Skip to main content

AI and Philosophy: Who are we ? Can we be immortal?

Preface: This blog is part of a series of blogs based on short essays compiled in the book “The Minds I” by Douglas R Hofstadter and Daniel C Dennett 1981 ( DH and DC)

The short essay is called “On Having No Head “ by D.E. Harding ( 1909 – 2007). He was posted in pre-independence India and says that the Himalayan calmness and beauty have made him realize that he has no Head. In addition, Harding was also inspired by a self-portrait drawn by another Austrian philosopher, Ernst Mach. This portrait was done by the artist without a mirror, and hence, there was no head in the portrait but most other parts below the shoulder.

He says he lost his head but gained the whole world. Instead of two eyes through which he used to see the universe, now he says he is seeing everything with zero or infinite eyes. In this headless state, he says he does not feel location, near and far and can see the beauty of the Himalayas, forests, sea waves without any concept of near and far.

We usually use the analogy of getting into a bad dream and waking up to see we are fine. He says all his life with his head was a bad dream and now he has woken up to the reality of his life without his head. I liked these words “There arose no questions, no reference beyond the experience itself, but only peace and quiet joy and the sensation of having dropped a huge burden”.

The essay concludes by talking about “seeing”. How the seeing of the third person can be explained in terms of lights, reflection, retina, lens, etc., the first person seeing is eyeless. The last sentence in the essay is “In the Language of the sages, only the Buddha Nature or Brahman or Allah or God sees or hears or experiences anything at all:.

If you are not getting the real message Harding wanted to convey in this essay, do not worry. I was also looking at reflections section from DH and DC to get the real message.

Let us see some snippets from the reflections section.

The core human conflict of our own mortality and the fact that one day all of us will be non-existence is the message Harding wanted to communicate in his own style.

We all understand and relate to being part of many groups or classes. For example. We are all humans ,, some of us are human males and others human females. Some of us are Blacks, some of us are Caucasians and some of us are Asians. We also understand simple logic such as “ All humans are mortal”, “ I am a human”, “Hence I am mortal”.

Harding disputed the first part of the first premise itself that there can be a class called humans and some properties are applicable to all. However, creating classes and classifications is a rather advanced property of intelligence and humans continue to make newer classes to derive more insights in to day-to-day life.

The 2nd part of the first premise is the real shocker. That something can just vanish or destroyed is something we see all around. Newspaper in a fire place burns and vanishes, food in the spoon vanishes in to the mouth. All very shocking but still acceptable. But one’s own non-existence is not that easy to accept.

The sudden conjunction of these two premises, is a rude shock like a slap in the face. This shock can send us reeling for months, years, our whole lives.. But somehow we suppress the conflict and divert the attention elsewhere and live.

The question is will I ever die? or only this body with limbs, organs and a brain die but I remain alive. How can we say all these rich experience and knowledge of so many years will just one day cease to exist? Is there some truth to the body and soul theory where the soul is immortal and only the body is mortal?

DH and DC conclude their reflections by this statement. “There seem to be no alternative to accepting some sort of incomprehensible concept to existence”.

Great essay and does evoke strange feelings in all of us as all of us are battling with the same question seeing so many people in the friends and family circle go away. Many death rituals in Hinduism and other religions again seem to suggest some form of existence of your loved one, after death.

Now let us get to what can the current advances in AGI help Harding if he is still around in a different form!

What am I, for any one human being? It is the collection of experiences, interactions, and knowledge accumulated over the years since birth. With such advances in GPUs, quantum computing, and neural networks, can we take a backup of our physical brain and load it in an AGI program? Like a database backup taken periodically and restored when the production database becomes unusable? We are already freezing eggs and sperm to propagate our genes after we die biologically. We can have a full genome sequence of every human being soon enough. Why not a copy of “I” in digital form and the ability to give the same interactive responses to external chats or video/audio inputs? Friends & Family can interact with the AGI Person and hope to get the expected response as if the person were alive.

Look at real-life benefits. If we can preserve the knowledge and experiences of Einstein, Stephen Hawking, and other geniuses, we can do a lot more scientific breakthroughs.

Who knows what will happen when our AGI model “I“ and the Soul “I” meet and talk? I will let you ponder this and end my Blog here.

AI & Philosophy – Are We One Person Or One Personality?

Preface: This blog is part of a series of blogs based on short essays compiled in the book “The Minds I” by Douglas R Hofstadter and Daniel C Dennett 1981 ( DH and DC)

The short essay called “ Borges and I ” ( really short, just one page ) is written by Jorge Luis Borges ( 1899 – 1896) from Argentina. He wrote this article in 1962. More than 60 years ago.

Borges became very famous in the literary circles globally with his publications translated in many languages and this created a very strange effect on him. He saw his public personality and private personality as two different persons. When he talks about himself he uses third-person language He thinks little by little everything from the private person is going into the public person and soon the private person will be nothing. He even concludes his essay with this statement, “I do not know which of us has written this essay”.

In the reflection section, DH and DC, discuss the first person /third person issues. They give the example of you waiting in a departmental store line and seeing CCTV cameras all around. You notice a person getting his pockets picked up in the CCTV image. As you raise your hand in astonishment seeing the act, you see the CCTV victim also raising his hand and suddenly you realize that the person whose pocket is getting picked is you. The event has changed from a third person to the first person.

They also talk about a Robot called Shakey built by SRI International in California. Shakey can move about in the room avoiding obstacles and a computer program is controlling the robot and has the current coordinates of the robot. Shakey reaches the middle of the room and you are asked to translate into English the computer program’s representation of Shakey’s co-ordinates. What will you say? “Shakey is in the middle of the room” or “I am in the middle of the room”.

Such profound thoughts and deep questions in a few pages.

Let us see if we can relate these ideas and thoughts to our AGI journey of 2025. All of us present a different personality in various roles we play. Our workspace personality is different; our religious personality when visiting worship places; our parental personality, our romantic personality with spouse/partners, our football game buddies and poker buddies’ personality and last but not the least our social media personality. These days we can also add your “Avtar” personality.

What do we say on social media? Who do you follow? How much do you post? What blogs do you write? what causes you support? Almost all the personalization techniques using AI assume that there is one personality of you i.e. your public pronouncements in social media, as they do not have access to your brain to extract the other personality traits. So, they take what they can i.e. social media personality and create a AGI model of you. Will the model ever be perfect in representing you, even if use the biggest LLM AGI models? How is the AGI model built on this premise better than the fictitious Avtar models created by each of us voluntarily? A very valid question for all of us to ponder after 6 decades of “ Borges and I”.

Regarding the Shakey the robot question, this is at the root of the Human Robot relationship. There are many essays in the book which deal with this problem and we will be discussing these in much greater detail in future blogs. For now, I will leave you with a few thoughts to keep your interest flowing

The first answer “ Shakey is in the middle of the room” assumes that we think, Shakey is not a person with human skills but a machine with human-like skills and Shakey came to the middle of the room only due to someone giving the command for it to come to the spot via the computer program.

The second answer “ I am in the middle of the room” assumes that Shakey is an individual as much like you and I and he/she decided to come to this middle spot Many robots of today find the best spot in the room for maximum light, maximum coverage view, etc. and find their own optimum spots like any of us. In this case, shall we vote for the answer no 2?

Hope the first story generated some interest in this fascinating topic and we will continue to interact through this series of Blogs.

L Ravichandran