I’ve just learned about something called the Centre for the Study of Apparent Selves, which is a name worthy of an elaborate philosophical joke, but (apparently) it turns out to be real, or semi-real, and is in part a collaboration between Michael Levin the celebrity biologist from Tufts University, and a Nepalese connection whose institutional base so far eludes me (the Centre is described as located in Nepal).
It was started with Templeton Foundation seed money during Covid, and is keen on exploring the interaction between Buddhism and AI. (Templeton specializes in the intersection between science and religion.) I’ve long noticed the odd sympathy that western cognitive reductionists sometimes have for Buddhist relativism. The two philosophies have different foundations (“materialism” versus “emptiness”). I suppose that reductionists and eliminativists are curious about this distant philosophical tradition which also somehow arrived at the conclusion that the mind is less than fully real; also the sentiments and outlooks of Buddhism are often something that a humanist atheist can agree with.
Just to be clear about the philosophical difference, western materialism is based on the idea that material substance is the fundamental reality, whereas Buddhism says there is no independent substance anywhere, in mind or matter, only interdependent relative existences. Levin’s own philosophy of mind seems to be a version of emergence (mind emerges from complex matter), though he also appeals to Platonism somehow (maybe it’s a kind of Aristotelian emergence, in which emergence consists of a Platonic form being instantiated in matter).
I see no sign that they had anything to do with the recent AI summit in India, in which India joined the American “Pax Silica”, an initiative with the dual purpose of developing supply chains (e.g. for rare earth metals) independent of the Chinese veto, and of getting everyone to use the American-approved technology stack (from chips to AI models). (The name is clearly a play on Pax Sinica.) There was also a non-binding “Delhi AI Declaration”, for which even China was a signatory, which is about “AI for All” rather than AI safety…
But on its website, the Center for Study of Apparent Selves says that they are interested in “Buddhist and Vedic” perspectives (Vedic meaning the pure or original Hinduism based on the Veda scriptures). So they do offer a philosophical counterpoint to this diplomatic and geopolitical union.
I’ve just learned about something called the Centre for the Study of Apparent Selves, which is a name worthy of an elaborate philosophical joke, but (apparently) it turns out to be real, or semi-real, and is in part a collaboration between Michael Levin the celebrity biologist from Tufts University, and a Nepalese connection whose institutional base so far eludes me (the Centre is described as located in Nepal).
It was started with Templeton Foundation seed money during Covid, and is keen on exploring the interaction between Buddhism and AI. (Templeton specializes in the intersection between science and religion.) I’ve long noticed the odd sympathy that western cognitive reductionists sometimes have for Buddhist relativism. The two philosophies have different foundations (“materialism” versus “emptiness”). I suppose that reductionists and eliminativists are curious about this distant philosophical tradition which also somehow arrived at the conclusion that the mind is less than fully real; also the sentiments and outlooks of Buddhism are often something that a humanist atheist can agree with.
Just to be clear about the philosophical difference, western materialism is based on the idea that material substance is the fundamental reality, whereas Buddhism says there is no independent substance anywhere, in mind or matter, only interdependent relative existences. Levin’s own philosophy of mind seems to be a version of emergence (mind emerges from complex matter), though he also appeals to Platonism somehow (maybe it’s a kind of Aristotelian emergence, in which emergence consists of a Platonic form being instantiated in matter).
I see no sign that they had anything to do with the recent AI summit in India, in which India joined the American “Pax Silica”, an initiative with the dual purpose of developing supply chains (e.g. for rare earth metals) independent of the Chinese veto, and of getting everyone to use the American-approved technology stack (from chips to AI models). (The name is clearly a play on Pax Sinica.) There was also a non-binding “Delhi AI Declaration”, for which even China was a signatory, which is about “AI for All” rather than AI safety…
But on its website, the Center for Study of Apparent Selves says that they are interested in “Buddhist and Vedic” perspectives (Vedic meaning the pure or original Hinduism based on the Veda scriptures). So they do offer a philosophical counterpoint to this diplomatic and geopolitical union.