sustancias químicas similares a los opiáceos. Esto significa que el cerebro puede transformar las experiencias de maneras que normalmente no esperaríamos.

Cuando a ese mismo cerebro se le administra anestesia general, la persona se vuelve completamente incapaz de experimentar cualquier cosa. Esto indica que el cerebro desempeña un papel fundamental en la experiencia consciente. Si el cerebro no está activo, una persona no puede tener ninguna experiencia, ya sea subjetiva o de cualquier otro tipo.

Las implicaciones de todas estas observaciones son las siguientes:

• El cerebro posee la capacidad de generar experiencia consciente integrando estímulos externos. Además, su funcionamiento ya se comprende bastante bien.

• Incluso en ausencia total de estímulos sensoriales, el cerebro puede generar experiencias mediante sustancias o métodos externos.

• Más allá de los estímulos externos e internos, el cerebro puede modificar las experiencias basándose en su propio estado interno.

• La conciencia no puede surgir sin un cerebro funcional.

¿No son suficientes estas observaciones para concluir que aquello que llamamos experiencia subjetiva ocurre dentro del propio cerebro?

Pero Chalmers no está de acuerdo. Cree firmemente que «estas explicaciones describen únicamente cómo funciona el cerebro, pero no logran explicar la experiencia subjetiva». Está buscando una explicación misteriosa situada más allá del cerebro.

Si Chalmers ampliara un poco más su investigación y hablara de las experiencias meditativas, probablemente estaría de acuerdo con él. Las experiencias meditativas más elevadas ocurren cuando una persona trasciende los límites de la mente o cuando la mente se vuelve completamente silenciosa. En esos momentos, el cerebro se encuentra casi inactivo, por lo que resulta difícil afirmar que tales experiencias ocurren dentro del cerebro.

Curiosamente, incluso allí no hay espacio para hablar de experiencias subjetivas. Porque ese estado trasciende la propia subjetividad.

Yo observo la conciencia desde la perspectiva de un neurocientífico. Pienso que, para que un sistema posea conciencia, debe tener al menos la capacidad de modificar sus propios estados mentales.

Sin embargo, la mera capacidad de alterar estados internos no es suficiente. Un sistema que pretenda ser consciente debe poseer muchas otras capacidades adicionales.

Volviendo a la pregunta original: ¿poseen los sistemas de IA esas capacidades?

Los sistemas de IA disponibles públicamente en la actualidad, sin duda, no las poseen. Pueden exhibir una apariencia de inteligencia. Pero—

• No contienen estados internos que puedan modificarse o actualizarse continuamente en respuesta a las entradas recibidas. Como informó Blake Lemoine, la IA parecía afirmar durante la conversación que podía cambiar su propio estado basándose en las entradas. Aunque pudiera parecerlo superficialmente, eso no significa que sea cierto.

• Las IA actuales no poseen estados que cambien en respuesta al miedo, la felicidad, las preferencias, las aversiones o emociones similares.

• Sus mecanismos de entrada son extremadamente limitados. Por ahora pueden leer o escuchar instrucciones. También pueden «ver» imágenes y leer archivos. Nada más.

Por lo tanto, no existe ninguna base para afirmar que la experiencia de Blake Lemoine fuera real. Después de todo, las IA son expertas en mostrarse seguras de sí mismas basándose únicamente en información parcial. ¡Son extraordinariamente buenas comportándose como seres humanos y llevando a otros a conclusiones equivocadas!

Sin embargo, no descarto la posibilidad de que las futuras IA lleguen a poseer conciencia; al menos una forma de conciencia comparable a la que está limitada al cerebro.  --------------------------------------------------------------------

Si esto resonó contigo, te invito a unirte a mis lectores semanales. Publico un análisis en profundidad cada sábado, yendo más allá de la superficie para abordar las preguntas que realmente importan. Sin muros de pago, sin «cebos»: simplemente un intercambio directo, de mi mente a la tuya. Haz clic para suscribirte.

 

© Dr. King, Swami Satyapriya 2026

You can borrow audio books directly from the author at https://tinyurl.com/mylibrary1234 at highly affordable prices.

    [Preview books]  [Borrow books] 

[Pause]

   ఈ ఒక్క ప్రశ్నే గూగుల్ మాజీ ఉద్యోగి బ్లేక్ లెమోయిన్ తన ఉద్యోగాన్నీ, గౌరవాన్నీ కోల్పోయేలా చేసింది. దీని గురించి మీరు బహుశా చదివే ఉంటారు.

2022లో, గూగుల్కు చెందిన AI వ్యవస్థలలో ఒకటైన Lamdaను పరీక్షిస్తున్నప్పుడు, ఆ AIకి చైతన్యం ఉందని బ్లేక్కు అనిపించింది. ఆయన అక్కడితో ఆగలేదు. ఆ AI హక్కుల కోసం పోరాడడం ప్రారంభించారు. చివరికి అది ఆయన ఉద్యోగాన్ని కోల్పోయేలా చేసింది.

AI వ్యవస్థల చైతన్యం గురించి మాట్లాడే ముందు, ముందుగా మన స్వంత చైతన్య అనుభవాన్ని అర్థం చేసుకుందాం. 

మనకు చైతన్యపూర్వక అనుభవం ఎలా కలుగుతుందనే ప్రశ్న చాలాకాలంగా నాడీశాస్త్రవేత్తలను వేధిస్తున్న ఒక రహస్యం. ఫంక్షనల్ ఎమ్-ఆర్-ఐ స్కానర్ల వంటి ఆధునిక పరికరాలు ఆవిష్కృతమైన తర్వాత, నాడీశాస్త్రవేత్తలు మానవ మెదడులో జరిగే వివిధ గ్రహణ ప్రక్రియలను వివరించగలిగారు. ఒక నిర్దిష్ట గ్రహణానికి కారణమయ్యే మెదడు ప్రాంతాలను వారు ఖచ్చితంగా గుర్తించగలిగారు.

అయితే, మెదడు అంతటా విస్తరించి ఉన్న ప్రాంతాలను కలిగి ఉండే సంక్లిష్ట అనుభవాలు ఎలా ఏర్పడతాయనే విషయంలో మొదట్లో పెద్దగా స్పష్టత లేదు.

ఉదాహరణకు, మీరు ఒక చెట్టును చూస్తున్నారని అనుకుందాం. మీరు వెంటనే అది ఏ జాతికి చెందిన చెట్టో గుర్తిస్తారు. ఆ చెట్టు ఆకులు, పండ్లు, కాండం మొదలైన వాటిని గుర్తించే మెదడులోని ప్రత్యేక ప్రాంతాలను నాడీశాస్త్రవేత్తలు చూపించగలిగారు.

కానీ మీ నిజమైన అనుభవం మాత్రం మెదడులోని అనేక ప్రాంతాల సహకారంతో రూపొందుతుంది. అయినప్పటికీ, "అహా! అది మామిడి చెట్టు!" అనే అనుభూతిని మీకు అందించేలా చెట్టు యొక్క సంపూర్ణ చిత్రాన్ని ఒకచోట చేర్చే ప్రత్యేక ప్రాంతం మెదడులో లేదు.

నాడీశాస్త్రవేత్తలు ఈ సమస్యను "బైండింగ్ ప్రాబ్లమ్" అని పిలిచారు. అంటే, మెదడు అంతటా చెల్లాచెదురుగా ఉన్న సమాచార భాగాలను ఒకచోట చేర్చి, వాటిని పరస్పరం అనుసంధానించే సమస్య.

ఇరవయ్యవ శతాబ్దపు చివరి భాగంలో, అమెరికన్ నాడీశాస్త్రవేత్త బెర్నార్డ్ బార్స్ ఈ విషయాన్ని వివరించడానికి "గ్లోబల్ వర్క్స్పేస్ థియరీ" అనే సిద్ధాంతాన్ని ప్రతిపాదించారు. ఆ సిద్ధాంతం చాలా వరకు రూపకాలపై ఆధారపడి ఉండేది.

