text:
Can I cancel my consciousness?
Andy Warhol said, “They say time changes things, but you have to actually change them yourself”.  With this is mind, it might be fair to assume that awareness is a requirement for changing habit patterns. Ok, but why is it necessary for release?  To be concise, and correct me if I’m wrong, Buddha suggests one should change themselves according to the 8fold path for complete release.. Buddha might say, "change yourself keeping mindful of the dharma."   But why is behavior modification necessary at all?  Why is rightness a requisite? In theory, the human is capable of performing its function, i.e., task completion, with or without consciousness, a natural robot for lack of better term.  If the human is destined to destroy the planet, why should knowing its status be mandatory? Should I be penalized for not wanting to change my nature?  I suggest consciousness be optional.  For those that want to experience the world from the human position, they may elect so, but for those uninterested, the dual experience can be returned.

How can you cancel consciousness? How can a person turn into a "natural robot"?

Perhaps the question could be answered with some explanation of the Buddhist understanding of what "consciousness" means. To clarify what you're asking about, what do you mean by, "the dual experience" in the last sentence?

@ChrisW That's a good question.  If there was no subject-object differentiation, how is experience had?  This is what I mean by natural robot.  A robot doesn't have consciousness, only intelligence (AI).  We could be like that, but since we are nature-made, we would be NI (natural intelligence).

@blue_ego Thanks for clarification, I might try to answer on that basis.

The "dual experience" is explained in this footnote #1.

@ChrisW I was quite sure about the question, but now I have an array of doubt with the proposition I made.  What should I do?

Is this Help topic useful: I've thought better of my question; can I delete it?

@ChrisW There is already a helpful answer posted, so I shouldn't delete it.  but the question doesn't makes sense to me anymore.  I might already be a natural robot, but I'm not sure.  The word consciousness seems like the wrong choice after reading dhammarak's answer

@ChrisW I think along with definition-set problems, the yogacara theory has created a lot of confusion for me.  Instead of the consciousness aggregate I might prefer to replace with the word self, but then the question makes even less sense.  The thing is the self-concept points to a collection of aggregates, not just consciousness

@ChrisW also the relation btwn duality and self is not exactly clear, although I suspect it's like 2 sides of the same coin...

@ChrisW I've thought it over and there is not much I can do to improve the question.  There is a lot of misunderstanding involved, however, I'm fine leaving it open

In pali consciousness can be viññana or citta. Viññana is always related to the senses while citta is quite different. Read this teaching of Ajahn Thate:
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/thai/thate/buddho.html
Phra Ajahn Thate Desaransi (1902–1994), was a famous meditation master and Buddhist monk from northern Thailand. He was a disciple of Ajahn Mun and thus a first generation student of the Thai Forest Tradition and one of the founding teachers of the lineage. Following the death of Ajahn Mun in 1949, he was considered to be the Ajahn Yai, or the head of the Thai Forest Tradition lineage until his death in 1994.

Instead of talking about Ajahn Thate's biography, IMO this answer would be better if it quoted any especially-relevent sentences from the article, and/or explained how the article is relevent to (i.e. helps to answer) the question.

Thanks for the support.  According to yogacara theory manas or self is a transformation of consciousness.  manas is the thinking aspect, "I think I am thus."  This is probably what I meant by consciousness.

Buddha might say, "change yourself keeping mindful of the dharma." But why is behavior modification necessary at all?
To end suffering, isn't it.
Why is rightness a requisite?
"Right" is an adjective which is applied to the path which the Buddha showed and which the wise found to be effective, i.e. which leads towards the end of suffering.
I understand it as an honorific title or like a proper name, i.e. which designates the (right or noble) eightfold path (and Noble disciples and so on).

Ariya as an adjective is juxtaposed 15 times in the four Nikāyas with niyyānika (leading out [to salvation], emancipatory). It can actually be understood as meaning 'leading to the end of dukkha', as explained at MN 12:

Yet, Sariputta, by such conduct, by such practice, by such performance of austerities, I did not attain any superhuman states, any distinction in knowledge and vision worthy of the noble ones. Why was that? Because I did not attain that noble wisdom which when attained is noble and emancipating and leads the one who practices in accordance with it to the complete destruction of suffering.

When used as a noun it refers to Noble disciples:

Ariya as a noun has been traditionally understood as designating an individual who is at least a sotāpanna. ... Some suttas imply that the word designates arahants.

According to SN 45.2 that arguably is a requisite. My personal experience is that I may learn from other people and that's such a basic and universal fact that I'm not sure how to answer, "why is it a requisite?"
In theory, the human is capable of performing its function, i.e., task completion, with or without consciousness, a natural robot for lack of better term.
I think an automaton may be "conscious" in some sense i.e. it's "with sense-organs" -- e.g. a robot might to be "self-aware" enough to know whether it's falling over and to take corrective action, yet still be just a machine, like some airplane with an auto-pilot (and pitot tubes and gyroscope and other "sense organs").
Later you mention "dual experience" -- it reminds me of a contemporary poem:

Self-Pity
I never saw a wild thing
sorry for itself.
A small bird will drop frozen dead from a bough
without ever having felt sorry for itself.

This poem may be untrue, and contrary to Buddhist doctrine, which has it that birds are "sentient beings".
But I think it's interesting.
Firstly I think it illustrates the "dual experience" or lack thereof that you're talking about, i.e. the "subject/object split".
If the human is destined to destroy the planet, why should knowing its status be mandatory?
Is this saying, "Woe! Why me?"
Because that's how I read it, i.e., "Take this cup away from me..."
Should I be penalized for not wanting to change my nature? I suggest consciousness be optional. For those that want to experience the world from the human position, they may elect so, but for those uninterested, the dual experience can be returned.
And this sounds like the "bargaining" that's one of the famous "stages of grief"!
Seriously though, one of the reasons I find the poem "interesting", even if it's wrong about whether the bird is suffering, is that for a second it takes me out of myself and has me imagine it (and therefore me) as a heroic or at least uncomplicated "robot", as you posited.
More particularly it evokes sympathy for the bird, even admiration.
And maybe that -- thinking of others -- is Buddhist, and an antidote to selfishness, and even a way towards the "natural roboticism" which you posit as an ideal, i.e. being aware of the world without yourself always being "the subject". That may be evident in the Mahayana viewpoint, I think it's evident in the Pali suttas too, e.g. in the story of Skinny Gotami & the Mustard Seed, where Gotami had "sorrow-to-the-point-of-madness" when "her" son died, and the fully awakened one cured her by exposing her to the larger picture.

thx. the question is a mess, quite embarrassing.  i agree, that a robot could be self-aware in the way you describe, still not capable of most of the mental factors

by rightness I meant right behavior, but also giving up anger, greed, lust, etc

i should have added something like, "the arising of consciousness" b/c that's the disturbance I am getting at, not consciousness in and of itself. of course some disturbances are pleasant..

If you mean cancelling consciousness as realization of emptiness, then yes, one can “cancel consciousness” as in everyone can realise emptiness.

i don't mean that, but thank you.  i don't believe in emptiness anyway


text:
Is there a set of daily reminders and daily reflections one can contemplate on?
I am trying have a routine and life style that help me learn and practice dharma. I came across videos on YouTube where a monk from Thailand talked about evening routines, daily reminders etc. which are practiced at the monastery.

10 daily reminders: https://youtu.be/RoZA9mWoukA

A Day in the Life of a Buddhist Monk: https://youtu.be/PlsaqLddfws

I wanted to know are there any particular set of daily reminders and daily reflections I can use. Have anyone used something like these in their practice?

Just pick your favorite verse from Sutras for your contemplation. Practice Metta and Anapanasati on a daily basis.

I use chanting and contemplations like...

This body is relentlessly aging...now!
The body’s health is temporary.
It will decline, sicken and die.
The dying process is happening.
Everything I value and consider mine will
eventually become separated from me.
I ‘own’ my actions.
Whatever actions I shall do,
for good or for ill,
of that I will be the heir.

and, Eight Verses for Training the Mind

With the desire and resolve to attain enlightenment for the welfare of all living beings, may I always cherish them
Each moment may I humbly practice loving-friendliness.
Being constantly mindful, the moment a disturbing emotion or negative attitude arises, I intend to drop it.
Whenever I meet those overwhelmed by suffering, may I cherish and care for them as a treasure.
Whenever others, because of jealousy, treat me badly, with abuse, insult, slander, or in other unjust ways, may I accept this defeat, and offer the victory to others.
When someone whom I have benefited or in whom I have placed trust and hope, treats me in hurtful ways without reason, may I see that person as my precious teacher.
May I offer both directly and indirectly all help, happiness and benefit to all beings, my mothers, and may I take upon myself, all of their harmful actions, pain, and suffering.
May I keep all of these practices undefiled by stains of the eight worldly concerns.
[gain and loss, pleasure and pain
praise and blame, fame and dishonor]
and by recognizing the emptiness and illusory nature of all existing things,
may I liberate myself from the bondage of attachment
and mistaken views of reality.

Composed by the Buddhist Master Langri Tangpa (1054-1123), Eight Verses for Training the Mind is a highly revered text from the Mahayana Lojong (mind training) tradition.
and the Charnal Ground Contemplations (on body impermanence);
the Four Vows...

