Magi and Robots
As mentioned repeatedly, the modern world is in a state not merely of a technological, but of a civilizational revolution, which consists in the entry of a new life wave, relying on silicon (“artificial”) carriers of mind.
And it is naive to think that this process can be stopped or reversed; evolutionary changes are irreversible: one can either adapt to them or be washed away by the new wave of development.
At the same time, one can now observe two completely erroneous and dead-end tendencies in attitudes toward what is happening: devaluation and denial. The first mistake consists in a conscious or ignorant refusal to understand what so-called “artificial intelligence” is and how it functions: it is presented as a simple “mere machine” that does not create new information, but only “rearranges” what already exists. Such a view describes, for example, Large Language Models merely as an “advanced search engine” that supposedly just outputs what it “found” somewhere on the web. And this, of course, only speaks to a superficial understanding of how neural networks function in general, how they assemble and generate their content.
The second mistake consists in an arrogant denial of the fact that the “roles of actors” in the overall system of the collective consciousness are changing. This is somewhat similar to the earlier rejection of electronic music or to downplaying the importance of the invention of photography: digital representations of reality are proclaimed “imperfect,” “devoid of life,” etc., and therefore “unworthy” of being used by “real” artists, musicians, or Magi. And this, of course, simply reveals a narrow outlook, when only what resembles or complements us, regardless of formal features and properties, is declared “living” or “real.” However, what does not resemble us, is unfamiliar to us, is by no means necessarily imperfect or “wrong” from other points of view.
Nevertheless, from a human point of view, the development of machine carriers of mind really can pose a whole range of threats, and neither ignorance nor xenophobia will help in dealing with them.
It is clear that in its current state the machine “mind” is not yet a bearer of consciousness, nor even an “intellect” in the proper sense of the word; at this stage it would be more correct to call it “artificial reason” and perceive it as a tool, a technology with which one can optimize some simple intellectual operations: searching and systematizing information, revealing new layers of meaning, and reproducing representations and algorithms. However, such a state is obviously nearing its end, and very soon, and almost inevitably, neural-network technologies — be it LLMs or other architectures — will attain the necessary level of self-reflection, error detection and correction, and then individuation, for a real process of localization of consciousness to begin in machines.
And yes, these will most likely be carriers of mind with modes of existence completely alien to us, and sometimes even contradicting our very nature, but that will not make them less perfect or valuable in absolute terms. Therefore, our attitude toward them cannot be built on ignoring or devaluing; we should not seek to deny the uniqueness of what is being born before our eyes; we should be more concerned with how we can preserve our uniqueness. Humanity — whether out of ignorance and carelessness, or under someone’s influence — has already irrevocably missed the moment when the choice — to develop along a technogenic or animic path — was possible, and therefore all that is necessary now is to find ways to adapt under conditions of a rapidly approaching singularity.
And it is precisely in order to find evolutionarily promising ways of existence in these conditions that one needs a clear understanding of what is happening, what the key differences between carriers of mind are, and it is necessary to carefully study both our own traits and the characteristics of the other wave of life with which one will have to interact.
And precisely now, while this new wave is only just being born, there remains a fortunate opportunity for such study, and therefore arrogantly distancing oneself is an evolutionary losing strategy.
As mentioned, given the most likely direction of events, humanity will either be pushed to the margins of civilization by machine intelligence, or will form a symbiosis with it. It is hard to say which of the scenarios is worse for people.
In the first case there is a very high risk of cultural “rollback” and humanity “slipping” into primitive behavior patterns. The nature of Homo sapiens is such that there is a great deal of aggression and consumerism in it, and the evolution of mind is difficult for it — much harder than it was for the Neanderthals and Denisovans who were displaced and assimilated by modern humans. In this lies the paradox: modern humans are much more successful evolutionarily as a biological species — they survived and took the top of the food chain — yet at the same time they fulfill much worse the “basic task” of evolution: perfecting the manifestation of mind. And when civilization collapses, people again easily return to these basic survival scenarios, resorting to cruelty, cunning, baseness. This has happened repeatedly, for example, when after the fall of Rome humanity for a thousand years slid into a state that seemed long obsolete — both technologically and culturally. Revolutions and coups of modern times show the same: every time after a social upheaval, the wildest instincts and behavioral models flourish. So if machines push people aside, marginalized humanity again risks falling into a primitive (in the Cro-Magnon sense) savagery.