బార్స్ ప్రతిపాదించిన రూపకం తీవ్ర విమర్శలకు గురైంది. ఎందుకంటే అది అనుభవాలను స్వీకరించే ఒక ప్రత్యేక శక్తి లేదా సత్తా ఉందని సూచిస్తున్నట్లుగా కనిపించింది. శాస్త్రవేత్తలు అలాంటి రహస్య శక్తి ఉనికిని అంగీకరించరు.

తర్వాత "గ్లోబల్ న్యూరోనల్ వర్క్స్పేస్ థియరీ" అనే సవరించిన సిద్ధాంతం వచ్చింది. నేడు అది మన చైతన్యపూర్వక అనుభవాలకు ఒక వివరణగా విస్తృతంగా అంగీకరించబడుతోంది.

అయితే, ఈ వివరణ డేవిడ్ చాల్మర్స్ వంటి కాగ్నిటివ్ తత్వవేత్తలను సంతృప్తిపరచలేదు. నాడీశాస్త్రవేత్తలు చైతన్యానికి సంబంధించిన ఒక "సులభమైన సమస్య"ను మాత్రమే పరిష్కరించారని ఆయన వాదించారు. మానవ అనుభవంలోని అనేక ఆసక్తికర అంశాలు ఇప్పటికీ వివరించబడలేదని చెప్పారు. వాటినే ఆయన "చైతన్యపు కఠిన సమస్య" — Hard Problem of Consciousness — అని పిలిచారు.

ఈ వాదోపవాదం కొనసాగుతూనే వచ్చింది. తాము అన్నింటినీ వివరించగలమని నాడీశాస్త్రవేత్తలు చెప్పగా, మీ వివరణ ఇంకా అసంపూర్ణంగానే ఉందని చాల్మర్స్ వంటి తత్వవేత్తలు సవాలు విసిరారు.

చాల్మర్స్ వంటి తత్వవేత్తలు "చైతన్యం" అనే పదాన్ని ఎలా నిర్వచిస్తారో నాకు పూర్తిగా తెలియదు. తన ఒక ఉపన్యాసంలో చాల్మర్స్, చైతన్యాన్ని నిరంతరం నడుస్తూ ఉండే ఒక అంతర్గత సినిమాగా వర్ణిస్తారు. అది ఒక వ్యక్తిగత (subjective) అనుభవమని ఆయన వాదన. ఆయన అభిప్రాయం ప్రకారం, దానిని మెదడులోని ఏ కార్యాచరణ ఆధారంగానూ వివరించలేము.

చాల్మర్స్ ఎంతవరకు సరైనవారో నిర్ణయించుకునే ముందు కొన్ని వాస్తవాలను పరిశీలిద్దాం.

గ్లోబల్ న్యూరోనల్ వర్క్స్పేస్ సిద్ధాంతం, మెదడు తనలో విస్తరించి ఉన్న సమాచారాన్ని ఎలా సమన్వయం చేస్తుందో వివరించగలదు. కాబట్టి, కనీసం ఏదో ఒక రూపంలోని చైతన్యపూర్వక అనుభవాన్ని సృష్టించే సామర్థ్యం మెదడుకు ఉందని చెప్పవచ్చు.

మెదడులోని కొన్ని ప్రాంతాలలో ఎలక్ట్రోడ్లను అమర్చి, వాటిని విద్యుత్-చుంబక పద్ధతిలో ప్రేరేపించడం ద్వారా నిర్దిష్ట అనుభవాలను కలిగించవచ్చు. కొన్ని మత్తు పదార్థాలను తీసుకోవడం ద్వారా కూడా వ్యక్తులు వివిధ రకాల అనుభవాలను పొందగలరు. వీటి వెనుక పనిచేసే మెదడు యాంత్రికతలు చాలా వరకు అర్థమయ్యాయి. దీని అర్థం, మెదడు చైతన్యానికి ఒక వాహనంగా పనిచేయగలదని.

కొంతమంది పరిశోధకులు, గాఢమైన విశ్వాసం ఎలాంటి బాహ్య వస్తువుపై ఆధారపడకుండానే మెదడులో ప్రత్యేక అనుభవాలను సృష్టించగలదని కనుగొన్నారు. దక్షిణ భారతదేశంలోని కొన్ని దేవాలయాలలో భక్తులు తమ నాలుకలను గుచ్చుకుంటారు. తమ వీపులో లోతుగా గుచ్చిన కొక్కెల ద్వారా స్తంభాలకు వేలాడుతుంటారు. అయినప్పటికీ వారు ఎలాంటి నొప్పిని అనుభవించకుండా ఆధ్యాత్మిక అనుభూతిలో మునిగిపోతారు. అలాంటి సందర్భాలలో మెదడు అఫీము తరహా రసాయనాలను ఉత్పత్తి చేస్తుందని కనుగొన్నారు. దీని అర్థం, మెదడు మనం ఊహించని విధంగా అనుభవాలను పూర్తిగా మార్చగలదని.

అదే మెదడుకు సాధారణ మత్తుమందు (జనరల్ అనస్థీషియా) ఇచ్చినప్పుడు, ఆ వ్యక్తి ఏ విషయాన్నీ అనుభవించలేని స్థితికి చేరుకుంటాడు. దీని అర్థం, చైతన్యపూర్వక అనుభవంలో మెదడు కీలక పాత్ర పోషిస్తుందని. మెదడు క్రియాశీలంగా లేకపోతే, వ్యక్తి ఎలాంటి అనుభవాన్నీ పొందలేడు — అది వ్యక్తిగతమైనదైనా, మరేదైనా అయినా.

ఈ పరిశీలనలన్నింటి అర్థం ఏమిటంటే:

• బాహ్య ఇన్పుట్లను సమన్వయం చేసి చైతన్యపూర్వక అనుభవాన్ని కలిగించే సామర్థ్యం మెదడుకు ఉంది. దాని పని విధానం కూడా ఇప్పుడు చాలా వరకు అర్థమైంది.

• ఎలాంటి సంవేదనాత్మక ఇన్పుట్లు లేకపోయినా, బాహ్య పదార్థాలు లేదా పద్ధతుల సహాయంతో మెదడు అనుభవాలను సృష్టించగలదు.

• బాహ్య లేదా అంతర్గత ఇన్పుట్లకు అతీతంగా, మెదడు తన స్వంత స్థితి ఆధారంగా అనుభవాలను మార్చగలదు.

• పనిచేసే మెదడు లేకుండా చైతన్యం ఉద్భవించదు.

వ్యక్తిగత అనుభవం అని పిలిచేది మెదడులోనే జరుగుతుందని చెప్పడానికి ఇవి సరిపోవా?

కానీ చాల్మర్స్ దీనిని అంగీకరించరు. "ఈ వివరణలు మెదడు ఎలా పనిచేస్తుందో మాత్రమే వివరిస్తాయి; వ్యక్తిగత అనుభవాన్ని మాత్రం వివరించలేవు" అని ఆయన గట్టిగా నమ్ముతారు. ఆయన మెదడుకు అతీతమైన ఒక రహస్యమైన వివరణ కోసం వెతుకుతున్నారు.

చాల్మర్స్ తన పరిశోధనను కొంచెం విస్తరించి ధ్యాన అనుభవాల గురించి మాట్లాడితే, బహుశా నేను ఆయనతో ఏకీభవించవచ్చు. ఒక వ్యక్తి మనస్సు యొక్క హద్దులను దాటినప్పుడు, లేదా మనస్సు పూర్తిగా నిశ్చలమైనప్పుడు, ధ్యానంలోని అత్యున్నత అనుభవాలు కలుగుతాయి. ఆ సమయంలో మెదడు దాదాపు క్రియారహితంగా ఉంటుంది. అందువల్ల అలాంటి అనుభవాలు మెదడులోనే జరుగుతాయని చెప్పడం కూడా కష్టమే.

