『Let's think : By Dr.King, Swami Satyapriya』のカバーアート

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

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

著者： Dr.King Swami Satyapriya
無料で聴く

Explore science, philosophy, and spirituality for a deeper life. Get motivational insights and healthy thoughts for purposeful, better living.(C) Dr. King スピリチュアリティ ヒンズー教 哲学 社会科学 衛生・健康的な生活
エピソード
  • [English] The Wonder of Omkaara: Everything that Exists is Omkaara!

    [English] The Wonder of Omkaara: Everything that Exists is Omkaara!
    2026/07/03
    [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...
    続きを読む 一部表示
    1分未満
  • [English] Can AI Become a Threat to Humans?

    [English] Can AI Become a Threat to Humans?
    2026/06/27
    [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...
    続きを読む 一部表示
    1分未満
  • [English] Do AI Systems Really Possess Consciousness?

    [English] Do AI Systems Really Possess Consciousness?
    2026/06/20
    [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 ...
    続きを読む 一部表示
    1分未満
adbl_web_anon_alc_button_suppression_t1
まだレビューはありません