To anthro is human. To deify, divine.
In Part One of this series I apologized in advance for suggesting we might view the energies around AI through the lenses of human Chakras. While unbridled projection of human qualities and attributes on non-human stuff is not always a great idea, sometimes it is helpful when it comes to communicating concepts. So let it be with this foray.
First let’s talk about knowledge and how it is recognized, acquired, and assembled. When Socrates said, “The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing”, we might wish to exercise a bit of existential humility when it comes to professing anything in the way of “we know.” How is it we know anything? Examining that question will almost always lead to Solipsism. Ask Alan Turing about that.
We humans have our Chakras. Depending on your own background and world-view, you may be an ardent supporter and believer in spiritual dimensions and in Chakra awareness and ritual practices, or you may be dismissive, with a pure material view of reality. Most of us fall somewhere within that continuum. Based on today’s search results, there is limited scientific evidence supporting the existence of Chakras as traditionally described in Eastern spiritual traditions, most likely because funding for such studies would not lead directly to bottom-line results. But some researchers have attempted to study Chakras from a scientific perspective with limited results.
- Electromagnetic emissions: Some studies have detected measurable electromagnetic emissions from areas of the body associated with chakra locations. However, the significance and meaning of these emissions is unclear.
- Anatomical correlations: A few studies have noted that chakra locations align with known nerve plexuses in the body. This suggests there may be some anatomical basis for chakra concepts, though more research is needed.
- Endocrine system links: Some researchers have proposed connections between chakras and the endocrine gland system, though this remains speculative.
- Subtle energy: Chakras are sometimes described as “energy transducers” for subtle energy in the body. However, subtle energy lacks clear scientific definition or measurement.
- Psychological aspects: Some researchers have proposed psychological and developmental theories related to chakras, viewing them as representations of psychological/emotional states rather than physical structures
.
Traditional texts like the Upanishads and Yoga Sutras describe the chakra system in detail, forming the foundation for chakra theory in many spiritual traditions. These ancient Sanskrit sources present chakras as subtle energy centers to be visualized and activated through specific yogic practices, rather than as fixed anatomical structures. The chakra system is prescriptive rather than descriptive, providing instructions for meditation and energy work aimed at spiritual development.
Many practitioners report subjective experiences related to chakras, such as feeling energy or tingling sensations at specific locations during meditation or bodywork. Some point to correlations between chakra locations and major nerve plexuses or endocrine glands in the body as potential evidence, though these anatomical correlations do not definitively prove the existence of chakras as energy centers.
Energy healing modalities like Reiki work with the chakra system, with practitioners claiming to sense and manipulate chakra energies. While these effects have not been scientifically verified, many people find the chakra framework useful for understanding mind-body-energy connections. Some view chakras as metaphors for stages of psychosocial development or aspects of consciousness, providing a psychological perspective on these ancient concepts.
It’s important to note that the psychological associations commonly attributed to specific chakras in modern Western literature are largely recent innovations, not found in traditional Sanskrit sources. The original chakra systems were more focused on spiritual practices and energetic transformations rather than psychological states. For many spiritual practitioners, direct intuitive or meditative experiences provide personal evidence of chakras, even if not scientifically measurable.
The chakra systems in Hinduism and Buddhism, while sharing some common roots, exhibit several key differences. Hindu traditions typically recognize 6-7 main chakras, whereas Buddhist systems often focus on 4-5 primary chakras, though variations exist in both religions. The purpose and focus of chakra work also differ; in Hinduism, chakras are often seen as energy centers to be awakened for spiritual development and kundalini awakening, while in Buddhism, especially Tibetan Buddhism, they are viewed more as junction points for energy channels used in specialized meditation and yogic practices.
Hindu chakra systems typically associate specific deities, mantras, and elaborate symbolism with each chakra, whereas Buddhist systems, while sometimes incorporating deities, generally have less emphasis on complex symbolism. Buddhist traditions, particularly Tibetan Buddhism, tend to view the chakra system as more fluid and practice-dependent, with the number and focus of chakras changing based on the specific technique being used. This contrasts with the more fixed nature of the Hindu chakra system.
The cultural context also differs, with Hindu chakra systems deeply embedded in Sanskrit language and Hindu cosmology, while Buddhist systems have evolved within their own distinct philosophical frameworks. In Buddhism, the three most important chakras are often considered to be the crown, throat, and heart, associated with body, speech, and mind respectively, which differs from the typical Hindu emphasis on all seven main chakras. Additionally, in Tibetan Buddhism, work with chakras is often reserved for advanced practitioners and requires initiation from a teacher, contrasting with the more widely accessible chakra concepts in modern Hindu-influenced spirituality. It’s important to note that both Hindu and Buddhist chakra systems have evolved over time and vary between different schools and lineages within each tradition.