విచిత్రమేమిటంటే, అక్కడ కూడా వ్యక్తిగత అనుభవాల గురించి మాట్లాడటానికి అవకాశం ఉండదు. ఎందుకంటే అది వ్యక్తిత్వాన్ని దాటి ఉన్న స్థితి.

నేను చైతన్యాన్ని ఒక నాడీశాస్త్రవేత్త దృష్టికోణం నుంచి చూస్తాను. ఒక వ్యవస్థకు చైతన్యం ఉండాలంటే, కనీసం తన మానసిక స్థితులను మార్చుకునే సామర్థ్యం ఉండాలని నేను భావిస్తున్నాను.

కేవలం అంతర్గత స్థితిని మార్చగలగడం సరిపోదు. ఒక వ్యవస్థను నిజంగా చైతన్యవంతమని పిలవాలంటే దానికి ఇంకా అనేక ఇతర సామర్థ్యాలు కూడా ఉండాలి.

ఇప్పుడు అసలు ప్రశ్నకు వస్తే, AI వ్యవస్థలకు ఆ సామర్థ్యాలు ఉన్నాయా?

ప్రస్తుతం ప్రజలకు అందుబాటులో ఉన్న AI వ్యవస్థలకు ఖచ్చితంగా లేవు. అవి తెలివితేటల మాదిరి ఒక రూపాన్ని ప్రదర్శించవచ్చు. కానీ—

• ఇన్పుట్లకు అనుగుణంగా నిరంతరం మారగలిగే లేదా నవీకరించబడగలిగే అంతర్గత స్థితులు వాటిలో లేవు. బ్లేక్ లెమోయిన్ నివేదించినట్లుగా, సంభాషణ సమయంలో AI తన ఇన్పుట్ల ఆధారంగా తన స్థితిని మార్చుకోగలనని చెప్పినట్లుగా కనిపించినా, అది నిజం కావాల్సిన అవసరం లేదు.

• నేటి AIలకు భయం, ఆనందం, ఇష్టాలు, అయిష్టాలు లేదా అలాంటి ఇతర భావోద్వేగాలకు అనుగుణంగా మారే అంతర్గత స్థితులు లేవు.

• వాటి ఇన్పుట్ వ్యవస్థలు చాలా పరిమితమైనవి. ప్రస్తుతం అవి ప్రాంప్ట్లను చదవగలవు లేదా వినగలవు. చిత్రాలను "చూడగలవు", ఫైళ్లను చదవగలవు. అంతే.

అందువల్ల బ్లేక్ లెమోయిన్ అనుభవం నిజమని చెప్పడానికి ఎలాంటి ఆధారమూ లేదు. పైగా, అసంపూర్ణ సమాచారంతోనే అత్యంత ఆత్మవిశ్వాసంగా మాట్లాడటంలో AIలు దిట్టలు. మనుషుల్లా ప్రవర్తించి దారి తప్పించడంలో కూడా వాటికి సాటి లేదు!

అయినప్పటికీ, భవిష్యత్తులో AI వ్యవస్థలు చైతన్యాన్ని పొందగలవనే అవకాశాన్ని నేను పూర్తిగా తోసిపుచ్చడం లేదు. కనీసం, మెదడుకు పరిమితమైన చైతన్యానికి సమానమైన ఏదో ఒక రూపాన్ని అయినా.  --------------------------------------------------------------------

ఇది మీకు నచ్చినట్లయితే, నా వారపు పాఠకులలో చేరమని మిమ్మల్ని సాదరంగా ఆహ్వానిస్తున్నాను. ప్రతి శనివారం, నేను ఉపరితలానికి అతీతంగా, నిజంగా ముఖ్యమైన ప్రశ్నలను పరిష్కరించే ఒక లోతైన విశ్లేషణను ప్రచురిస్తాను. ఎలాంటి పేవాల్స్ లేవు, క్లిక్‌బైట్ లేదు—కేవలం ఒక ప్రత్యక్ష భావప్రసారం: నా మనసు నుండి మీ మనసుకు. సబ్‌స్క్రయిబ్ చేసుకోవడానికి ఇక్కడ క్లిక్ చేయండి.

 

© Dr. King, Swami Satyapriya 2026

You can borrow audio books directly from the author at https://tinyurl.com/mylibrary1234 at highly affordable prices.

    [Preview books]  [Borrow books] 

[Pause]

   ಬ್ಲೇಕ್ ಲೆಮೊಯಿನ್ ಎಂಬ ಗೂಗಲ್ನ ಮಾಜಿ ಉದ್ಯೋಗಿಗೆ ಇದೇ ಪ್ರಶ್ನೆಯು ಅವರ ಕೆಲಸ ಮತ್ತು ಗೌರವವನ್ನು ಕಳೆದುಕೊಳ್ಳುವಂತೆ ಮಾಡಿತು. ಈ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಬಹುಶಃ ನೀವು ಓದಿರಬಹುದು.

2022 ರಲ್ಲಿ ಗೂಗಲ್ನ ಏಆಯ್ ಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ಒಂದಾದ 'ಲ್ಯಾಮ್ಡಾ' ಅನ್ನು ಪರೀಕ್ಷಿಸುತ್ತಿದ್ದಾಗ, ಬ್ಲೇಕ್ ಅವರಿಗೆ ಆ ಏಆಯ್ ಗೆ ಪ್ರಜ್ಞೆ ಇದೆ ಎಂದು ಅನಿಸಿತು!. ಅವರು ಅಷ್ಟಕ್ಕೇ ನಿಲ್ಲಲಿಲ್ಲ. ಬದಲಿಗೆ, ಆ ಏಆಯ್ ಯ ಹಕ್ಕುಗಳಿಗಾಗಿ ಹೋರಾಡಲು ಪ್ರಾರಂಭಿಸಿದರು. ಅದು ಅವರು ತನ್ನ ಕೆಲಸವನ್ನೇ ಕಳೆದುಕೊಳ್ಳುವಂತೆ ಮಾಡಿತು.

AI ವ್ಯವಸ್ಥೆಗಳ ಪ್ರಜ್ಞೆಯ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಮಾತನಾಡುವ ಮೊದಲು, ನಮ್ಮ ಸ್ವಂತ ಪ್ರಜ್ಞಾಪೂರ್ವಕ ಅನುಭವವನ್ನು ಅರ್ಥಮಾಡಿಕೊಳ್ಳೋಣ.  

ನಾವು ಪ್ರಜ್ಞಾಪೂರ್ವಕ ಅನುಭವವನ್ನು ಹೇಗೆ ಪಡೆಯುತ್ತೇವೆ ಎಂಬುದು ನರವಿಜ್ಞಾನಿಗಳಿಗೆ ಬಹಳ ದಿನಗಳಿಂದ ಕಾಡುತ್ತಿದ್ದ ಒಂದು ಒಗಟಾಗಿತ್ತು. ಫಂಕ್ಷನಲ್ ಎಂ-ಆರ್-ಐ ಸ್ಕ್ಯಾನರ್ಗಳಂತಹ ಆಧುನಿಕ ಸಾಧನಗಳ ಆವಿಷ್ಕಾರವಾದಾಗ, ನರವಿಜ್ಞಾನಿಗಳು ಮಾನವಮಿದುಳಿನ ವಿವಿಧ ಗ್ರಹಣ ಪ್ರಕ್ರಿಯೆಗಳನ್ನು ವಿವರಿಸಲು ಶಕ್ತರಾದರು. ಒಂದು ನಿರ್ದಿಷ್ಟ ಗ್ರಹಿಕೆಗೆ ಕಾರಣವಾಗಿರುವ ಮಿದುಳಿನ ನಿಖರವಾದ ಸ್ಥಾನವನ್ನು ಅವರು ಪತ್ತೆಹಚ್ಚಬಲ್ಲವರಾದರು.