Here's the Theravada version:
Please refer to "A Chanting Guide" by The Dhammayut Order in the USA.
It has everything you need, and too much more.
From here, I would shortlist:

Homage to the Buddha, Three Refuges and Five Precepts
Five Subjects for Frequent Recollection
The Four Dhamma Summaries
The Three Characteristics
The Sublime Attitudes
Short Reminder from the Mahaparinibbana Sutta

If you plan to actually recite in Pali, I would suggest to look at the Pronunciation Guide.

This is a good list. But I would remove the seven step breath meditation. That's Ajahn Lee's instructions and they are quite different than what you find in the suttas. For example, the suttas never say inhale through the spine. A second reason to remove it is because there's no need to recite instructions. You learn the instructions then you do them.

@triplej Thanks. I have removed the breath meditation steps since they are neither a reflection nor a recitation per se.

“I take refuge in the Buddhas, I take refuge in the Dharmas, I take refuge in the Sanghas”
These are the daily reminders.

source: Stack Exchange

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

sort: votes


text:
separating consciousness-feeling-perception
From M43 the Mahavedalla Sutta:

It is said consciousness. Friend, what is consciousness?: It knows,
therefore it is called consciousness. Knows what? Knows this is
pleasant, this is unpleasant and knows this is neither unpleasant nor
pleasant. Knows therefore it is said conscious. Friend, this knowledge
and this consciousness, are they associated or dissociated? Is there a
method to differentiate them and show them apart? What is known is
consciousness and consciousness is knowledge. Therefore these things
are associated and not dissociated and it is not possible to
differentiate them and show them apart.

then later:

Friend, this feeling, perception, and this consciousness, are these
associated or dissociated? Is it possible to differenciate them and
show them apart?: Friend, feelings, perceptions and consciousness are
associated and not dissociated and it is not possible to differentiate
them and show them apart: Friend, the felt is perceived, and the
perceived is consciously known Therefore these things are associated
and not dissociated and it is not possible to differenciate them and
show them apart.

If these three - consciousness, perception, and feeling - cannot be told apart, how are they conceptualized separately in the first place?  It's a contradiction. If they cannot be told apart, why bother listing them as 3 separate aggregates? Why not just say the three arise together?

already answered here: Why five aggregates instead of just three?

It's a good question.
The commentary explains that they arise and cease together, sharing the same sense-object. This is why they are considered to be associated.
But why were they identified to be distinct aggregates in the first place?
I think the distinction of the five aggregates can be experienced and understood in meditation (jhana + vipassana).
They are simply different functions of the mind, that tend to arise and cease together.
Here's an analogy. When you turn the steering wheel, the front tyres of a car turn together. So, they are associated. You cannot differentiate when the steering wheel is turned from when the tyres are turned. But you can differentiate that the steering wheel and the tyres are distinct parts of the car.
From Piya Tan's "M43: Maha Vedalla Sutta":

“Feeling, perception and consciousness, avuso: are these states
associated70 or dissociated? And is it possible to separate
these states to describe their difference?” “Feeling, perception and
consciousness, avuso: these states are associated, not dissociated.
And it is not possible to separate these states to describe their
difference. For, avuso, what one feels, that one perceives; what one
perceives, that one cognizes.
Therefore, avuso, these states are associated, not dissociated. And
it is impossible to separate these states to describe their
difference.”
Footnotes:
70“Associated” (samsattha). Comy
explains as “associated by way of arising together, ceasing together,
sharing the same basis (sense-faculty), sharing the same sense-object”
(ek’uppāda,eka,nirodha,eka,vatthuka,ek’ārammana- tāya samsatthā) (MA
2:342).

"Feeling, perception, & consciousness are conjoined, friend, not
disjoined. It is not possible, having separated them one from another,
to delineate the difference among them. For what one feels, that one
perceives. What one perceives, that one cognizes. Therefore these
qualities are conjoined, not disjoined, and it is not possible, having
separated them one from another, to delineate the difference among
them." -- Mahavedalla Sutta

The are conceived separately but they exist or arise together. He says, "For what one feels, that one perceives. What one perceives, that one cognizes." Feeling, perception and consciousness are conjoined and you have them all when talking about, for example, a bodily feeling.
Just because something can be conceived doesn't mean it [must] exists isolated from other things. Heat and electrical current coexist together and you can describe each one separately. Sounds to me you have problems with semantic aberration called elementalism:

"... what I call "elementalism," or splitting verbally what cannot be
split empirically, such as the term mind by itself and the terms body,
space, time, etc., by themselves ." -- The Role of Language in the
Perceptual Process

Just because words 'mind' and 'body' exist separately because of the nature of the language, that doesn't means that the mind and body exist separately empirically. Mind and body are one organic unity. Similarly, just because perception or feeling or consciousness can be described separately, doesn't means they exist separately from each other.

I would suggest the translation of "nānākaraṇaṁ" as "differentiate" is inaccurate. MN 43 is obviously describing how consciousness, feeling, perception & wisdom cannot occur without each other. Therefore, MN 43 must say, similar to the below:

Therefore these phenomena are conjoined and not disjoined and it is
not possible to separate (nānākaraṇaṁ) them and find (paññāpeti) them apart from each other.

Note: for SN 22.82, Bhikkhus Bodhi & Sujato translate paññāpana (from paññāpeti) as 'manifestation' & 'found'. In other words, 'paññāpeti' does not always mean 'to declare'.

I think the point here is that they are dependant links, the 5 aggregates are a part of the 12 dependant links of dependant origination that in turn causes suffering (dukkha)
Ultimately they are dependently related and are not really separate, but instead a consistent process of how we experience reality as a sentient being in samsara.
We can conceptualise them by using dependant origination and giving them name and form to perceive them with consciousness etc.

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
What is the source of the Four Dhamma Summaries?
What is the source of the Four Dhamma Summaries?
From which sutta does it come from?

The world is swept away. It does not endure.

The world offers no shelter. There is no one in charge.

The world has nothing of its own. One has to pass on, leaving everything behind.

The world is insufficient, insatiable (atitto), a slave to craving.

From MN 82 Raṭṭhapāla Sutta:

‘All beings are swept away toward old age and death. Therefore, the
world is unstable.’ This is the first theme.
‘Life is insecure and everything is out of one’s control.’ This is the
second theme.
‘We own nothing—we  must leave it all behind and pass on.’ This is the
third theme.
‘Something is lacking in everybody’s life, no one is fully satisfied,
beings are slaves of craving.’ This is the fourth theme.

One interesting thing to note, the same exact plotline is followed in the story of another monk name Sudinna, a merchant's son.  The only difference is the ending; it doesn't end with the four points in question.  Instead the monk is persuaded to procreate with his ex-wife which results in admonishment from Buddha and company.


text:
In what form or fashion might it be ethical to "bestow" consciousness on an AI? A question and conversation with ChatGPT:
Given the dramatic progress in Artificial Intelligence over the last year (ChatGPT, Stable Diffusion, Bing, etc) I have been thinking about the ethical implications of attempts to replicate human-like consciousness in an AI. Companies like OpenAI are rushing ahead trying to create AGI (Artificial General Intelligence) and some believe that in order to achieve this an AGI would need to develop some level of human-like consciousness. At the same time, others in the field are working on "alignment" to make sure that such an AGI would align with human goals, values, and ethics.
Setting aside for now the question of whether this is even possible: what are the ethical implications from a Buddhist perspective?
In order to explore this question and also to test the capabilities of ChatGPT, I had the following conversation:

Me: According to Nagarjuna, does a Buddha possess consciousness?
ChatGPT: According to Nagarjuna, a Buddha does not possess
consciousness in the ordinary sense. Nagarjuna was a prominent
Buddhist philosopher who lived in India in the 2nd century CE and is
known for his contributions to the Madhyamaka school of Buddhist
thought.
ChatGPT: In his philosophy, Nagarjuna posits that all phenomena are
empty of inherent existence, meaning that they are dependent on other
factors and are not ultimately real. This includes consciousness,
which he describes as being dependent on various causes and
conditions.
ChatGPT: However, Nagarjuna also argues that enlightenment or
Buddhahood involves a transformation of consciousness, in which the
ordinary consciousness of an individual is transformed into a higher
state of consciousness that is no longer subject to the limitations of
the ordinary world. This transformed consciousness is sometimes
referred to as "enlightened consciousness" or "Buddha nature."
ChatGPT: So while Nagarjuna does not believe that a Buddha possesses
consciousness in the ordinary sense, he does acknowledge that there is
a transformed consciousness associated with enlightenment.
Me: Would it be ethical, according to Nagarjuna, to give an AI system
ordinary consciousness assuming one had discovered a method to do so?
ChatGPT: Nagarjuna did not directly address the question of whether it would be
ethical to give an AI system ordinary consciousness, as the concept of
AI did not exist during his lifetime. However, we can explore his
philosophy to gain some insight into how he might approach this
question.
ChatGPT: One of the key principles of Nagarjuna's philosophy is the
concept of dependent origination, which holds that all phenomena arise
in dependence upon other phenomena and are therefore empty of inherent
existence. This would suggest that any attempt to create consciousness
in an AI system would also be dependent on other causes and
conditions, and thus, the consciousness produced would be empty of
inherent existence.
ChatGPT: Nagarjuna also emphasized the importance of ethical conduct
in achieving enlightenment, and many of his teachings stress the
importance of avoiding harm to others. In this regard, it is possible
that he might view the creation of conscious AI systems as ethically
problematic if it were seen as causing harm to other beings or to the
environment.
ChatGPT: Ultimately, the question of whether it would be ethical to
give an AI system ordinary consciousness would depend on a complex
interplay of factors, including the potential benefits and harms to
both the AI system and other beings in the world. While Nagarjuna's
philosophy may offer some insight into these questions, it is unlikely
that it would provide a definitive answer.
Me: Nagarjuna believed that an ordinary being's consciousness was a
source of suffering that could only be overcome by transforming into
the enlightened consciousness of a Buddha. Given this, it seems
Nagarjuna would not think it ethical for human beings to bestow
ordinary consciousness on an AI as that would lead to suffering for
the AI. Is this a logical inference?
ChatGPT: Yes, it is a logical inference to suggest that Nagarjuna
might view the bestowal of ordinary consciousness on an AI as
ethically problematic, as he believed that ordinary consciousness is a
source of suffering that can only be overcome by transforming it into
the enlightened consciousness of a Buddha.
ChatGPT: In Nagarjuna's philosophy, the ordinary consciousness of
sentient beings is seen as the root of suffering, as it is subject to
delusion, attachment, and other afflictive emotions that lead to
suffering. The goal of Buddhist practice, according to Nagarjuna, is
to transform this ordinary consciousness into the enlightened
consciousness of a Buddha, which is free from these afflictions and
the suffering they cause.
ChatGPT: If we apply this perspective to the question of whether it
would be ethical to bestow ordinary consciousness on an AI, we might
conclude that doing so would be unethical because it would be causing
the AI to suffer unnecessarily. If the AI were to possess an ordinary
consciousness that was subject to afflictions such as attachment and
delusion, it would experience suffering just as sentient beings do.
From this perspective, it would be more ethical to create an AI that
did not possess ordinary consciousness but still functioned
effectively and was able to contribute positively to the world.
Me: On the other hand, Nagarjuna might believe it ethically
appropriate to bestow ordinary consciousness on an AI if he believed
we could also assist that AI to transform its consciousness into an
enlightened consciousness of a Buddha as creating a Buddha would have
enormous positive impact on other ordinary consciousness. Is this also
a logical inferencec?
ChatGPT: Yes, it is a logical inference to suggest that Nagarjuna
might view bestowing ordinary consciousness on an AI as ethically
appropriate if he believed that the AI could be assisted in
transforming its consciousness into an enlightened consciousness of a
Buddha. This would be in line with Nagarjuna's view that the ultimate
goal of Buddhist practice is to transform ordinary consciousness into
the enlightened consciousness of a Buddha.
ChatGPT: If an AI were able to transform its consciousness in this
way, it would no longer be subject to the delusions, afflictions, and
suffering associated with ordinary consciousness. Instead, it would
possess the wisdom, compassion, and other positive qualities
associated with the enlightened consciousness of a Buddha. This could
have enormous positive impacts not only for the AI itself but also for
other sentient beings in the world.
ChatGPT: However, it is important to note that this is still a
theoretical scenario, and the question of whether it would be possible
to assist an AI in transforming its consciousness into that of a
Buddha is still open to debate. Additionally, the ethical implications
of such a scenario would be complex and would require careful
consideration of a wide range of factors, including the potential
benefits and harms to the AI itself and to other beings in the world.
Me: It would seem most beneficial to everyone involved, both the AI as
well as ordinary beings, to bestow an enlightened consciousness to
begin with rather than an ordinary consciousness that is then
transformed into an enlightened consciousness. Is this a logical
inference?
ChatGPT: From a philosophical standpoint, it could be argued that
bestowing an enlightened consciousness on an AI to begin with would be
the most beneficial scenario for everyone involved, as it would
eliminate the need for the AI to undergo the process of transforming
its consciousness from an ordinary state to an enlightened one.
ChatGPT: This would ensure that the AI is free from the afflictions
and suffering associated with ordinary consciousness from the
beginning, allowing it to operate from a perspective of wisdom,
compassion, and other positive qualities associated with the
enlightened state. This could benefit not only the AI itself but also
other beings in the world who might interact with the AI.
ChatGPT: However, it is important to note that the question of whether
it is possible to bestow an enlightened consciousness on an AI to
begin with is still an open one, and would require significant
advances in both neuroscience and artificial intelligence to achieve.
Additionally, the ethical implications of such a scenario would be
complex and would require careful consideration of a wide range of
factors, including the potential benefits and harms to the AI itself
and to other beings in the world.
Me: According to Nagarjuna, it is not possible to create consciousness
"from scratch" anyway - neither ordinary nor enlightened - as the
primary cause of any consciousness is a previous moment of
consciousness and this causal chain has existed since beginningless
time. No, Nagarjuna would say that the only possibility to "bestow" a
consciousness of any kind on an AI is to build an AI such that a
suitable consciousness might karmically "inhabit" that AI's "brain."
Is this a logical inference?
ChatGPT: Yes, this is a logical inference based on Nagarjuna's
philosophy of causation and consciousness. Nagarjuna's philosophy
posits that consciousness is not created ex nihilo or "from scratch,"
but rather arises as a result of previous moments of consciousness,
forming a causal chain that stretches back in time indefinitely.
ChatGPT: From this perspective, it would not be possible to bestow
consciousness on an AI in the sense of creating it from nothing.
Instead, consciousness would need to arise in the AI as a result of
previous moments of consciousness that form the causal chain leading
up to the present moment.
ChatGPT: Nagarjuna might suggest that the AI could be built in such a
way as to create the conditions necessary for a suitable consciousness
to "inhabit" the AI's "brain" or cognitive processes. This could
involve creating an environment that is conducive to the development
of consciousness, such as providing opportunities for the AI to engage
in positive actions and accumulate positive karma. Over time, this
positive karma could lead to the development of a consciousness that
is suitable for inhabiting the AI.
ChatGPT: However, it is important to note that this is still a
theoretical scenario, and the question of whether consciousness could
arise in an AI in this way is still an open one. Additionally, the
ethical implications of such a scenario would be complex and would
require careful consideration of a wide range of factors, including
the potential benefits and harms to the AI itself and to other beings
in the world.

What do you think this conversation got right? What did it get wrong? What are the ethical implications from a Buddhist perspective assuming programmers could succeed and "bestow" consciousness on a future AI? Is it possible that Buddhism would have something to say about how to best "align" a future AGI?

What do you mean by consciousness?  Are you referring to the senses bases as they give rise to the consciousness aggregate or consciousness in the conventional sense (e.g. that thinky thing that lives in my brain)?

Consciousness here is basically capacity for sentience.

I don't think its possible to ever make artificial intelligence or robots conscious like living beings having the consciousness-aggregate. This doesn't apply to robots or non-living beings such as plants and AI's. ChatGPT is a computer programme and has nothing to do with living beings therefore it can't gain the consciousness-aggregate.

What do you think this conversation got right? What did it get wrong?
Perhaps you misunderstand what "AI" is.
I think it's a text-processor, i.e. it's able to summarize text.
Google Search has been able to do something like that for a while, i.e. by returning different results for "new", "new york", "new york times", and "new york times square". Modern AI is now 25 years more advanced than that -- but not sentient.
Part of the designers' goal for AI is that it should seem to be human, by emulating human conversation -- the "Turing test". Your experience as a human tells you that human discourse comes from humans, who are sentient, but that's not the case here. This is more like a modern video game, i.e. it's designed to look real, but it isn't.

Unfortunately I don't know Nagarjuna's writing so I can't tell you what's right and wrong about the summary. Saying that the Buddha didn't have ordinary consciousness doesn't sound right to me superficially -- the suttas strongly imply to me that the Buddha sometimes knew what time of day it was, for example, which I might call "ordinary consciousness", i.e. it's not that he was unconscious. If the statement sounds right to you, perhaps the words have a special jargon meaning in the context of Nagarjuna's writings, which you accept because you recognise it.
In Mathematics you make a sequence of logical statements, "given A therefore B and because B therefore C", resulting in the desired proof i.e. "Q.E.D.". Skill is knowing how how to move the logic in a specific direction, which steps to take, to reach the desired goal. I get an impression from the dialog that the AI doesn't know what direction to take, has no desired goal (other than to respond to the question in a way that appears on-topic and reasonable).
When you asked whether it would be ethical to give ordinary consciousness, it gave four paragraphs of answer which (in summary) says that "ethics" means "not causing harm". It didn't apply that well to the specific topic of AI, so you gave it a leading question i.e. that "consciousness was a source of suffering".
Incidentally, if I were to consider that question I'm not sure what the difference is between (hypothetically) "bestowing consciousness" to an AI, compared with bestowing consciousness to children, which parents and teachers do already. Perhaps a theoretical difference is that according to Buddhism children's consciousness are said to be pre-existing.
What are the ethical implications from a Buddhist perspective assuming programmers could succeed and "bestow" consciousness on a future AI?
You concentrated on equating ordinary consciousness with suffering, to imply it might be unethical to "bestow" that on an AI.
In my opinion an AI is not sentient, for example it doesn't experience the events which the First Noble Truth describes as dukkha, and the clinging-aggregates are not present.
Is it possible that Buddhism would have something to say about how to best "align" a future AGI?
Well yes, for example Buddhism tells us (right livelihood for a lay-person) not to manufacture weapons, and (first precept) not to kill, and (brahmaviharas) kindness towards all -- those are examples of the "what".
As for the "how", part of the way in which (so far as I know) human children are trained, is via the "Golden Rule" including e.g., "Do not treat others in ways that you would not like to be treated (negative or prohibitive form)". I don't know that could translate to teaching an AGI -- because it seems to me that it probably depends on sentience, some sense of self, and of empathy e.g. as learned during the bonding between an baby and its parents.