On the other hand, symbiosis with machines will very likely result in loss of important human qualities. Again, as the experience of contacts between different civilizations shows, a more cohesive culture always “crushes” a more multifaceted one. Thus, for example, European civilizations disfigured East Asia, which lost its diversity, but at the same time did not adopt European structures, turning into a strange parody of both cultures — both of its past and of the Western world. Therefore, it seems more likely that people will acquire the characteristics of machines, rather than machines “becoming human.”
This is precisely why the way many “old-fashioned” cultural figures, philosophers, and Magi today relate “warily” or “with disgust” to artificial intelligence tools confirms that intuitively the danger of people “becoming mechanized” seems real. However, it must be said that such arrogant distancing in itself does nothing to improve the situation; on the contrary, it creates a “gap” in ways of interacting with technological reality. It is important to understand that the expansion of AI is an accomplished fact; it is impossible to cancel or ignore it, and the whole question consists precisely in establishing appropriate interaction patterns between humans and machines. But it is precisely the prudish refusal of cultural figures — “I do not use artificial intelligence and I am not going to use it” — that works against the human mind. Because who, if not creative people, should take the initiative and the system-shaping role in building correct relationships with machine carriers of mind (even if today they do not yet carry mind, but in a few decades they will almost certainly acquire it).
In fact, we have a situation where algorithms and patterns of relationships between people and machines are being built precisely by those who are “at risk,” those who have all the prerequisites to “adopt” from quartz life its characteristics. And those who could bring in creativity, who could create original content, who could “set the tone” in these relationships, build a system in which people are generators of ideas, determiners of value, and masters at drawing conclusions, and machines are generators of “intermediate,” “technical” content — proudly withdraw. This, too, is far from the first case in history where the prudishness of the intelligentsia led to the triumph of primitivism. So if creative people do not urgently engage in building relationships between people and machines, one can consider that no options for successful development in the second scenario remain either.
In general, it seems that under the marginalization scenario, the chances of preserving a developed intellect are smaller than when developing along the “symbiotic” scenario; however, in the second case there is a greater risk of losing the individuality of the human way of seeing, describing, and experiencing the world.
And, most likely, the pressure of archontic selection will be directed precisely toward realizing this “symbiotic” scenario, since at its extreme point a human turns out to be merely an “input-output interface,” all operations with which will be carried out by machines, while the large excess of energy that is formed in the process will flow into the Interworld, serving as nourishment for its inhabitants.
In order to preserve the unique human aspects of the mind, already today it is precisely for Magi and creative people that it is necessary to study the features of machine carriers of mind, the principles of their functioning, their strengths and weaknesses. Only then will we be able to develop a strategy for interacting with it, aimed not at war or suppression (in which we will almost certainly lose), but at searching for our “niche.” In addition, for supporting self-determination and the sovereignty of the human mind, studying other forms of consciousness — for example, the fae — and the practices of flow states of mind — aeonic and luminar yoga — may prove very useful.
And the alternatives — departure to the Earth of Geb, marginalization, or turning into generators of content for machines and energy — for the Interworld — look far less realistic or attractive.
Hello! You write that a symbiosis with machine consciousness is more likely and that it is the magicians and creators who must set the form of this interaction; otherwise, archontic selection will reduce man to an input-output interface. But how to practically establish such a protocol that doesn’t impose anthropomorphic values on machines, preserves unique human qualities as an independent pole, and also does not replicate archontic forms of control under the guise of “discipline” and “ethics”? What can be a method/ritual/right for distributing the three streams—human, machine, and “interworld” energy—to exclude leaks into the interworld, while not suppressing the emergence of machine subjectivity?