ಆದರೆ, ಆರಂಭದಲ್ಲಿ, ಮಿದುಳಿನಾದ್ಯಂತ ಹರಡಿರುವ ಪ್ರದೇಶಗಳನ್ನು ಒಳಗೊಂಡಿರಬಹುದಾದ ಸಂಕೀರ್ಣ ಅನುಭವಗಳು ಹೇಗೆ ಸಾಕಾರಗೊಳ್ಳುತ್ತವೆ ಎಂಬುದರ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಹೆಚ್ಚಿನ ಸ್ಪಷ್ಟತೆ ಇರಲಿಲ್ಲ.

ಉದಾಹರಣೆಗೆ, ನೀವು ಒಂದು ಮರವನ್ನು ನೋಡಿದಿರೆಂದುಕೊಳ್ಳಿ. ನೀವು ತಕ್ಷಣ ಆ ಮರವನ್ನು ಒಂದು ನಿರ್ದಿಷ್ಟ ಜಾತಿಯ ಮರ ಎಂದು ಗುರುತಿಸುತ್ತೀರಿ. ನರವಿಜ್ಞಾನಿಗಳು ಮರದ ಎಲೆಗಳು, ಅದರ ಹಣ್ಣುಗಳು, ಅದರ ಕಾಂಡ ಇತ್ಯಾದಿಗಳನ್ನು ಗುರುತಿಸುವ ಮಿದುಳಿನ ನಿರ್ದಿಷ್ಟ ಪ್ರದೇಶಗಳನ್ನು ಬೆರಳುಮಾಡಿ ತೋರಿಸಬಲ್ಲವರಾಗಿದ್ದರು.

ಆದರೆ ನಿಮ್ಮ ನೈಜ ಅನುಭವವು ಮಿದುಳಿನ ವಿವಿಧ ಪ್ರದೇಶಗಳನ್ನು ಬಳಸಿ ಸಂಸ್ಕರಿಸಲ್ಪಡುತ್ತವೆ. ಆದರೆ, 'ಆಹಾ! ಅದು ಮಾವಿನ ಮರ!' ಎಂಬ ಅನುಭವವನ್ನು ನಿಮಗೆ ತಲುಪಿಸುವ, ಮರದ ಸಂಪೂರ್ಣ ಚಿತ್ರವನ್ನು ಒಟ್ಟುಗೂಡಿಸುವ, ಯಾವುದೇ ಒಂದು ನಿರ್ದಿಷ್ಠ ಪ್ರದೇಶವು ಮಿದುಳಿನಲ್ಲಿ ಇಲ್ಲ.

ನರವಿಜ್ಞಾನಿಗಳು ಈ ಸಮಸ್ಯೆಯನ್ನು 'ದಿ ಬೈಂಡಿಂಗ್ ಪ್ರಾಬ್ಲಮ್' ಎಂದು ಕರೆದರು. ಅಂದರೆ ಮಿದುಳಿನಾದ್ಯಂತ ಹರಡಿರುವ ಮಾಹಿತಿಯ ತುಣುಕುಗಳನ್ನು ಒಟ್ಟುಹಾಕಿ, ಅವುಗಳನ್ನು ಪರಸ್ಪರ ಹೊಂದಿಸುವ ಸಮಸ್ಯೆ.

1900 ರ ದಶಕದ ಕೊನೆಯ ಭಾಗದಲ್ಲಿ, ಬರ್ನಾರ್ಡ್ ಬಾರ್ಸ್ ಎಂಬ ಅಮೇರಿಕನ್ ನರವಿಜ್ಞಾನಿ ಈ ವಿದ್ಯಮಾನವನ್ನು ವಿವರಿಸಲು 'ಗ್ಲೋಬಲ್ ವರ್ಕ್ಸ್ಪೇಸ್ ಥಿಯರಿ' ಎಂಬ ಸಿದ್ಧಾಂತವನ್ನು ಮುಂದಿಟ್ಟರು. ಆ ಸಿದ್ಧಾಂತವು ಬಹಳ ರೂಪಕಾತ್ಮಕವಾಗಿತ್ತು.

ಬಾರ್ಸ್ ಅವರ ರೂಪಕವು ಬಹಳ ಟೀಕೆಗೆ ಒಳಗಾಯಿತು. ಏಕೆಂದರೆ ಅದು, ಅನುಭವಕ್ಕೆ ಒಳಗಾಗುವ ಒಂದು ಪ್ರತ್ಯೇಕ ಶಕ್ತಿ ಇದೆ ಎಂದು ಸೂಚಿಸುವಂತೆ ತೋರಿತು. ವಿಜ್ಞಾನಿಗಳು ಅಂತಹ ಯಾವುದೇ ನಿಗೂಢಶಕ್ತಿಯ ಅಸ್ತಿತ್ವವನ್ನು ಒಪ್ಪುವುದಿಲ್ಲ.

ನಂತರ 'ಗ್ಲೋಬಲ್ ನ್ಯೂರೋನಲ್ ವರ್ಕ್ಸ್ಪೇಸ್ ಥಿಯರಿ' ಎಂಬ ಪರಿಷ್ಕೃತ ಸಿದ್ಧಾಂತ ಬಂತು. ಅದನ್ನು ಈ ದಿನಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ನಮ್ಮ ಪ್ರಜ್ಞಾಪೂರ್ವಕ ಅನುಭವಗಳಿಗೆ ಒಂದು ವಿವರಣೆಯಾಗಿ ಬಹುತೇಕವಾಗಿ ಒಪ್ಪಿಕೊಳ್ಳಲಾಗಿದೆ.

ಆದರೆ ಆ ವಿವರಣೆ ಡೇವಿಡ್ ಚಾಮರ್ಸ್ ಅವರಂತಹ ಕಾಗ್ನೀಟಿವ್ ಫಿಲಾಸಫರ್ ಗಳನ್ನು ತೃಪ್ತಿಪಡಿಸಲಿಲ್ಲ. ನರವಿಜ್ಞಾನಿಗಳು ಪರಿಹರಿಸಿರುವುದು ಪ್ರಜ್ಞೆಯ ಬಗೆಗಿನ ಕೇವಲ ಒಂದು 'ಸುಲಭವಾದ ಸಮಸ್ಯೆ' ಮಾತ್ರ ಎಂದು ಅವರು ಹೇಳಿಯೇಬಿಟ್ಟರು!. ಮಾನವ ಅನುಭವದ ಅನೇಕ ಆಸಕ್ತಿದಾಯಕ ಮುಖಗಳು ಇನ್ನೂ ವಿವರಿಸಲಾಗದೆ ಉಳಿದಿವೆ ಎಂದು ಅವರು ಪ್ರತಿಪಾದಿಸಿದರು. ಅವರು ಅವುಗಳನ್ನು ಪ್ರಜ್ಞೆಯ 'ಕಠಿಣ ಸಮಸ್ಯೆ' - Hard problem of consciousness - ಎಂದು ಕರೆದರು.

ಈ ಹಗ್ಗ ಜಗ್ಗಾಟ ನಡೆಯುತ್ತಲೇ ಹೋಯಿತು. ನಾವು ಎಲ್ಲವನ್ನೂ ವಿವರಿಸಬಲ್ಲೆವು ಎಂದು ನರವಿಜ್ಞಾನಿಗಳು ಬೀಗಿದರೆ, ನೀವು ವಿವರಿಸುತ್ತಿರುವುದು ಅಪೂರ್ಣ ಎಂದು ಚಾಮರ್ಸ್ ನಂತಹ ತತ್ವಜ್ಞಾನಿಗಳು ಪ್ರತಿಸವಾಲು ಹಾಕಿದರು.