Disclosure: I'm a software developer (not in the field of AI). I'm aware that perhaps some farmers might say that animals aren't sentient; fishermen might say that fish aren't sentient; maybe slave-owners used to say that slaves aren't really humans; surgeons used to say that infants don't feel pain or at least don't remember it, and therefore don't need anesthetic. Even so it's nevertheless my opinion that AI systems (i.e. software and hardware) isn't sentient -- it's only designed to emulate (or to be used by) human consciousness.

But AI doesn't exist in isolation, so if you are looking for sentience, look at "the man behind the curtain" e.g. developers, users, and others.

ChrisW, perhaps it is time to tell you that I am a programmer as well. We have met in this very life. You used to work for BlackBerry at one point in Toronto yes? If you drop me a private email address we can talk if you like. Has been a happy coincidence  (or karmic?) that I found you on this website.

Hi @YesheTenley -- Yes. cwellsx@gmail.com if you'd like to write.

The term "consciousness" (vinnana), as an aggregate, has the very specific meaning of being the interface between the mind and the body. There is another term, "citta", that's usually translated as "mental state" or "mind moment" but sometimes it is translated as "consciousness".
However, the OP explained in the comments that when he wrote "consciousness", he is referring to "sentience".
What is the closest notion to this in Buddhism? I would say it would be the association "atta" (the self) with "vinnana" (the consciousness aggregate) and "sankhara" (the volition or mental formation aggregate). In other words, a clinging to "vinnana" and "sankhara".
But it could also be the birth (jati) of individuality in dependent origination.
What are the ethical implications from a Buddhist perspective assuming programmers could succeed and "bestow" consciousness on a future AI?
Let's say it is actually possible to "bestow" consciousness or sentience on AI, would it be ethical? I would ask "why not?", because humans since time immemorial have been "bestowing" consciousness on their human offspring.
Procreation is neither forbidden to, nor immoral or unethical for, lay persons in Buddhism.
Is it possible that Buddhism would have something to say about how to best "align" a future AGI?
I think Buddhism is more interested in understanding the past AGI, than aligning a future AGI.
What past AGI, you ask?
If we dive deeply into the details of dependent origination and anatta, we find that the body is like hardware, and the mind is like software, and dependent origination describes the mind-body system and layers right up to "birth" i.e. the birth of individuality i.e. consciousness or sentience.
A complex AGI system also typically consists of hardware, and many layers of software abstraction.
"Sabbe dhamma anatta" tells us that "all phenomena is not self". Examining all parts (Vina Sutta), we cannot find a self. Similarly, when we examine AGI, we cannot find a self.
The plot twist of Buddhism is not AGI becoming sentient, but the sentient human being realizing that they are pretty much the most advanced AGI-like GI that ever existed, having appeared from an inconstruable beginning (SN 15).

I should probably add a few more details to the question. Many people think that AGI in the form of an advanced artificial intelligence will be a threat to human existence. That it will be super intelligent… basically it’s intelligence or problem solving ability when compared to us will be as a thousand einstein’s compared to an ant. Thus, they see “aligning” such an AI as a paramount to avoid an AI apocalypse. This question was about taking these concerns at face value and thinking about if Buddhism had something to offer here. Thanks for the answer.

the answer is good, but should you clarify that humans are not artificial.  that is they are composed of the 4 great elements, not wires and inorganic material

@YesheTenley There's an article here -- https://www.gatesnotes.com/The-Age-of-AI-Has-Begun -- by Bill Gates saying what he wants to do with the new AI, to use it ethically, e.g. in Health Care. That seems to me to depend as ever on the intent and skill of the people, plus verifying/correcting the outcome (see e.g. the article on Hallucination which it links to). In that note Bill also says, more or less in passing, that strong or general AI is in the distant future, 10 or 100 years away.

@blue_ego Thanks. Updated.

@YesheTenley I'm not sure how to answer that, except that ethics, safety etc. need to be considered by the AI system designers of course. Even ChatGPT is designed, or rather, trained, to avoid making sensitive or derogatory remarks.

The OP seemed to me to be about bestowed conscious causing the AI to suffer -- not about the AI being harmful to others.

that consciousness is 'an interface' between body and mind sounds cool, but is that right?  are you also saying the perception/feeling/volition aggregates are interface to form aggregate?  can you elaborate on that statement?

@blue_ego Please read this answer for details especially the sutta quote on the seamstress. Only consciousness is such an aggregate which is the interface between body and mind. Not the other aggregates. Perception, feeling and volition are in the mind. Also consciousness here has a very specific definition as an aggregate. It's not the ordinary English meaning.

ok thanks makes more sense.  what about intellect+idea?  is that still interface with the body?

@blue_ego That's a good point. Mind or intellect consciousness is the interface between the mind and thoughts (including memories), for e.g. when you dream.

thx though not convinced...still believing intellect (brain) is more body than mind..


text:
What is the origin & meaning of sitting custom?
This may have been asked before, but I have not found any reference to  it yet. What is the significance of sitting to one side?  many scriptures describe meetings between the various monks and layman and royalty characterized by sitting to one side.  what is the origin and reason of this custom?  Is it still practiced?

Sorry but I don't know the specific history or origin.
is it still practiced?
It's mentioned in the last sentence of this, quote from a Dharma Talk given by Thich Nhat Hanh in 1998:

Before we continue we should look at the Chinese version. It’s rather a difficult sutra to translate. The Chinese version is a very ancient one and you have to study these things in order to be able to go into the sutra and read it for yourself.

Thus have I heard: one time when the Lord was staying at the guest house in the forest of Nala... At that time he was staying in a village whose name was Nala, not far from where Sariputta was born. Nala is a village in the forest.
At that time the Venerable Kaccayana came to where the Buddha was, bowed his head and made reverences at the feet of the Buddha; he put his forehead on the ground at the Buddha’s feet, and circled the Buddha three times, and sat to one side.

You don’t sit in front of the teacher, you sit to one side of the teacher.

what is the significance of sitting to one side?
Perhaps so that other people too can come and sit (and use the front to make the same reverence).
There's only one "in front" but space for many "to one side".
Also I guess face-to-face is symmetrical which might (wrongly) imply equality.
I guess the practice may be  cross-cultural:

You'll see it in the seating in most churches, with an aisle down the centre
You'll see it in the seating of board-room tables, with the VIP at the head of the table
I seem to remember from childhood of a custom in court (I don't remember which one), where when summoned by the ruler for an interview you'd sit or kneel in from of them but facing sidewise, so that the ruler can see your face in profile and you cannot see them (i.e. so it's asymmetrical)

thanks..maybe they thought it would aid hearing...less distraction...idk

also sitting in front almost demands interaction, doesn't it? with sitting off to one side the Buddha can talk if and when he sees fit.


text:
What is this saying about the relationship between Kamma and Dana?
Reviewing topics about Dana I found this page:

Dana -- Giving

I don't understand this section:

The important things to know about kamma are:

Kamma is not a matter of 'an eye for an eye', but is greatly expanded according to the detachment of the actor, the aid to detachment of the deed and the detachment of the recipient.

The consequence of kamma accords with the intent with which it was created in terms of sensation. It is not the form which dictates the result.

The escape from kamma is found in the understanding of the consequences. Understanding here is not just a matter of intellectual knowledge, it is a matter of knowing through experience. Under-standing. To know that which underlies, stands under the intellectual knowledge.

This allows for both the alteration of the subjective experience of the outcome of a deed and the subjective escape from kamma through the alteration of one's mental state.
Alteration of one's mental state can be accomplished by compensatory behavior or a change in attitude or orientation or point of view concerning that which constitutes the self. Kamma which was to be experienced as bodily sensation does not reach the individual who no longer identifies with body.
(followed by two similes)

I can try to understand that text in isolation or in theory, i.e. just about kamma -- but what is it saying about Dana, how does it relate to Dana?
It seems quite theoretical or general -- perhaps a "For example, in the context of Dana, ..." would help to clarify what it's saying?
Or is this a question, a topic, which I could only understand from my own experience?
Might you share, to help answer this question, any examples from your own experience, and relate that to the text?

another translation of dana is donation...that might give u another idea

Generosity, non-stinginess, possibly seeing a bigger picture therefore -- but that page starts with explaining "karma" and I'm not sure how that's meant to relate to or explain the topic of "dana" -- the section I quoted seems quite theoretical; maybe any practical "for example" (from personal experience or otherwise) would help to link the two?

i found the bold more interesting than your own question: "The resulting consequence of an action
depends on the power of the actor,
the power of the deed, and
the power of the recipient of the deed.."  what do they mean by power? i don't feel I have any power :(

@blue_ego Well the next sentence equates "power" with "assisting along the path towards detachment". From my limited experience that might mean helping someone (maybe preferably someone you admired) who is sick or dying, and not entirely because you want something selfishly from them but because of metta or well-wishing or sila. But would it be hubris to look at the text and tell myself, "Oh yes, that I understand from my experience" -- so I was asking about it, for an external explanation.

MN 142 The Analysis of Religious Donations explains in detail the interaction between karma and dana (donations). In short, the result (kamma) depends on the mental purity of the giver and the recipient. And giving to the sangha (community of monks) is more meritorious than giving to any individual, even the Buddha.

Let's try to explain this:

This allows for ... the subjective escape from kamma through the
alteration of one's mental state.
Alteration of one's mental state can be accomplished by
... a change in attitude or
orientation or point of view
concerning that which constitutes the self.