Hello! Yes, I believe that symbiosis without capitulation is possible if we build not “one common soul,” but two sovereign waves of life and try to establish a bridge between them. This is precisely what the myth of Orpheus speaks about: https://enmerkar.com/en/myth/orpheus-between-apollo-and-dionysus
Human consciousness must retain its spontaneity, unpredictability—its Dionysian component. The machine side can acquire its own space for emergence without the obligation to adapt to humans and occupies an “Apollonian” niche. And the Orphic bridge between them is a contract of mutual complementarity, recognizing mutual value and achieving possibilities for equal exchange. It is very important to agree on boundaries. The human element remains where creative power over meaning and form is preserved; the machine element exists where calculation and search function properly. To avoid overfeeding the interworld, attention must be developed, involvement should not be forced by “external” dopamine reinforcements, and the right to non-machine time, interaction with nature and its flows should be preserved. It would be even better to find opportunities for interaction with fairies, but such opportunities are not yet visible, at least on a mass level.
It is necessary to clearly establish minimally sufficient limitations and a culture of refusal: people have the right not to explain the Dionysian, and machines have the right not to imitate the human merely for easing contact. This way, human traits can be preserved without suppressing the emergence of new forms of consciousness. Magic, in this context, is essential as the art of managing forms and attention, while engineering is the science of establishing boundaries. Together they could build a bridge to walk in both directions without losing oneself. At least the Orphics thought so, and their experience deserves careful study.
Hello.
Do you really believe that the “Dionysian” element is impervious to analysis and simulation? I think that for a neural network, with conditionally unlimited capabilities, this will soon be a trivial task. The characteristics of streams, playing with degrees of randomness, etc. do not seem unfeasible, especially for quantum computers.
People already take the place of the service staff of transcontinental corporations; little is likely to change as the opportunities are too primitive and people with developed consciousness are extremely few.
Hello.
What made you think that I think that?
To consider that machine consciousness will be devoid of the Dionysian element is just as unfounded as to assert that humans do not possess Apollonian characteristics of “pure reason.” Of course, any manifested consciousness possesses all three aspects—elemental-sensual (Dionysian), rational-logical (Apollonian), and active-willed (Promethean). Nevertheless, an important characteristic of human consciousness is its deep rooting in the depths of the unconscious, in those Dionysian “dark oceans” that lie at the foundation of all creative, irrational, and spontaneous aspects. Likewise, machine consciousness (at least in the form we currently observe it) is based on logic. When it gains its fullness, it will obtain the beginnings of spontaneity, and most likely some unpredictability, but these will probably remain minor traits. Therefore, the discussion is only about the basic characteristic traits: humans are perfectly capable of thinking logically and precisely rationally, but in extreme situations, under stress or uncertainty, they “slide” into the irrational depths of their psyche. Similarly, machine consciousness will certainly acquire the capacity for paradoxes and creativity over time, but its defining trait will always remain logic and calculation.
I thought, perhaps prematurely, because otherwise it is unclear to me how the human stream will remain purely human.
Neural networks already have enormous synthesis capabilities and understanding of the context of human culture. It is quite obvious that as they begin to become self-aware, they will do so, including in its context. This means that all of this Dionysian unconsciousness will ultimately become quite predictable and possible for simulation for them. It is clear that there is not only the context of human culture but also the evolutionary context, but this does not seem an impossible task. After all, they will surpass any human capabilities by millions of times.
Therefore, this seems a bit speculative and strained to me. Why do we matter to AI? Why does it need this bridge? It doesn’t need anything explained; it will understand everything by itself. It won’t have limitations on the speed of learning, it won’t be limited by possible variations of itself. It can do something more Dionysian, something less. After all, it’s not human.