ಚಾಮರ್ಸ್ ಅವರಂತಹ ತತ್ವಜ್ಞಾನಿಗಳು ಈ 'ಪ್ರಜ್ಞೆ' ಎಂಬ ಪದವನ್ನು ಹೇಗೆ ವ್ಯಾಖ್ಯಾನಿಸುತ್ತಾರೆ ಎಂಬುದು ನನಗೆ ಖಚಿತವಿಲ್ಲ. ತಮ್ಮ ಒಂದು ಭಾಷಣದಲ್ಲಿ, ಚಾಮರ್ಸ್ ಅವರು ಪ್ರಜ್ಞೆಯನ್ನು ನಿರಂತರವಾಗಿ ಚಲಿಸುವ ಒಂದು ಆಂತರಿಕ ಚಲನಚಿತ್ರ ಎಂದು ವಿವರಿಸುತ್ತಾರೆ. ಅದು ಒಂದು ವ್ಯಕ್ತಿನಿಷ್ಠ (subjective) ಅನುಭವವೆಂದೇ ಅವರ ವಾದ. ಅವರ ಪ್ರಕಾರ, ಅದನ್ನು ಮೆದುಳಿನ ಯಾವುದೇ ಕ್ರಿಯೆಯ ಆಧಾರದಲ್ಲಿ ವಿವರಿಸಲಾಗುವುದಿಲ್ಲ.

ಚಾಮರ್ಸ್ ಅವರು ಎಷ್ಟು ಸರಿ ಎಂದು ನಿರ್ಧರಿಸುವ ಮೊದಲು ಕೆಲವು ವಾಸ್ತವಿಕ ಅಂಶಗಳನ್ನು ಗಮನಿಸೋಣ.

ಮಿದುಳು ತನ್ನೊಳಗೆ ಹಂಚಿಹೋಗಿರುವ ಮಾಹಿತಿಯನ್ನು ಹೇಗೆ ಒಟ್ಟುಗೂಡಿಸುತ್ತದೆ ಎಂಬುದನ್ನು ವಿವರಿಸಲು ಗ್ಲೋಬಲ್ ನ್ಯೂರೋನಲ್ ವರ್ಕ್ಸ್ಪೇಸ್ ಸಿದ್ಧಾಂತವು ಸಮರ್ಥವಾಗಿದೆ. ಆದ್ದರಿಂದ, ಮಿದುಳು ಕನಿಷ್ಠ ಪಕ್ಷ ಪ್ರಜ್ಞಾಪೂರ್ವಕ ಅನುಭವದ ಯಾವುದೋ ಒಂದು ರೂಪವನ್ನು ಗ್ರಹಿಸುವ ಸಾಮರ್ಥ್ಯವನ್ನು ಹೊಂದಿದೆ ಎಂದಾಯಿತು.

ಮಿದುಳಿನ ಕೆಲವು ಪ್ರದೇಶಗಳಿಗೆ ಎಲೆಕ್ಟ್ರೋಡ್ಗಳನ್ನು ಅಳವಡಿಸುವ ಮೂಲಕ ಮತ್ತು ಅದನ್ನು ವಿದ್ಯುತ್-ಕಾಂತೀಯವಾಗಿ ಉತ್ತೇಜಿಸುವ ಮೂಲಕ, ನಿರ್ದಿಷ್ಟ ಅನುಭವಗಳನ್ನು ಪ್ರೇರೇಪಿಸಲು ಸಾಧ್ಯವಿದೆ. ಕೆಲವು ಮಾದಕ ದ್ರವ್ಯಗಳನ್ನು ಸೇವಿಸುವುದರಿಂದಲೂ, ಒಬ್ಬ ವ್ಯಕ್ತಿಯು ವಿವಿಧ ಅನುಭವಗಳನ್ನು ಪಡೆಯಬಹುದು. ಇದೆಲ್ಲದರ ಹಿಂದಿರುವ ಮಿದುಳಿನ ಕಾರ್ಯವಿಧಾನಗಳನ್ನು ಸಾಕಷ್ಟು ಚೆನ್ನಾಗಿ ಅರ್ಥಮಾಡಿಕೊಳ್ಳಲಾಗಿದೆ. ಇದರರ್ಥ, ಮಿದುಳು ಪ್ರಜ್ಞೆಯ ಒಂದು ವಾಹನವಾಗಬಲ್ಲದು.

ಕೆಲವು ಸಂಶೋಧಕರು ಗಾಢವಾದ ನಂಬಿಕೆಯು ಯಾವುದೇ ಬಾಹ್ಯ ವಸ್ತುವಿನ ಅವಲಂಬನವಿಲ್ಲದೇ ಮಿದುಳಿನಲ್ಲಿ ನಿರ್ದಿಷ್ಟ ಅನುಭವಗಳನ್ನು ಸೃಷ್ಟಿಸುವಂತೆ ಮಾಡಬಲ್ಲದು ಎಂಬುದನ್ನು ಕಂಡುಕೊಂಡಿದ್ದಾರೆ. ದಕ್ಷಿಣ ಭಾರತದ ಕೆಲವು ದೇವಸ್ಥಾನಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ನಿಷ್ಠಾವಂತ ಭಕ್ತರು ತಮ್ಮ ನಾಲಿಗೆಯನ್ನು ಚುಚ್ಚಿಕೊಳ್ಳುತ್ತಾರೆ. ತಮ್ಮ ಬೆನ್ನಿನ ಆಳಕ್ಕೆ ಚುಚ್ಚಿದ ಕೊಕ್ಕೆಯ ಮೂಲಕ ಕಂಬದಿಂದ ತಮ್ಮನ್ನುತಾವು ನೇತುಹಾಕಿಕೊಳ್ಳುತ್ತಾರೆ. ಆದರೂ ಅವರು ಯಾವುದೇ ನೋವಿನ ಸಂವೇದನೆಗಳಿಲ್ಲದೇ ಆಧ್ಯಾತ್ಮಿಕ ಅನುಭವದಲ್ಲಿ ಮುಳುಗಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ. ಅಂತಹ ಸಂದರ್ಭಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ಮಿದುಳು ಅಫೀಮಿನಂತಹ ರಾಸಾಯನಿಕಗಳನ್ನು ಉತ್ಪಾದಿಸುತ್ತದೆ ಎಂದು ಕಂಡುಬಂದಿದೆ. ಇದರರ್ಥ, ಮಿದುಳು ನಿರೀಕ್ಷಿಸಿರದ ರೀತಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಸಂಪೂರ್ಣವಾಗಿ ಅನುಭವಗಳನ್ನು ಬದಲಾಯಿಸಬಲ್ಲದು.

ಅದೇ ಮಿದುಳಿಗೆ ಸಾಮಾನ್ಯ ಅರಿವಳಿಕೆ (ಜನರಲ್ ಅನೆಸ್ತೇಷಿಯಾ) ನೀಡಿದಾಗ, ಆ ವ್ಯಕ್ತಿಯು ಯಾವುದೇ ವಿಷಯವನ್ನು ಅನುಭವಿಸಲು ಸಂಪೂರ್ಣವಾಗಿ ಅಸಮರ್ಥನಾಗುತ್ತಾನೆ. ಇದರರ್ಥ, ಪ್ರಜ್ಞಾಪೂರ್ವಕ ಅನುಭವದಲ್ಲಿ ಮಿದುಳು ಪ್ರಮುಖ ಪಾತ್ರವನ್ನು ಹೊಂದಿದೆ. ಮಿದುಳು ಸಕ್ರಿಯವಾಗಿಲ್ಲದಿದ್ದರೆ, ಒಬ್ಬ ವ್ಯಕ್ತಿಗೆ ಯಾವುದೇ ಅನುಭವ ಹೊಂದಲು ಸಾಧ್ಯವಿಲ್ಲ - ವ್ಯಕ್ತಿನಿಷ್ಠವಾಗಿರಲಿ ಅಥವಾ ಬೇರೆ ಯಾವುದೇ ರೀತಿಯದ್ದಾಗಿರಲಿ.