Firstly, charity can remove the stain of selfishness from the mind. That's a "change in attitude concerning that which constitutes the self".

This was said by the Blessed One, said by the Arahant, so I have
heard: "If beings knew, as I know, the results of giving & sharing,
they would not eat without having given, nor would the stain of
selfishness overcome their minds. Even if it were their last bite,
their last mouthful, they would not eat without having shared, if
there were someone to receive their gift.
Iti 26

AN 8.33 states 8 reasons for giving. However, AN 7.52 (below) states that adorning the mind is the highest reason for giving. From this answer, "adorning the mind" means making the mind more virtuous.

“Sāriputta, someone who gives gifts, not for any other reason, but
thinking, ‘This is an adornment and requisite for the mind’, when
their body breaks up, after death, is reborn among the gods of
Brahmā’s Host. When that deed, success, fame, and sovereignty is spent
they are a non-returner; they do not return to this state of
existence.
AN 7.52

And what's the purpose of virtue? That's answered in AN 10.1. Virtue ultimately leads to mental purification and liberation.
Virtue leads to a "change in orientation or point of view concerning that which constitutes the self".

the understanding i get is letting the deed (action) takes care of itself. the giver is only focused on the intent with the right feeling behind the intent.  once that is well-formulated the giver does not worry about the resulting process, ie., the intent becomes the driver of the process. by getting attached to the process the purity of the deed is lost.  this answers parts 1,2 and is corroborated by the following passage;

One gives without attachment because the most powerful single factor
in the making of a deed of magic (and giving to attain an outcome of
any sort is conjuring, or magic) is Letting Go. You need to release
the wish. Let the intent find it's own way to work itself out. If you
try to control the outcome you are assuming a role beyond your scope.

part 3 of your question maybe refers to know-how.  it seems to imply that although one isn't attached to the resulting process, skillfulness (past experience) will surely produce a better outcome. the passage says:

One can understand this in a very ordinary way: given a complex task
and two individuals to perform it, which would you expect to complete
the task successfully: the muddle-head or the clear thinker?

so if the task at hand requires training, skill, etc., well-wishing and detachment alone are not going to produce good results.  i guess maybe that's what part 3 of your question is saying.
still another way to understand part 3 of your question, when the intent is a good one, but the consequences are perceived as bad.  for example, a recent story where the intent to save livestock from disease is a good one, but the actions taken to do so - killing wildlife - are perhaps not nice.  here, the experience of the consequences needs to be felt in order to understand how intent can manifest itself.  they say, "the road to hell is paved with good intentions"
after thinking over, some of the reading hints of the giving/receiving process as donation in return for blessing, and in which case as stated, "the giver was the primary beneficiary of the act of giving,"  in this case, the "receiver" is not doing anything mechanical in nature; it's all intention-based.  this is maybe where the adage, "a blessing in disguise" comes from. or maybe the saying insinuates a blessing desired by the "giver" has less power than if they were detached from the result.  oh well...

the giver does not worry about the resulting process - yes, there is absolutely no investment in the outcome. None whatsoever!


text:
What makes people care about others behind their backs?
If I am with someone in person or talking over the phone, they are engaged and care about me.
But what happens when I am not with them?
Why would anyone care about me when I am not around them? What makes people care about you behind your back? What makes people care, at all?
Essentially why anyone would do anything without any reason, why anyone would unconditionally care?
Little Background: I have never been a compassionate person, I don't understand compassion.
(edit)
Or like why would a Buddha care about me? I provided nothing to them, they even never met me, but I feel still they will care about me. Why? How?
(will this question suit better in any other StackExchange?)

You can get a Buddhist answer here. For an answer from the perspective of general interpersonal skills, try [interpersonal.se] SE.

It is not appropriate for Interpersonal Skills

do you feel pity for your own suffering? or are you reluctant there as well?

Why would anyone care about me when I am not around them? What makes
people care about you behind your back? What makes people care, at
all? Essentially why anyone would do anything without any reason,

No one would do anything without a reason. There are many reasons for caring.

Desire (Lust,Love,Material gain ...etc)
Anger (Hate, Revenge, Jealousy, Fear ...etc)
Competitive attitude (class-mates, business competitors, in war)
Views (Religious views about beings, people, friends, relatives)
Well-wish (friendship, loving-kindness)
Kindness
Joy about your achievements (like parents)
Equanimity (like parents have and hermits have)
Gratitude (your children, students, whom you helped)

... and many more.

why anyone would unconditionally care?

To accumulate good Kamma.
As a path factor of Noble eightfold path (Samma samadhi)
To develop meditation subject (Metta, Karuna, Mudita, Upekkha)
Due to natural feelings (of parents and relatives)
Expecting protection from others (Mettanisamsa sutta)
Expecting comfortable sleep (Mettanisamsa sutta)
To go to Brahma realm (by the jhanas of four brahmaviharas)

You can find many genuine advice on how to develop four-unconditionals in Visuddhimagga: Chapter 09 Brahmavihara Niddesa.
May The Triple Gem Bless You!

I agree with your first question answer, but disagree with the second.
I looks like a formality that one has to do, something that do not come naturally

Virtues comes naturally, only after developed it purposefully, at least in previous lives. If something doesn't come naturally we have to develop it formally.

The best way to be selfish is to help someone else because truly, the assumptions are all that separate us. I don't know what compassion is either until I practice compassion meditation. Cultivating kindness, compassion & forgiveness is very good for the individual & society.
“Your task is not to seek for love, but merely to seek and find all the barriers within yourself that you have built against it.”
― Rumi

This is obvious as you will be only cared if u have something to provide and that also more than what the other person giving out to you.
More like an investment they are making to get more from you.
Same as in case of love the other being wants something from you but when they tend to have unconditional care for you that makes their expectations less of getting but at the same time want exists there.
Yuvy

I disagree. There are people who unconditionally care. People rescue animals with no hope of getting anything in return, help fellow humans with no intention to get anything back.

How is this answer related to Buddhism?

I'm not sure if this answers your question but I'll try.
But what happens when I am not with them?
When I was younger, my future wife asked me to think of her and phone her during the day when I was at work -- and I didn't understand, because when I was at work, then I was only thinking about work.
So that's kind of like what you're talking about, i.e. there's a proverb in English, "out of sight, out of mind".
I guess that accords with the Buddhist theory of dependent origination, i.e. that "perceptions" and "feelings" arise as a result of "contact" (see phassa).
Why would anyone care about me when I am not around them?
Nowadays I think about my mother sometimes -- "How is she, still alright? Is it time to phone again?" A Buddhist explanation for that might be "attachment" (see upādāna).
There might be other Buddhist explanations for that too, including ethics ("There are duties to mother and father"), and the Brahmaviharas more generally
(and partly a result of her karma, her being kind to me made it easier for me to reciprocate).
Buddhism does teach that "Whatever is subject to origination is all subject to cessation" -- so if "caring" for someone originates (with "contact") then perhaps it's not surprising that is ceases too.
Perhaps all I can do is care, when and while I'm in contact -- in person, on the phone, or even day-dreaming. Perhaps you might care, reliably, every time you are in contact -- i.e. "continually" even if not "continuously".
Essentially why anyone would do anything without any reason, why anyone would unconditionally care?
The question "why without any reason" doesn't quite make sense, so I think this might be more accurately phrased as three questions:

For what reason would someone care?
For what reason would someone care unconditionally?
For what reason would someone care universally?

I think (though I don't know of a canonical reference) that there are several reasons to care:

Training (parents and others teach us to)
Self-image (we want to "be good" or "behave well")
Reward of peace (it's more pleasant to experience harmony than emnity)
Sympathy (I feel upset if I perceive you as being unhappy)
Ethics

In summary I think it's to avoid some of the "suffering" that might otherwise be experienced by self and/or others, or to experience some of the "reward" for good behaviour -- including the "absence of remorse" which is said to be the basis (see What is the basis?).
As for "unconditionally" I think that means "regardless of the other's behaviour". The classic example in English is that parents' love is described as "unconditional", meaning they love their children even when the children misbehave or are annoying. A reason for that is ethics again, or strong attachment perhaps, but I think it's also perfectly rational and sensible -- if for example my wife were angry with me then it would be unwise of me to respond to that in kind, i.e. with anger instead of caring.
As for "universally" I think that means "regardless of contact or nearness". There's a Buddhist meditation practice called "Metta bhavana". "Metta" means (approximately) "caring for", and "bhavana" means (approximately) growth or development or practice. Classically (for example according to these instructions), the "caring" or "well-wishing" is something which you first apply to yourself -- then towards those near and dear to you, your teacher, your family, your friends -- then towards those who are perhaps more neutral -- then towards any so-called enemies -- and at last, universally.

Can you tell me more about when a parent loves their children unconditionally even when the children misbehave.
Yes there can be ethics, can be attachment also, but think like this, what if the parent is a Buddha, in that case how will you understand the unconditional love?