The pursuit of knowledge is a multifaceted endeavor, with various paths leading to understanding and insight. While the scientific method stands as a cornerstone of modern inquiry, it is but one of many approaches to acquiring knowledge we humans have relied upon over time. Intuition, often described as a gut feeling or hunch, plays a significant role in how we navigate the world and make decisions. This innate sense of knowing without conscious reasoning can lead to rapid insights and creative breakthroughs, though it can also be prone to biases and errors.
Authority serves as another common source of knowledge, where we accept information from experts, teachers, or respected figures in various fields. This approach allows us to benefit from the accumulated wisdom and experience of others, but it requires careful consideration of the credibility and potential biases of these sources. Empiricism, closely related to the scientific method, relies on direct observation and sensory experience to gather information about the world. This approach forms the basis of much scientific inquiry but can be limited by the accuracy of our senses and the potential for observational biases.
Rationalism takes a different tack, using logical reasoning and deduction to arrive at conclusions. This method is particularly powerful in fields like mathematics and philosophy, where abstract concepts can be manipulated and analyzed through pure logic. However, rationalism may struggle when confronted with the complexities and nuances of real-world situations. Tenacity, or holding onto beliefs simply because they’ve always been accepted, represents another way of knowing. This approach can manifest in cultural traditions, superstitions, or habitual ways of thinking, providing stability but potentially perpetuating inaccurate or outdated ideas.
Social learning offers yet another path to knowledge, involving the acquisition of information through observation and imitation of others. This method is crucial for developing interpersonal skills, cultural competence, and learning social norms and behaviors.
Experiential learning, a hands-on approach involving direct experience and reflection, encompasses everything from on-the-job training to personal growth through life experiences. This method can be highly effective but may be limited by the range and depth of one’s experiences.
Each of these ways of knowing has its own strengths and limitations, and they often work in concert to shape our understanding of the world. By recognizing and appreciating these diverse approaches, we can develop a more nuanced and comprehensive view of knowledge acquisition. This understanding allows us to draw upon multiple methods as needed, combining intuition with empirical observation, rational analysis with social learning, and authoritative guidance with personal experience to navigate the complex landscape of human knowledge and understanding.
Carlos Castaneda’s book “The Teachings of Don Juan: A Yaqui Way of Knowledge” describes the author’s experiences learning from don Juan Matus, a Yaqui shaman. The book presents a system of knowledge and practices that Castaneda claims to be the “Yaqui way of knowledge.” Key elements include:
- The use of psychoactive plants as a means to access non-ordinary reality. Specifically, the book mentions experiences with peyote (referred to as “Mescalito”), datura inoxia (called “yerba del diablo” or Devil’s Weed), and a smoke mixture containing Psilocybe mexicana (called “humito” or little smoke).
- Encounters with spiritual entities or forces. Castaneda describes meeting Mescalito, a teaching spirit said to inhabit peyote plants.
- Practices for altering perception and consciousness. These include techniques for “seeing,” divination using lizards, and methods for “flying” or out-of-body experiences.
- A worldview that recognizes multiple realities. Castaneda introduces the concept of “non-ordinary reality” to describe the altered states of consciousness achieved through don Juan’s teachings.
- The goal of becoming a “man of knowledge.” This involves a spiritual and perceptual transformation through the practices and experiences described.
- The importance of finding and following paths “with heart.” Don Juan emphasizes the significance of pursuing meaningful and personally resonant ways of living and learning.
It’s worth noting that while Castaneda presented this as anthropological research, the book’s authenticity has been widely questioned, and many now consider it a work of fiction rather than a factual account of Yaqui practices. So why bother with it. In order to compare with the more traditional, chakra-centric belief systems.
In contrast, traditional chakra teachings, rooted in Hindu and yogic traditions, present a more structured and internally-focused system. Chakras are understood as energy centers within the subtle body, each associated with specific physical, emotional, and spiritual aspects of being. The practice involves gradually opening and balancing these energy centers through meditation, yoga, and other spiritual practices, without the use of psychoactive substances.
The Yaqui way appears more shamanic in nature, involving external aids and guides (like don Juan) to facilitate dramatic shifts in consciousness. It emphasizes the importance of personal power, fearlessness, and the ability to navigate between different realities. The chakra system, on the other hand, is more focused on gradual, internal development and the harmonization of various aspects of one’s being.
While both systems acknowledge multiple levels of reality or consciousness, they approach them differently. The Yaqui way seems to advocate for direct confrontation with these alternate realities, often in unpredictable and challenging ways. Chakra work typically involves a more controlled and systematic exploration of different states of consciousness.
In essence, the Yaqui way as described by Castaneda presents a more radical, externally-driven path to knowledge, while traditional chakra teachings offer a more gradual, internally-focused approach to spiritual development and self-understanding.
The ‘externally-driven’ part is worth noting. As with the scientific method and, generally speaking, with all shamanic systems. In essence, while Castaneda’s approach and other externally-driven belief systems like the scientific method all seek knowledge through external experiences or observations, they differ significantly in their methodologies, goals, and standards of evidence. Castaneda’s method emphasizes personal transformation through extraordinary experiences, while the scientific method aims for objective, verifiable knowledge that can be shared and built upon by the broader scientific community.