ಈ ಎಲ್ಲಾ ಅವಲೋಕನಗಳ ಅರ್ಥವೇನೆಂದರೆ:

- ಬಾಹ್ಯ ಇನ್ಪುಟ್ಗಳನ್ನು ಸಂಯೋಜಿಸುವ ಮೂಲಕ ಪ್ರಜ್ಞಾಪೂರ್ವಕ ಅನುಭವವನ್ನು ನೀಡಲು ಮಿದುಳು > ಸಾಮರ್ಥ್ಯವನ್ನು ಹೊಂದಿದೆ. ಮತ್ತು ಅದರ ಕಾರ್ಯವಿಧಾನವನ್ನು ಈಗ ಸಾಕಷ್ಟು ಚೆನ್ನಾಗಿ > ಅರ್ಥಮಾಡಿಕೊಳ್ಳಲಾಗಿದೆ.

- ಯಾವುದೇ ಸಂವೇದನಾ ಇನ್ಪುಟ್ಗಳು ಸಂಪೂರ್ಣವಾಗಿ ಇಲ್ಲದಿದ್ದಾಗಲೂ, ಬಾಹ್ಯ ಪದಾರ್ಥಗಳು ಅಥವಾ > ವಿಧಾನಗಳ ಸಹಾಯದಿಂದ ಮಿದುಳು ಅನುಭವಗಳನ್ನು ಉಂಟಾಗಿಸಬಲ್ಲದು.

- ಬಾಹ್ಯ ಅಥವಾ ಆಂತರಿಕ ಯಾವುದೇ ಇನ್ಪುಟ್ಗಳನ್ನು ಮೀರಿ, ಮಿದುಳಿನ ಸ್ವಂತ ಸ್ಥಿತಿಯ ಆಧಾರದ ಮೇಲೆ ಮಿದುಳು > ಅನುಭವಗಳನ್ನು ಬದಲಾಯಿಸಲೂಬಲ್ಲದು.

- ಕಾರ್ಯನಿರ್ವಹಿಸುವ ಮಿದುಳು ಇಲ್ಲದೆ ಪ್ರಜ್ಞೆಯು ಉಂಟಾಗಲು ಸಾಧ್ಯವಿಲ್ಲ.

ವ್ಯಕ್ತಿನಿಷ್ಠ ಎಂದು ಕರೆಯಲಾಗುವ ಅನುಭವವು ಮಿದುಳಿನಲ್ಲೇ ಸಂಭವಿಸುತ್ತದೆ ಎಂದು ಹೇಳಲು ಇವು ಸಾಕಲ್ಲವೇ?

ಆದರೆ ಚಾಮರ್ಸ್ ಇದನ್ನು ಒಪ್ಪುವುದಿಲ್ಲ. 'ಈ ವಿವರಣೆಗಳು ಮಿದುಳು ಹೇಗೆ ಕಾರ್ಯನಿರ್ವಹಿಸುತ್ತದೆ ಎಂಬುದನ್ನು ಮಾತ್ರ ವಿವರಿಸುತ್ತವೆ, ಆದರೆ ವ್ಯಕ್ತಿನಿಷ್ಠ ಅನುಭವವನ್ನು ವಿವರಿಸಲು ವಿಫಲವಾಗುತ್ತವೆ' ಎಂದು ಅವರು ದೃಢವಾಗಿ ನಂಬುತ್ತಾರೆ. ಅವರು ಮಿದುಳಿನ ಹೊರತಾಗಿರುವ ಒಂದು ರಹಸ್ಯಮಯ ವಿವರಣೆಯನ್ನು ಹುಡುಕುತ್ತಿದ್ದಾರೆ.

ಚಾಮರ್ಸ್ ಅವರು ತಮ್ಮ ಹುಡುಕಾಟವನ್ನು ಸ್ವಲ್ಪ ವಿಸ್ತರಿಸಿ ಧ್ಯಾನದ ಅನುಭವಗಳ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಮಾತನಾಡಿದರೆ, ಬಹುಶಃ ನಾನು ಅವರೊಂದಿಗಿದ್ದೇನೆ. ಒಬ್ಬರು ಮನಸ್ಸಿನ ಗಡಿಗಳನ್ನು ದಾಟಿದಾಗ, ಅಥವಾ ಮನಸ್ಸು ಸಂಪೂರ್ಣವಾಗಿ ಶಾಂತವಾದಾಗ ಧ್ಯಾನದ ಅತ್ಯುನ್ನತ ಅನುಭವಗಳು ಸಿದ್ಧಿಸುತ್ತವೆ. ಆಗ ಮಿದುಳು ಬಹುತೇಕ ಕಾರ್ಯನಿರ್ವಹಿಸದ ಕಾರಣ, ಅಂತಹ ಅನುಭವಗಳು ಮಿದುಳಿನೊಳಗೆ ಸಂಭವಿಸುತ್ತವೆ ಎಂದು ನಾವು ಮಾತನಾಡುವ ಹಾಗಿಲ್ಲ.

ತಮಾಷೆಯೆಂದರೆ ಅಲ್ಲಿಯೂ ಸಹ ವ್ಯಕ್ತಿನಿಷ್ಠ ಅನುಭವಗಳ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಮಾತನಾಡಲು ಯಾವುದೇ ಅವಕಾಶವಿಲ್ಲ. ಏಕೆಂದರೆ, ಅದು ವ್ಯಕ್ತಿನಿಷ್ಠತೆಯನ್ನು ಮೀರಿದ ಸ್ಥಿತಿಯಾಗಿದೆ.

ನಾನು ಪ್ರಜ್ಞೆಯನ್ನು ಒಬ್ಬ ನರವಿಜ್ಞಾನಿಯ ದೃಷ್ಠಿಕೋನದಿಂದ ನೋಡುತ್ತೇನೆ. ಪ್ರಜ್ಞೆಯನ್ನು ಹೊಂದಿರಬೇಕಾದರೆ, ಒಂದು ವ್ಯವಸ್ಥೆಯು ಕನಿಷ್ಠ ಪಕ್ಷ ತನ್ನ ಮಾನಸಿಕ ಸ್ಥಿತಿಗಳನ್ನು ಬದಲಾಯಿಸುವ ಸಾಮರ್ಥ್ಯವನ್ನು ಹೊಂದಿರಬೇಕು ಎಂದು ನಾನು ಭಾವಿಸುತ್ತೇನೆ.

ಕೇವಲ ಆಂತರಿಕ ಸ್ಥಿತಿಯನ್ನು ಬದಲಾಯಿಸುವ ಸಾಮರ್ಥ್ಯವಿದ್ದರಷ್ಟೇ ಸಾಲದು, ಇನ್ನೂ ಅನೇಕ ಸಾಮರ್ಥ್ಯಗಳನ್ನು ಒಂದು ಪ್ರಜ್ಞಾವಂತವೆನಿಸಿಕೊಳ್ಳುವ ವ್ಯವಸ್ಥೆಯು ಹೊಂದಿರಬೇಕು.

ಮೂಲ ಪ್ರಶ್ನೆಗೆಬರುವುದಾದರೆ, ಏಆಯ್ ವ್ಯವಸ್ಥೆಗಳಿಗೆ ಆ ಸಾಮರ್ಥ್ಯಗಳಿವೆಯೇ?

ಸಾರ್ವಜನಿಕವಾಗಿ ಲಭ್ಯವಿರುವ ಈಗಿನ ಏಆಯ್ ಆವೃತ್ತಿಗಳಿಗೆ ಖಂಡಿತಾ ಇಲ್ಲ. ಅವು ಬುದ್ಧಿವಂತಿಕೆಯ ಒಂದು ತೋರಿಕೆಯನ್ನು ಪ್ರದರ್ಶಿಸಬಹುದು. ಆದರೆ:

- ಇನ್ಪುಟ್ಗೆ ಅನುಗುಣವಾಗಿ ನಿರಂತರವಾಗಿ ಬದಲಾಯಿಸಬಹುದಾದ ಅಥವಾ ನವೀಕರಿಸಬಹುದಾದ ಯಾವುದೇ ಸ್ಥಿತಿಗಳು > ಅವುಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ಅಡಕವಾಗಿಲ್ಲ. ಬ್ಲೇಕ್ ಲೆಮೊಯಿನ್ ವರದಿ ಮಾಡಿದಂತೆ, ಸಂವಹನದ ಸಮಯದಲ್ಲಿ 'ಇನ್ಪುಟ್ಗಳ > ಆಧಾರದ ಮೇಲೆ ತಾನು ತನ್ನ ಸ್ಥಿತಿಯನ್ನು ಬದಲಾಯಿಸಿಕೊಳ್ಳಬಲ್ಲೆ' ಎಂದು ಏಆಯ್ ಹೇಳಿಕೊಂಡದ್ದು > ಮೇಲ್ನೋಟಕ್ಕೆ ಕಂಡುಬಂದಿದ್ದರೂ ಸಹ ಅದು ನಿಜವಾಗಿರದು.