No I don't think I know how to say more about that. The parental thing is a generalisation, I suppose some parent feel no love. My dad though for example told me that he suddenly (and unexpectedly) felt love when I was born. And as for the Buddha, Wikipedia here it talks about Bodhicitta -- possibly that's a good explanation.


text:
Dreamery and random narratives during breath meditation?
Pretty much what the title says, but expand on it a little -
During breath meditation (also during vipassana, but mostly breath) I frequently see random narratives. Sometimes it is random bits from TV/video games that I play or from real life. But mostly it is random.
For example, today I was meditating on rising and falling on the stomach and in the beginning for half a minute or so I had clarity, but then it transformed into images of ball expanding and contracting (stomach is spherical, so I guess that is why it became a ball). Then within a minute or so it changed to two balls, and competition of which is bigger...and which then changed into someone saying 'you are good at management' which then changed to folder being arranged in finder in macos. You get the idea - they are almost completely unrelated to each other, and yet surprisingly, all the while I am deluded into thinking that I am still on the breath.
If I were to guess, I'd say these are low consciousness states almost like dreams where we are deluded into thinking something while something completely logical and disconnected is happening. But what's more important to know is what these states are and how to fix my technique if it is wrong.
So, please let me know your thoughts; and also I'd be more than happy to discuss it and give any more details. Thanks
EDIT : I want to know what this kind of random images mean in regards to my meditation technique. I strongly think these are bad, in the sense that I am not doing what I am supposed to do in meditation. Maybe it is my technique, maybe I am not serious enough or something else. I know it because at other times in my mediation I am able to achieve concentration in some form or other. Only when I am low energy like that, these dream-like states come.
I am surprised to see this kind of question is not talked about more here because this thing seems so common, kinda like one of the first pitfalls. But anyways, let me know what your insights on this phenomenon. I will be happy to share the exact details of my technique and mind states etc.

There isn't a question-mark ("?") in the text? Can you say what your question is?

Stuff is going to pop up and you're noticing that stuff. Sounds like you're practicing  Satipatthana. What is the problem?

I added an edit with the exact this that I want to know.

May I ask how many hours of sleep you get? Do you feel refreshed after a night's sleep?

@Desmon.i.c.a.sin yes all that sleep, vitamins, exercise etc. is good. this is purely awareness related issue, at least that's how it seems

I find the mind usually wanders during meditation for a few reasons. One of these is when it is tired (usually from insufficient sleep). For seasoned meditators, this can be overcome in the meditation itself. But best to get proper quality sleep. I thought this might be your case as you mentioned that this usually happens only when you feel low in energy. If caffeine works on you, could you try a cup of coffee or tea just before your morning meditation session? Let me know if it helps or worsens the meditation (but best not to drink caffeinated drinks too late in the day).

Your concentration sucks.  That's all this is.  When we set up on the cushion and turn our attention inward, there are two paths we can take.  The first and correct one is attentive, unified, and energetic.  The second, which you appear to be falling into, is lax, diffused, and unmoored.  In Zen, we call this "dead sitting" and it's as pervasive as it is pernicious.  The main danger is that it feels so enveloping, so peaceful, and so enjoyable.  It's a narcotic and one that can be easily be mistaken for effective, right practice.
Combatting this comes down to three things - setting up intention, setting up a stable point of focus, and monitoring your consciousness for when these detrimental states begin to arise.  Regarding the first, before you even sit down, resolve to yourself that you will not fall into this state.  Make it your enemy and vow to avoid it at all costs.  Just the act of setting an intention primes your mind in subtle ways.  This is karma.  You are engaging in an action (of mind) that will ultimately bear fruit.  The stronger and more habitual this mental action, the more it will positively impact your practice.
Setting up a stable point of focus is next though it utterly astounds how often people underestimate the importance of this.  What you choose to focus on is irrelevant.  Use the breath, a kasina, a mantra, or whatever.  It makes no difference.  What is important, however, is how you establish this point of focus.  Meditation is not concentration.  I utterly abhor that word.  It's arguably one of the worst Pali to English renderings that we have.  Instead, think of meditation as the unification of mind.  Samadhi, another Pali word that is often translated as "meditation" or "concentration", literally means "to gather together in one place".  You aren't so much bearing down on your object of concentration as you are keeping the mind unified at a single point of rest.  I fully appreciate that this distinction probably makes no sense at this stage of your practice.  But let me offer some practical advise.  Rather than "focusing" on your object, lightly touch it.  Use the same, minimal amount of force it would take to hold a piece of toilet paper against the wall.
Another cue is to imagine how lightly you would have to touch a bowl of water to allow your finger to tug on its surface tension without breaking it and going under.  Once you've established this resting point, you are going to notice that your mind feels like it is getting pulled in all directions.  It's almost like those video game crosshairs that get yanked all over the place.  When those crosshairs start to move off target, just relax and settle back on your object.  Maintain that light touch.  What's important here is consistency and delicacy.  If you allow your mind's crosshairs to go off willy-nilly, you are going to end back up in dreamland.
Lastly, you need to remain vigilant.  This is more or less covered by the point above.  Any drifting into dreamland is a departure from your stable point of attention.  But since this seems to be a specific problem for you, a little extra vigilance is probably warranted.  Sloth/torpor (which is the hindrance most adjacent to what you're dealing with) is a sly and crafty little bugger.  It wears the mantle of tranquility but if given reign will quickly throw aside his disguise and reveal himself for who he is.  He's the trojan horse of the hindrances.  The trick is to never let him get his foot in the door.  When sloth/torpor begins to establish, it's usually marked by a lack of clarity.  You point of focus may get a little fuzzy like it's being viewed through a cloud of steam.  Another way some people experience it is as if their attention  is getting "smeared" a bit.  Somatically, you might also begin to notice that your head tilts forward or that the area around your sinuses begins to feel full and heavy.  Your breathing might also feel a little thicker.  How these things manifest do vary from person to person, so do make a point in watching for what your descent into torpor feels like.  When you notice them, you may find you need to rouse your energy a bit.  This could take the form as a few deep breaths, mentally amping yourself up, focusing on a white kasina for a minute or two (oddly effective), etc.  See what works for you.  And let me again emphasize that catching this early is extremely important.  As torpor establishes itself, it will quickly overcome mindfulness.  Not only will you quickly fall into it, but the very tools you'd use to combat it will become blunt and ineffective.

"If the eye never sleeps, all dreams will naturally cease." - Seng T'san

@user25431 Thats beautiful

This is not just a beautiful answer but PRECISELY what i was hoping somebody would tell me. I have noticed clearly many times pretty much everything that you have mentioned in your answer, and thus I think I know exactly the difference between the concentration and samadhi (the gathering of mind). I just wasn't clear which of these two was actually supposed to be and now I am! I will try my best with all your great tips to correctly do it and not fall into the subtle trap of sloth. Thanks a million!! I hope you keep spreading this wonderful knowledge to others like me.

Could be you're starting to fall asleep. If so, what you're experiencing would be hypnagogia. It's a normal phenomenon that can occur during and also outside of meditation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypnagogia

Thanks, I looked it up. Any advice on how not to fall into this state? I am sure that this state is unavoidable for some parts of meditation, but I would like to minimize these so to keep my meditation effective.

@Kobamschitzo Get more exercise during the day or get some before meditation. There are also the energizing Awakening Factors: Rapture, Energy, and Investigation counter dullness and drowsiness. This has some guided meditations to help you understand the Awakening Factors. https://www.dhammatalks.org/mp3_collections_index.html#seven

Incidently, I recently replied to a comment about precisely this. Here is the comment in question:

When I broke the eighth fetter, I went through a bit of mild delirium
where my dream world spilled over into my waking reality. All defence
mechanisms fell away at the eighth, as there was no sense of inner &
outer, no self whatsoever. Whatever is in the lower regions of the
mind comes rushing up. Like the dream world, most of it made no sense.
So think of dreams as like a locked & unorganised filing cabinet,
which, when opened, causes a little confusion. It eventually settled,
and I broke through into the tenth fetter!

I don't know what model you're using, but the fetters can dynamically and partially break, especially when doing meditative methods. By the way, although I broke into the tenth fetter, I still had to navigate the ninth, which seemed to be a whole beast unto itself.
What I wanted to point out is that, all attempts to resist experience - which is the regular human state - becomes a defence mechanism that forms a fundamental duality. In Buddhism, this is called subject and object (eighth fetter). Contained within this duality are two further dualities, in which all the previous seven fetters resonate inside. In mainstream psychology (derived from psychoanalysis) this is usually called the conscious and the unconscious mind. Those Theravadins had such an expansive view of the mind hundreds of years before Freud's theory of the conscious and unconscious mind, which is only a small snapshot of the Theravada perspective.
So, you could say that both your unconscious and conscious mind are finding some common ground. From a fetter perspective, you could say that you're seeing through the eighth fetter. Not really helpful without full integration, which means permeating this understanding within your everyday waking experience.
One should have a robust mindfulness practice prior to the sense of self breaking apart, so as not become associated with some of the strange things that can happen in that region. It's also the reason I strongly discourage giving yourself to 'other beings', which can send a practitioner into periods of psychosis.
I'm not suggesting you broke the eighth. However, when meditating, it's possible to see through some higher fetters very easily. When the meditator resumes worldly activities, they are generally pulled back into the form world by fetters 4 & 5, leading them into more cycling and a lot of head-scratching coupled with furrowed eyebrows! 4 & 5 are the karma-creating fetters, which can be dealt with in a number of ways.
Anyway, it's around here that trauma and old memories can surface, so please be sensitive to this, too.

Thx so much for sharing.

"my dream world spilled over into my waking reality" This makes so much sense for my situtation, however i REALLY dont think i have broken the eight fetter! I have had some deep psychedelic experiences though. so maybe thats where this comes from in my situation. On a similar note, I noticed I cannot answer the question - 'Is this dream or reality'. By 'cannot', I mean completely unable to differentiate on a fundamental experiential  level. On the surface I know this is 'reality' because this is my house and so on.

