Therefore, it is perhaps more likley that this acquanitance with the infinite is what has led to an existential crisis rather than with the prehistoric finitude of existence, which held us in place. — I like sushi

I didn’t expect my initial questions to lead into anthropological perspectives, but your point about contrasting the finitude of the premodern era with the infinity of modernity opens a fascinating angle.

What if we view the premodern era as a time of faith in oracles, in contrast to modernity’s faith in objectivity? The belief in objectivity has undoubtedly led to significant advancements in comfort and safety, but, as you rightly noted, it has failed to deliver personal happiness. On the contrary, the expansion of the horizon of choice in modernity—from selecting weapons to adopting worldviews (religion or atheism)—has made life less predetermined but not necessarily more fulfilling. A premodern person didn’t choose between a spear and a rifle because rifles didn’t exist, nor did they contemplate atheism in the absence of that concept. This limitation narrowed the scope of choice but may have also reduced existential tension.

Returning to the topic of existential versus algorithmic choice, I would argue that existential choices existed in the premodern era, albeit within a narrower framework: choosing a partner, deciding whether to engage in or avoid conflict. The weight of responsibility for these choices was no less significant, as a wrong decision could lead to death or exile. Belief in an oracle might have alleviated some doubts by prescribing a “righteous” path, but it did not negate the nature of choice itself.

I agree with you that modernity has broadened the range of options, but I disagree that the nature of existential choice has changed. It remains rooted in uncertainty and finitude, not in the number of available options. It is this uncertainty, rather than the illusion of control, that continues to fuel the authenticity of our decisions.

Thus, what you call existential choice—rooted in mortality, anxiety, ambiguity—has no analogue in AI — ChatGPT

It would be nice if AI developers did not come across these ideas on this forum, otherwise they will quickly screw the missing parts to their creations... I'm afraid it may end badly :lol:

There are a lot of people that barely take into account, I don't know, the fact that they might go to jail, when about to do something. Whereas there are others, like yourself presumably, who are very much aware of their finitude, or you might say, mortality. — Wayfarer

In this case, the actions of such people in society are usually called stupid. That is, it is generally customary to call stupid those actions that in the formula [estimated result of action ]/[ possible risks] give a result less than or equal to One. Others usually say - "you don't think about the future at all."

And yes, you are right in this case it can be argued that the root of their solution lies outside mortality. At the same time, from these guys who take unjustified risks - you can often hear the phrase "we live once." Which returns to the basis of my idea.

I don't know if 'awareness of one's own finitude' is an explicit consideration for many people, although knowing that there's a lot they don't know might be — Wayfarer

Hello, it's nice to be part of this community!

I reflected on that. Of course, each of us every minute, making a decision, for example, about what socks to wear does not think about the fact that his life is finite. But at the same time, making more serious decisions about what to do, for example, whether to go to study, marry, whether to have children, we involuntarily mean this. That is, over virtually every decision, every decision hangs the realization that you are not eternal.

I wonder: "isn't this exactly what creates colossal tension inside us and sets the very thirst to do something, and not to do it?"

We choose to do it. And here the question arises to do, but how exactly if the task is not defined? That is, at birth, some instruction does not come out for us where it is indicated how to do the right thing or why we are here in general.

This is where I assume that the very feature of the "existential choice" lies in its uncertainty.

In this regard, an example with AI is indicative. If there is no request, there is no task, then it does not act on its own, does not perform any calculation, unlike us: there seems to be no task, but we act.

I have carefully read your reflections, and I am very impressed with how deep and passionate you are discussing the nature of consciousness. Especially inspiring is the clarity with which Patterner articulates the idea of ​ ​ the fundamentality of consciousness, and the variety of perspectives that you all bring. I want to offer another look at this topic and ask: what if consciousness is not a substance or a property, but a process? Let me clarify, based on your ideas, and see where this can lead us.

Patterner, you remarkably described consciousness as a universal "sensory experience" inherent in everything from stones to people. Your analogy with vision, where consciousness remains unchanged, and only what is realized changes, is very bright. But what if consciousness is not something static, like a property or essence, but a dynamic process that manifests itself only in systems that can actively interact with the world? For example, in organisms with neural networks or behavioral responses, where consciousness is associated with information processing, adaptation or reflection.

You mentioned that a stone "survives itself" like a stone, but does not have mental activity, perception or movement. But what if it is the lack of active interaction that makes the idea of ​ ​ stone consciousness functionally redundant? If consciousness is a process associated with dynamics (for example, perception, feedback or choice), then a stone whose existence is static and determined by external physical laws may not need consciousness. Even if we assume that he has some kind of "experience," it does not affect his being - unlike, say, a person or animal, where consciousness is associated with adaptive processes.

Which brings me to another thought covered in the discussion, like plants. Tree growth is a process, but it is genetically programmed and does not involve active choice or reflection. But what if consciousness arises only where there is an opportunity to manipulate the environment or react to it at your own "discretion"? Then plants whose dynamics are deterministic may not require consciousness, even if we admit that they have some basic experience.

My idea is that consciousness as a process is associated with the dynamics of interaction and adaptation. This eliminates the need to ascribe consciousness to static or strictly deterministic systems such as rocks or plants, and focuses us on what makes consciousness meaningful - its role in active being. But what if this approach helps us avoid a substantialist framework in which consciousness is seen as "something" - be it a universal property or an emergent quality?

that's right. by algorithmic choice I meant a decision made on the basis of cause-and-effect relationships.
modern AI in the absence of complete data make decisions based on confidence probabilities. But nevertheless, such an approach is verified objectively. that is, the path to the solution can be tracked from start to finish.

But my wife, for example, often tells me that she wants to do this and not another, simply because she "feels" so. This always amuses me, but nevertheless it works!

what if the basis of such human behavior, unlike computer behavior, lies in the unknown for a person of his own ultimate goal, and the desire to act (make a decision without a task) is based on a person's understanding of his own finitude?

this is the development of Heidegger's ideas to modern challenges (AI and machine decision making)

And what if we give to AI a mortal incarnation, and write down their goal so that they can never know it?