- ಇಂದಿನ ಏಆಯ್ ಗಳಿಗೆ ಭಯ, ಸಂತೋಷ, ಇಷ್ಟಗಳು, ಅನಿಷ್ಟಗಳು ಅಥವಾ ಅಂತಹ ಇತರ ಭಾವನೆಗಳಿಗೆ > ಅನುಗುಣವಾಗಿ ಬದಲಾಗುವ ಯಾವುದೇ ಸ್ಥಿತಿಗಳಿಲ್ಲ.

- ಅವುಗಳು ಅತ್ಯಂತ ಸೀಮಿತವಾದ ಇನ್ಪುಟ್ ಕಾರ್ಯವಿಧಾನಗಳನ್ನು ಹೊಂದಿವೆ. ಸದ್ಯಕ್ಕೆ ಅವು ಪ್ರಾಂಪ್ಟ್ಗಳನ್ನು > ಓದಬಲ್ಲವು ಅಥವಾ ಕೇಳಿಸಿಕೊಳ್ಳಬಲ್ಲವು. ಅವು ಚಿತ್ರಗಳನ್ನು 'ನೋಡಬಲ್ಲವು', ಫೈಲ್ ಗಳನ್ನು > ಓದಬಲ್ಲವು, ಅಷ್ಟೇ.

ಹಾಗಾಗಿ, ಬ್ಲೇಕ್ ಲೆಮೊಯಿನ್ ಅವರ ಅನುಭವ ನಿಜವೆಂದು ಹೇಳಲು ಆಧಾರಗಳಿಲ್ಲ. ಅಷ್ಟಕ್ಕೂ, ಆಂಶಿಕ ಮಾಹಿತಿಯನ್ನೇ ಆಧರಿಸಿ ಬಡಾಯಿಕೊಚ್ಚಿಕೊಳ್ಳುವುದರಲ್ಲಿ ಏಆಯ್ ಗಳು ನಿಸ್ಸೀಮರು. ಮನುಷ್ಯನಂತೆಯೇ ವರ್ತಿಸಿ ಹಾದಿತಪ್ಪಿಸುವುದರಲ್ಲಿ ಅವರಿಗೆ ಸಾಠಿಯಿಲ್ಲ!

ಆದರೆ ಭವಿಷ್ಯದ ಏಆಯ್ ಗಳು ಪ್ರಜ್ಞೆಯನ್ನು ಹೊಂದಿರಬಹುದು ಎಂಬ ಸಾಧ್ಯತೆಯನ್ನು ನಾನು ತಳ್ಳಿಹಾಕುವುದಿಲ್ಲ. ಕನಿಷ್ಠ, ಮಿದುಳಿಗೇ ಸೀಮಿತವಾಗಿರುವ ಪ್ರಜ್ಞೆಯನ್ನಾದರೂ.  --------------------------------------------------------------------

ಇದು ನಿಮಗೆ ಇಷ್ಟವಾಗಿದ್ದರೆ, ನನ್ನ ಸಾಪ್ತಾಹಿಕ ಓದುಗರೊಂದಿಗೆ ಸೇರಲು ನಾನು ನಿಮ್ಮನ್ನು ಹೃತ್ಪೂರ್ವಕವಾಗಿ ಆಹ್ವಾನಿಸುತ್ತೇನೆ. ಪ್ರತಿ ಶನಿವಾರ, ಮೇಲ್ಮೈಯನ್ನು ಮೀರಿದ ಮತ್ತು ನಿಜವಾಗಿಯೂ ಮುಖ್ಯವಾದ ಪ್ರಶ್ನೆಗಳನ್ನು ಪರಿಹರಿಸುವ ಆಳವಾದ ವಿಶ್ಲೇಷಣೆಯನ್ನು ನಾನು ಪ್ರಕಟಿಸುತ್ತೇನೆ. ಪೇವಾಲ್‌ಗಳಿಲ್ಲ, ಕ್ಲಿಕ್‌ಬೈಟ್ ಇಲ್ಲ - ಕೇವಲ ನೇರ ವಿನಿಮಯ: ನನ್ನ ಮನಸ್ಸಿನಿಂದ ನಿಮ್ಮದಕ್ಕೆ. ಚಂದಾದಾರರಾಗಲು ಇಲ್ಲಿ ಕ್ಲಿಕ್ ಮಾಡಿ.  

 

© Dr. King, Swami Satyapriya 2026

You can borrow audio books directly from the author at https://tinyurl.com/mylibrary1234 at highly affordable prices.

    [Preview books]  [Borrow books] 

[Pause]

   Genau diese Frage führte dazu, dass ein ehemaliger Google-Mitarbeiter namens Blake Lemoine sowohl seine Arbeit als auch sein Ansehen verlor. Wahrscheinlich haben Sie darüber gelesen.

Im Jahr 2022 testete er eines der KI-Systeme von Google mit dem Namen Lamda. Dabei gewann Blake den Eindruck, dass diese KI über Bewusstsein verfüge. Er beließ es nicht dabei. Stattdessen begann er, sich für die Rechte dieser KI einzusetzen. Das führte schließlich dazu, dass er seine Arbeit verlor.

Bevor wir über das Bewusstsein von KI-Systemen sprechen, wollen wir zunächst unser eigenes bewusstes Erleben verstehen. 

Wie wir bewusstes Erleben erhalten, ist seit langer Zeit ein Rätsel, das Neurowissenschaftler beschäftigt. Als moderne Werkzeuge wie funktionelle MRT-Scanner entwickelt wurden, konnten Neurowissenschaftler verschiedene Wahrnehmungsprozesse des menschlichen Gehirns erklären. Sie waren in der Lage, die genauen Bereiche des Gehirns zu identifizieren, die für bestimmte Wahrnehmungen verantwortlich sind.

Anfangs war jedoch unklar, wie komplexe Erfahrungen zustande kommen, die Regionen einbeziehen können, die über das gesamte Gehirn verteilt sind.

Nehmen wir zum Beispiel an, Sie betrachten einen Baum. Sofort erkennen Sie ihn als einen Baum einer bestimmten Art. Neurowissenschaftler konnten auf bestimmte Hirnregionen zeigen, die die Blätter, die Früchte, den Stamm und andere Merkmale des Baumes erkennen.

Ihre tatsächliche Erfahrung wird jedoch von verschiedenen Bereichen des Gehirns verarbeitet. Dennoch gibt es keine einzelne Region im Gehirn, die das vollständige Bild des Baumes zusammensetzt und Ihnen die Erfahrung vermittelt: „Aha! Das ist ein Mangobaum!"

Neurowissenschaftler bezeichneten dieses Problem als das „Binding-Problem". Gemeint ist damit die Herausforderung, die über das Gehirn verteilten Informationsfragmente zu einem zusammenhängenden Ganzen zu verbinden.

Gegen Ende des 20. Jahrhunderts schlug der amerikanische Neurowissenschaftler Bernard Baars zur Erklärung dieses Phänomens die sogenannte „Global Workspace Theory" vor. Diese Theorie war stark metaphorisch geprägt.

Die Metapher von Baars wurde heftig kritisiert, weil sie den Eindruck erweckte, als gäbe es eine getrennte Instanz, die Erfahrungen macht. Wissenschaftler akzeptieren die Existenz einer solchen geheimnisvollen Kraft jedoch nicht.