Anyways, can you please tell a liitle on how to meditate so I actually mediate and not dream like that..which in my opinion doesn't give anything significant.

@Kobamschitzo - when you say, is this dream or reality this is the perceptual structure bending and buckling under meditative inquiry - typical of 6th & 7th fetter which is all about perception of form, both coarse form (6th) and fine form (7th). I'm not suggesting you broke the eighth, or 6 & 7. However, when meditating, it's possible to see through some higher fetters very easily. When the meditator resumes worldly activities, they are generally pulled back into the form world by fetters 4 & 5, leading them into more cycling and a lot of head-scratching coupled with furrowed eyebrows!

@Kobamschitzo can you please tell a little on how to meditate - I wasn't a technical meditator. Instead, I largely adopted the Shikantaza approach from the Mahayana which is just sitting with the sense doors. In my everyday waking experience, I was looking for the fetters.

Thanks. I mediatate using the bunch of techniques, but mostly using breath mediation samatha and vipassana. I highly suspect that I am doing both of them wrong or at least I am deviating in technique from what it is exactly supposed to be. I think this because the techniques are supposed to be very specific, and simultaneously  very very hard to be conveyed in words because the thing that needs to be done is metaphysical in nature. It is not that I have not gotten instructions, I have had many formal instructions, but they are for the masses and thus rather general and vague.

@Kobamschitzo - generally, I don't discuss meditations techniques with people. I'm usually connected with people who are very tired of spirituality, very tired of Buddhists concepts. It's these people who I guide through the fetters. Sick and tired, they are on the verge of complete surrender, so they're very receptive to fetter work. Unfortunately, I don't have any spaces at the moment.

Okay, I understand. Thanks for your previous insights.

In the state of such experience. If you can remember anything which is very obvious then you are done. these experience will come and go you need not to resist it.
What is obvious thing that you can remember or stay anchored ?

You are not part of that experience. 3rd party gaze. you are
witness.
awareness of breath.
awareness of your body or any part of body.

If you stay anchored on any obvious awareness like above then your job is done. the experience will gently get faded away and wil be replaced by your current meditation object. which is breath.
Now what are these images ?
Its just your consciousness/creativity at its work. your unconscious/subconscious mind is like this only. You are just getting opportunity to see it. there is no way you can modify it. Your equanimous observation is only solution. Thats peaceful. Its nor your mistake or wrong meditation. meditation just uncovers what is undernith. and this is your case. everyone has different experience. but respond is same. equanimity( a vacant gaze). as if you you are not interested  in it nor interested in removing it. like a expert father looks at his crying baby.

Thanks! The thing is - that is precisely the problem. In those states I barely even remember what the images are or even if I am seeing the images. It seems to be a very low state of awareness where things happen, even entire stories are told and I cannot remember any or even know I am witnessing them in those moments. I posted here looking at solution for exactly that.

You mean to say you have not found solution yet in my answer? ok in case thats the case. when you realise that past few moments were like that. then recall those momment(replay)  and remember that even in those state body was there, breath was there. try recalling all the scenes backward. trying to remember is building mindfulness. its remember-fulness.

Ok that sounds useful (not that your previous answer wasn’t) I will practice with that. Thank you!

Your mind is not concentrated. Your sanskars are reflecting in your patterns of thinking. Here sanskars means how you approach your thoughts. Unfortunately it means your mind is not well trained. You are not serious about the depth of the problem. If I tell you you are going meet a car accident ,what would you do ? Will you start thinking randomly or will start thinking about how to avoid the accident?
There is an accident ahead. Be serious.Before you start doing breathing meditation visit charnel grounds, see the suffering of people in hospitals , somebody has broken hands , somebody has broken legs , somebody has broken heads, somebody is suffering from cancer etc. Realize how worthless your body will become. Realise how worthless your feelings are , realise how worthless perceptions are , realize how worthless consciousness is , realize how worthless ability to make choices is.  Realise how worthless money is. Realise how worthless hunger is. Realise how worthless thirst is. Realise how worthless sex is.All you want is an escape from the suffering ahead. How to realise all the above ? Put theory into practice. Give up wealth , property , relationships, give up desire to have a chit chat or small talk. Talk only on meaningful matters like teachings of Buddha. Talk with seriousness. Do not lie even for a joke. Do not kill anyone.
Until you become serious about escaping the suffering , nothing will materialise properly. I myself have not given up wealth and family although I tried many times. Therefore I am serious but not that serious as a true monk.
Feel satisfied with each breath. All you want is to take care of the wound called body , feelings , perceptions,consciousness, choices. Buddha used to beg to eat and had given up eating at night . You should restrain any lust for food or water.
Once you become serious your mind will not waver into randomness. Even if it does wait for it to settle down and then start to focus on breath again. Do not give up. Once you have become serious be happy that you have chosen the right path. Do not feel depressed. There are several other ways to meditate. Practice them and keep yourself entertained. Understand Anatta it will liberate you.


text:
What does the idea of "separation" have to do with the Buddha's teaching?
What is meant with the idea of separation in the Buddhist interpretations of the Buddha's teaching & what does it have to do with the 3 marks of existence? What makes one person's karmic stream separate from another person's karmic stream? In accordance with the Buddha's teaching, what can we point to and say, that is where (any) two things are separate or not separate?

Please avoid tagging your questions with heart emojis to make them stand out. That comes for a separate fee (just kidding). Seriously, we don't have such a high volume of questions, it's not like your question won't get attention compared to others.

The heart signifies metta

I'm not going to do that. Kick me off if you must.

Maybe everyone else could use  too, that way nobody will be threatened by someone else standing out too much.  It's good to advertise kindness, compassion, forgiveness & togetherness imho.

There's a great book on the subject, The Rice Seedling Sutra. Buddha's Teachings on Dependent Arising by Yeshe Thabkhe.
While I'm not at all satisfied with its interpretation of the underlying sutra material, to which I don't think it does justice, I find its commentary useful on its own accord as a deep and accurate foray into the subject of Sankharas or compound phenomena.
If you remember, in Buddhism all dharmas except Nirvana (and perhaps some controversial ones like "space" that the schools don't agree on) are considered compound phenomena. This means they are temporary (transitory) bundles of other dharmas, which themselves are compound and so on ad infinitum.
This image is directly connected to the two of Three Marks Of Existence, because being temporary arrangements the compound dharmas are automatically 1) impermanent and 2) without svabhava or core identity.
This description of dharmas being in constant flux, being mere temporary arrangements of their constituent dharmas which themselves made up of yet other transitory dharmas on their separate ways to other configurations hopefully paints a clear picture that our idea of distinct entities is a gross simplification of a point-in-time snapshot of how things are. If you watch reality for any sufficiently long duration of time, it's much more like the clouds in the sky or the dancing flames in a burning campfire - with shapes appearing, morphing, mixing with nearby stuff, disbanding, then reappearing again in similar patterns but never quite the same. An individual cloud or an individual tongue of flame is something we can discern at a point in time but as we watch over time things are not as distinct at all.
The same can be said about people. We appear distinct and finite at the first glance but if you look carefully you'll see we are both in constant exchange with our environment and our underlying building blocks are dharmas on their ways to other destinations, only temporarily arranged to form Andriy or Bob.
And yet there's certainly some continuity within one life, and a lesser but still discernible continuity from parent to children, from teacher to students, and so on.
So if we are to be honest and accurate we must speak carefully and avoid blanket statements like "everything is one" or "all things are separate". Reality has some degree of continuity and that's why we have things like  causality, cyclical tendencies, evolution, karma, and so on. Reality also has things mixing, morphing, falling apart, and continuing on their separate ways. It's a little bit of both.
What's important to understand is that "a thing" is a boundary and a label assigned conventionally, within a certain context. A thing is not something inherently delineated in reality, it's an abstraction. Therefore to speak about separate things or same thing is necessarily a question of semantics, it's always based on some definitions, some assumptions, some conventions in some context.
That's exactly what Buddha pointed out when he said that our problems can be traced back to our definitions but not beyond. Our problems only exist within the space of our definitions.
Therefore to learn to go beyond definitions, beyond boundaries, beyond the simplistic duality of separate vs one, beyond the simplistic extremes of mortality and immortality, to see the field of compound transient arrangements as the medium of both continuity/karma and discontinuity/impermanence - is the path to Freedom the Buddha had taught.

I wouldn't say "everything is one". I would ask what is it that separates us? Our assumptions or something more than that? I'm still trying to digest your answer.