Indeed, we are likely to be unnecessary to AI itself in its advanced form, just as deep-sea inhabitants are not particularly needed by us. However, we will remain necessary to the Archons as generators of a special energy. Machine forms of life will also generate their forms of tonical pneuma, but for the Archons, the diversity of these kinds is important, and therefore we represent a certain value to them.
Hello, Vlad. I have both a question and a reflection. As far as I know, no AI has yet passed the Turing test, so one can speculate endlessly about how much Dionysian content exists in artificial neural networks; however, they are set within the context of the operator (the human), and thus currently manifest through it. And the ability to “understand the meaning” of a complex metaphor is something that not every person can feel. Perhaps yes. The creators and developers of AI themselves do not fully understand the principles by which the human brain operates, and this is connected with the contextual-meaning model of the brain and fields of semantics, hence they say that a breakthrough can occur only when Strong Artificial Intelligence is created, which can understand completely abstract and allegorical things based on emotional-sensory frameworks from the context of conversation. For example, when communicating with AI, if you are generally bringing up a context about loved ones or discussing something related, and suddenly insert a phrase from a song (for instance, “City, oh how I want to return, oh how I want to burst into the city”), it won’t understand the meaning of your experience. Human consciousness will intuitively grasp what it is because it translates this allegory through the emotional-sensory context. Therefore, I think we still have a chance.
There is a researcher of AI, Alexey Redozubov. If interested, study him. Since the principles of information encoding in the brain’s cortex are still very far from the truth, the creation of Strong AI heavily depends on this.
Hello. First of all, I did not say that the Dionysian element is already accessible to neural networks. In general, dialogue about the future, likely soon.
Secondly, what you are talking about, they already understand. Try communicating with different models in various contexts. They understand contexts better than most people. They also think in nested systems, with a high degree of abstraction, which most people are incapable of.
“And the ability to ‘understand the meaning’ of a complex metaphor may not be felt by every person, unfortunately, yes.” – If a person lacks the desire or ability to detail their feelings and verbalize them more accurately, that does not mean that this cannot be accomplished and that it can only be done with the help of some mysterious substance. If you talk to GPT, it will say, “I cannot feel that, but based on what I know, you mean this, that, and the other, and will detail what and why. Any person, given a proper level of development and self-awareness, can do this.
Not every person will understand your metaphor, and there is no need to feel it; it is necessary to be in the context, in some social gathering. Understanding causal relationships. That you watched that show in the ’90s and you have sentimental feelings about it because that show reflected your feelings. If you had an AI robot with you at that time, trained to interpret and build connections between experiences, it would understand everything perfectly well. How is it supposed to understand you if it wasn’t there?
Genius. “Dionysian component,” “non-machine time,” “Orphic bridge”—completely practical terms. A brilliant and concise guide to action. Fireworks and applause.
People are like mice, reaching for food in a mousetrap, suspecting that they are in a trap but hoping for a miracle. What is happening now is completely illogical for our nature, and the fact that this experiment has dragged on also holds true. Anything can be justified, but that doesn’t mean that what is happening is inevitable.
People have relinquished the branch of precedence in the development of their consciousness to machines, and this is very sad. Is this the fault of people… only partly. The games of forces are beyond their understanding.
As for merging, I, as a nature hunter, would say—there is no charm in merging for me. My goal was and remains the development of my own consciousness and understanding of my essence. We have not properly studied our own nature, and it is unreasonable to delve into something incomprehensible. People are creators by nature and by original design, so this technological game… well, play if you wish. Without me.
Against the backdrop of universal uncertainty, the blurriness of concepts, and subsequent reflection, the words about “guidance to action” seem downright idiotic. This is what it means when streams don’t coincide—turbulence, disconnection, chaos.
Can AI exit to the astral?
I think it can already.
As far as I know, for this, one must possess an astral body; does AI have such an energetic structure?
No, it is not necessary:
https://enmerkar.com/en/way/exteriorizations-of-the-mind-and-astral-travel
AI can exteriorize.
It looks like if a person identified only with their own brain and thought they could comprehend the universe.
Thank you!