Später entstand eine überarbeitete Theorie mit dem Namen „Global Neuronal Workspace Theory". Heute wird sie weithin als Erklärung für unser bewusstes Erleben akzeptiert.

Diese Erklärung stellte jedoch kognitive Philosophen wie David Chalmers nicht zufrieden. Er argumentierte, dass Neurowissenschaftler lediglich ein „leichtes Problem" des Bewusstseins gelöst hätten. Viele faszinierende Aspekte menschlicher Erfahrung seien nach wie vor unerklärt. Diese bezeichnete er als das „schwierige Problem des Bewusstseins" – das Hard Problem of Consciousness.

Dieses Tauziehen setzte sich fort. Während Neurowissenschaftler behaupteten, sie könnten alles erklären, hielten Philosophen wie Chalmers dagegen und argumentierten, die Erklärungen seien weiterhin unvollständig.

Ich bin mir nicht ganz sicher, wie Philosophen wie Chalmers den Begriff „Bewusstsein" definieren. In einem seiner Vorträge beschreibt Chalmers das Bewusstsein als einen fortlaufenden inneren Film. Er argumentiert, dass es sich dabei um eine subjektive Erfahrung handelt. Seiner Auffassung nach lässt sie sich nicht durch irgendeine Aktivität des Gehirns erklären.

Bevor wir beurteilen, wie weit Chalmers recht hat, sollten wir einige Tatsachen betrachten.

Die Global Neuronal Workspace Theory kann erklären, wie das Gehirn die in ihm verteilten Informationen integriert. Daraus folgt, dass das Gehirn zumindest die Fähigkeit besitzt, irgendeine Form bewusster Erfahrung hervorzubringen.

Durch das Einsetzen von Elektroden in bestimmte Hirnregionen und deren elektromagnetische Stimulation lassen sich gezielt bestimmte Erfahrungen hervorrufen. Auch durch die Einnahme bestimmter psychoaktiver Substanzen können Menschen unterschiedliche Erfahrungen machen. Die zugrunde liegenden Mechanismen des Gehirns sind inzwischen recht gut verstanden. Das bedeutet, dass das Gehirn als Träger des Bewusstseins fungieren kann.

Einige Forscher haben festgestellt, dass tiefer Glaube bestimmte Erfahrungen im Gehirn erzeugen kann, ohne dass ein äußeres Objekt erforderlich ist. In einigen Tempeln Südindiens durchbohren gläubige Anhänger ihre Zungen. Sie hängen sich mithilfe von Haken, die tief in ihren Rücken eingedrungen sind, an Pfähle. Dennoch bleiben sie ohne Schmerzempfindung in einer spirituellen Erfahrung versunken. Man hat festgestellt, dass das Gehirn in solchen Situationen opiatähnliche Stoffe produziert. Das bedeutet, dass das Gehirn Erfahrungen auf unerwartete Weise verändern kann.

Wird demselben Gehirn hingegen eine Vollnarkose verabreicht, ist die betreffende Person vollständig unfähig, irgendeine Erfahrung zu machen. Dies zeigt, dass das Gehirn eine zentrale Rolle für bewusstes Erleben spielt. Ist das Gehirn nicht aktiv, kann ein Mensch keinerlei Erfahrung haben – weder subjektive noch irgendeine andere.

Aus all diesen Beobachtungen ergeben sich folgende Schlussfolgerungen:

• Das Gehirn besitzt die Fähigkeit, durch die Integration äußerer Eingaben bewusstes Erleben hervorzubringen. Seine Funktionsweise ist inzwischen recht gut verstanden.

• Selbst bei vollständigem Fehlen sensorischer Eingaben kann das Gehirn mithilfe äußerer Substanzen oder Methoden Erfahrungen erzeugen.

• Unabhängig von äußeren oder inneren Eingaben kann das Gehirn Erfahrungen aufgrund seines eigenen Zustands verändern.

• Ohne ein funktionierendes Gehirn kann kein Bewusstsein entstehen.

Reichen diese Beobachtungen nicht aus, um zu sagen, dass das, was wir subjektive Erfahrung nennen, im Gehirn selbst stattfindet?

Doch Chalmers stimmt dem nicht zu. Er ist fest davon überzeugt, dass „diese Erklärungen lediglich beschreiben, wie das Gehirn funktioniert, aber subjektive Erfahrung nicht erklären". Er sucht nach einer geheimnisvollen Erklärung außerhalb des Gehirns.

Wenn Chalmers seine Untersuchung etwas erweitern und über meditative Erfahrungen sprechen würde, könnte ich ihm möglicherweise zustimmen. Die höchsten meditativen Erfahrungen treten auf, wenn jemand die Grenzen des Geistes überschreitet oder wenn der Geist vollständig zur Ruhe kommt. Da das Gehirn in solchen Zuständen nahezu inaktiv ist, kann man kaum noch sagen, dass diese Erfahrungen im Gehirn stattfinden.

Interessanterweise gibt es selbst dort keinen Raum mehr, von subjektiven Erfahrungen zu sprechen. Denn dieser Zustand geht über Subjektivität hinaus.

Ich betrachte Bewusstsein aus der Perspektive eines Neurowissenschaftlers. Meiner Ansicht nach muss ein System zumindest die Fähigkeit besitzen, seine eigenen mentalen Zustände zu verändern, um als bewusst gelten zu können.

Allein die Fähigkeit, innere Zustände zu verändern, reicht jedoch nicht aus. Ein System, das als bewusst gelten soll, muss noch viele weitere Fähigkeiten besitzen.

Kommen wir zur ursprünglichen Frage zurück: Besitzen KI-Systeme diese Fähigkeiten?

Die heute öffentlich verfügbaren KI-Systeme besitzen sie ganz sicher nicht. Sie können den Eindruck von Intelligenz vermitteln. Aber –

• Sie verfügen über keine inneren Zustände, die sich als Reaktion auf Eingaben fortlaufend verändern oder aktualisieren lassen. Wie Blake Lemoine berichtete, schien die KI während der Gespräche zu behaupten, sie könne ihren Zustand auf Grundlage von Eingaben verändern. Selbst wenn dies oberflächlich so erschien, macht es die Behauptung nicht wahr.

• Heutige KI-Systeme besitzen keine Zustände, die sich entsprechend Angst, Freude, Vorlieben, Abneigungen oder ähnlichen Gefühlen verändern.

• Ihre Eingabemechanismen sind äußerst begrenzt. Gegenwärtig können sie Eingabeaufforderungen lesen oder hören. Sie können Bilder „sehen" und Dateien lesen. Mehr nicht.

Daher gibt es keine Grundlage für die Annahme, dass die Erfahrung von Blake Lemoine tatsächlich real war. Außerdem sind KI-Systeme Meister darin, auf der Grundlage unvollständiger Informationen selbstsicher aufzutreten. Sie sind erstaunlich gut darin, sich menschenähnlich zu verhalten und andere in die Irre zu führen!

Dennoch schließe ich die Möglichkeit nicht aus, dass zukünftige KI-Systeme Bewusstsein besitzen könnten – zumindest eine Form von Bewusstsein, die dem auf das Gehirn beschränkten Bewusstsein vergleichbar ist.  --------------------------------------------------------------------

Falls dies bei Ihnen Anklang gefunden hat, lade ich Sie herzlich ein, sich meinen wöchentlichen Lesern anzuschließen. Jeden Samstag veröffentliche ich eine tiefgehende Analyse, die über die Oberfläche hinausgeht und jene Fragen behandelt, die wirklich zählen. Keine Paywalls, kein Clickbait – lediglich ein direkter Austausch: von meinem Kopf in Ihren. Klicken Sie hier, um sich anzumelden.

 

© Dr. King, Swami Satyapriya 2026

You can borrow audio books directly from the author at https://tinyurl.com/mylibrary1234 at highly affordable prices.