Internally-driven belief systems, including chakra-based traditions, rationalism, and similar approaches, share a focus on internal processes and personal insight as primary sources of knowledge and understanding. However, they differ significantly in their methodologies and underlying assumptions.
Chakra-based traditions, rooted in Hindu and yogic practices, emphasize the exploration of subtle energy centers within the body. These systems propose that by working with these internal energy points, one can gain spiritual insight and achieve personal transformation. The approach is highly experiential, relying on meditation, visualization, and various physical practices to access and balance these energy centers.
However, it’s important to note that the popular Western understanding of chakras often differs significantly from traditional teachings. As highlighted in the search results, many common beliefs about chakras, such as their association with specific psychological states or colors, are modern Western innovations rather than part of the original Sanskrit sources. Traditional chakra practices were more focused on specific visualizations and mantras for spiritual purposes, rather than the psychological associations commonly found in New Age literature.
Rationalism, on the other hand, is a philosophical approach that emphasizes reason and logic as the primary sources of knowledge and truth. Unlike chakra-based systems, rationalism doesn’t rely on physical or energetic experiences but instead on abstract thinking and logical deduction. Rationalists believe that certain truths can be known independently of sensory experience, through the application of reason alone.
Both approaches are internally-driven in the sense that they prioritize internal processes over external observations. However, they differ significantly in their methods and what they consider valid sources of knowledge. Chakra-based practices value subjective experiences and intuitive insights, while rationalism values logical consistency and abstract reasoning.
Other internally-driven approaches might include certain forms of meditation, introspective psychology, and phenomenology. These methods all share a focus on examining one’s own thoughts, feelings, and experiences as a path to understanding.
It’s worth noting that while these approaches are internally-driven, they’re not necessarily isolated from external influences. For example, chakra practices often involve guidance from teachers or texts, and rationalism, while focused on internal logical processes, often engages with ideas and arguments from other thinkers.
In comparing these approaches, it’s important to recognize that they serve different purposes and operate under different assumptions about the nature of reality and knowledge. Chakra-based practices aim for spiritual growth and energetic balance, while rationalism seeks logical truths and understanding. Each approach has its strengths and limitations, and many people find value in combining multiple approaches to gain a more comprehensive understanding of themselves and the world.
So, having now established the foundation, Part three of this series will provide the essential patterns we can expect to witness as the 7 Chakras of AI metaphorically unfold.
To save Science, an equally daring step will be needed.” This parallel deserves deeper exploration, as it cuts to the heart of how we might preserve the integrity of scientific inquiry in an age of increasing politicization.
In both cases – anthropomorphizing AI and comparing spiritual concepts to technology – we are engaging in acts of metaphorical thinking. This is a fundamental human trait, our ability to understand one domain in terms of another. It’s a powerful cognitive tool, but one that must be wielded with awareness and respect for the limitations of any analogy.
So my 
ChatGPT and similar AI models have played a significant role in expanding the expectations for human creativity, both for good and evil. Rather than fearing their potential and demand government regulation, or pop the champagne corks to celebrate the dawn of an new age of enlightenment, we should embrace them tools that might amplify our creative abilities and open up new avenues for exploration, with an eye on practical use cases. By leveraging the power of AI in collaboration with human ingenuity, we just might shape a future where technology and creativity coexist harmoniously, enhancing our collective creative potential while avoiding the darkest of our angels. 
Such systems enable thousands of artisans, creators, and neophytes to quickly imagine and produce thousands of images from a collection of but a few words.
Elevator operators, pin setters at bowling alleys, switchboard operators, cashiers, travel agents, many bank tellers, factory workers, warehouse workers…all these and more have either been eliminated entirely or reduced to a fraction of the workforce they once were compared to previous times. All eliminated by technology and automation, empowered and made possible by software. No job is safe. Were it not so, we would not have such common tools as word processors, reservation systems and online calendars today, the emergence of which outdated the professional aspirations of many the secretary when many of the daily tasks and skills were made obsolete by inventions such as those created by 
But here we are: on the one hand, huge investments into AI in recent years, contrasted to relatively little to show for it if deployment numbers are to be believed. 
One of my pet peeves is real-time coding tests during job interviews. I find the entire concept to be not only counter-productive but also demeaning and offensive. Some might argue that asking a software developer to write code from some random pre-baked challenge is a valid measure of both skill and pressure-coping abilities. I vehemently disagree. Although programming superstars are to be lauded and highly compensated, in the final analysis, software development is a team sport. The Internet was invented to allow developers to share code and algorithms; websites were an afterthought. The entire concept of open source software presumes access to code for reference and innovation. One might as well employ drunk coding for selection criteria. Or coding while being chased by a barrel of hostile monkeys.
What does that encourage? The successful code monkey must learn quite well by rote. And if that is what your organization lauds, then you won’t need those code monkeys for long if at all. 