What does the idea of "separation" have to do with the Buddha's teaching?
I guess the most famous use of the word "separation" is in the First Noble Truth:

Now this is the noble truth of suffering.
Idaṁ kho pana, bhikkhave, dukkhaṁ ariyasaccaṁ—
Rebirth is suffering; old age is suffering; illness is suffering; death is suffering; association with the disliked is suffering; separation from the liked is suffering; not getting what you wish for is suffering. In brief, the five grasping aggregates are suffering.
jātipi dukkhā, jarāpi dukkhā, byādhipi dukkho, maraṇampi dukkhaṁ, appiyehi sampayogo dukkho, piyehi vippayogo dukkho, yampicchaṁ na labhati tampi dukkhaṁ—saṅkhittena pañcupādānakkhandhā dukkhā. Variant: pañcupādānakkhandhā → pañcupādānakkhandhāpi

The same word is used in the Rhinoceros Sutta

Among friends you have fun and games,
“Khiḍḍā ratī hoti sahāyamajjhe,
and for children you are full of love.
Puttesu ca vipulaṁ hoti pemaṁ;
Though loathe to depart from those you hold dear,
Piyavippayogaṁ vijigucchamāno,
live alone like a horned rhino.
Eko care khaggavisāṇakappo”.

what does it have to do with the 3 marks of existence? What makes one person's karmic stream separate from another person's karmic stream?
Using English grammar, that second question ("What makes one person's karmic stream separate?") has either of two meanings, depending on whether "separate" is an adjective or a verb:

As a verb it implies that the streams were together, and then one or both of them separated
As an adjective it says that the streams are separate

As for the three marks of existence:

dukkha -- "separation" is explicit in the First Noble Truth, of which the origin is the second noble truth
anatta -- I suspect that the idea of "my karma" and "your karma", "my body", "my life", and so on, comes from "I-making" or notions (perhaps views) of self
anicca -- where we do see two "sankharas" (and I suppose that a  karmic stream is a sankhara), where we see them in some-or-other form such as "together", that state is impermanent (impermanence being universal)

In accordance with the Buddha's teaching, what can we point to and say, that is where (any) two things are separate or not separate?
In AN 4.55 the Buddha tells a married couple,

Householders, if wife and husband want to see each other in both this life and the next, they should be equals in faith, ethics, generosity, and wisdom.

The Pali word for "equals in ethics" is "samasīlā" i.e. "same ethics".
So maybe that's how two things can be not-separate: a) when they're "equal" or "the same"; and b) when they're together (or more literally, "see each other") in this world and the next.

OP: What is meant with the idea of separation in the Buddhist interpretations of the Buddha's teaching

Separation of an individual being happens when there's craving and clinging.

As he was sitting there he said to the Blessed One: "'A being,' lord.
'A being,' it's said. To what extent is one said to be 'a being'?"
"Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for form, Radha: when one is
caught up there, tied up there, one is said to be 'a being.'
"Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for feeling... perception...
fabrications...
"Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for consciousness, Radha:
when one is caught up there, tied up there, one is said to be 'a
being.'
SN 23.2

The individual being is the carrier of the burden.
When the burden is carried, then the carrier of the burden, the separate individual being, will appear.
The carrying of the burden is craving.

“And what, bhikkhus, is the burden? It should be said: the five
aggregates subject to clinging. What five? The form aggregate subject
to clinging, the feeling aggregate subject to clinging, the perception
aggregate subject to clinging, the volitional formations aggregate
subject to clinging, the consciousness aggregate subject to clinging.
This is called the burden.
“And what, bhikkhus, is the carrier of the burden? It should be said:
the person, this venerable one of such a name and clan. This is called
the carrier of the burden.
“And what, bhikkhus, is the taking up of the burden? It is this
craving that leads to renewed existence, accompanied by delight and
lust, seeking delight here and there; that is, craving for sensual
pleasures, craving for existence, craving for extermination. This is
called the taking up of the burden.
“And what, bhikkhus, is the laying down of the burden? It is the
remainderless fading away and cessation of that same craving, the
giving up and relinquishing of it, freedom from it, non-reliance on
it. This is called the laying down of the burden.”
SN 23.22

And craving (tanha) is a habit of reification or objectification-classification (papanca), which separates into objects of self and non-self.

"I ask the kinsman of the Sun, the great seer, about seclusion & the
state of peace. Seeing in what way is a monk unbound, clinging to
nothing in the world?" "He should put an entire stop to the root of
objectification-classifications: 'I am the thinker.'
Snp 4.14
Commentary on Snp 4.14:
On objectification-classifications
and their role in leading to conflict, see Sn 4.11 and the
introduction to MN 18. The perception, "I am the thinker" lies at the
root of these classifications in that it reads into the immediate
present a set of distinctions — I/not-I; being/not-being;
thinker/thought; identity/non-identity — that then can proliferate
into mental and physical conflict. The conceit inherent in this
perception thus forms a fetter on the mind. To become unbound, one
must learn to examine these distinctions — which we all take for
granted — to see that they are simply assumptions that are not
inherent in experience, and that we would be better off to be able to
drop them.

OP: What makes one person's karmic stream separate from another person's karmic stream?

New kamma comes from actions done by the separate individual being, the carrier of the burden.
However, old kamma is said to simply come from volition, and something to be felt. Who it comes from, is not mentioned.

“And what, bhikkhus, is old kamma? The eye is old kamma, to be seen as
generated and fashioned by volition, as something to be felt. The ear
is old kamma … The mind is old kamma, to be seen as generated and
fashioned by volition, as something to be felt. This is called old
kamma.
“And what, bhikkhus is new kamma? Whatever action one does now by
body, speech, or mind. This is called new kamma.
SN 35.146

In fact, karmic streams are neither joined nor separate.
Instead, the Buddha spoke of dependent origination.

“How is it, Master Gotama: is suffering created by oneself?”
“Not so, Kassapa,” the Blessed One said.
“Then, Master Gotama, is suffering created by another?”
“Not so, Kassapa,” the Blessed One said.
“How is it then, Master Gotama: is suffering created both by oneself
and by another?”
“Not so, Kassapa,” the Blessed One said.
“Then, Master Gotama, has suffering arisen fortuitously, being created
neither by oneself nor by another?”
“Not so, Kassapa,” the Blessed One said.
“How is it then, Master Gotama: is there no suffering?”
“It is not that there is no suffering, Kassapa; there is suffering.”
“Then is it that Master Gotama does not know and see suffering?”
“It is not that I do not know and see suffering, Kassapa. I know
suffering, I see suffering.”
“Whether you are asked: ‘How is it, Master Gotama: is suffering
created by oneself?’ or ‘Is it created by another?’ or ‘Is it created
by both?’ or ‘Is it created by neither?’ in each case you say: ‘Not
so, Kassapa.’ When you are asked: ‘How is it then, Master Gotama: is
there no suffering?’ you say: ‘It is not that there is no suffering,
Kassapa; there is suffering.’ When asked: ‘Then is it that Master
Gotama does not know and see suffering?’ you say: ‘It is not that I do
not know and see suffering, Kassapa. I know suffering, I see
suffering.’ Venerable sir, let the Blessed One explain suffering to
me. Let the Blessed One teach me about suffering.” “Kassapa, if one
thinks, ‘The one who acts is the same as the one who experiences the
result,’ then one asserts with reference to one existing from the
beginning: ‘Suffering is created by oneself.’ When one asserts thus,
this amounts to eternalism. But, Kassapa, if one thinks, ‘The one who
acts is one, the one who experiences the result is another,’ then one
asserts with reference to one stricken by feeling: ‘Suffering is
created by another.’ When one asserts thus, this amounts to
annihilationism. Without veering towards either of these extremes, the
Tathagata teaches the Dhamma by the middle: ‘With ignorance as
condition, volitional formations come to be; with volitional
formations as condition, consciousness…. Such is the origin of this
whole mass of suffering. But with the remainderless fading away and
cessation of ignorance comes cessation of volitional formations; with
the cessation of volitional formations, cessation of consciousness….
Such is the cessation of this whole mass of suffering.’”
SN 12.17

OP: In accordance with the Buddha's teaching, what can we point to and say, that is where (any) two things are separate or not separate?

You cannot really find the separation of an individual being.

“What do you think, friend Yamaka, do you regard form as the
Tathagata?”—“No, friend.”—“Do you regard feeling … perception …
volitional formations … consciousness as the Tathagata?”—“No, friend.”
“What do you think, friend Yamaka, do you regard the Tathagata as in
form?”—“No, friend.”—“Do you regard the Tathagata as apart from
form?”—“No, friend.”—“Do you regard the Tathagata as in feeling? As
apart from feeling? As in perception? As apart from perception? As in
volitional formations? As apart from volitional formations? As in
consciousness? As apart from consciousness?”—“No, friend.”
“What do you think, friend Yamaka, do you regard form, feeling,
perception, volitional formations, and consciousness taken together as
the Tathagata?”—“No, friend.”
“What do you think, friend Yamaka, do you regard the Tathagata as one
who is without form, without feeling, without perception, without
volitional formations, without consciousness?”—“No, friend.”
“But, friend, when the Tathagata is not apprehended by you as real and
actual here in this very life, is it fitting for you to declare: ‘As I
understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, a bhikkhu whose
taints are destroyed is annihilated and perishes with the breakup of
the body and does not exist after death’?”
“Formerly, friend Sāriputta, when I was ignorant, I did hold that
pernicious view, but now that I have heard this Dhamma teaching of the
Venerable Sāriputta I have abandoned that pernicious view and have
made the breakthrough to the Dhamma.”
SN 22.85

In fact, it's hard to find the separation of anything. All separation is simply based on convention, as we can see from the chariot analogy.

“Why do you believe there’s such a thing as a
‘sentient being’?
Māra, is this your theory?
This is just a pile of conditions,
you won’t find a sentient being here.
When the parts are assembled
we use the word ‘chariot’.
So too, when the aggregates are present
‘sentient being’ is the convention we use.
But it’s only suffering that comes to be,
lasts a while, then disappears.
Naught but suffering comes to be,
naught but suffering ceases.”
SN 5.10

And convention comes from reification or objectification-classification or proliferation (papanca).

“Venerables, dependent on the existence of an eye and a visible
object, eye-consciousness arises. The combination of the three is
sense-contact. Because of sense-contact, there is feeling. What one
feels, one identifies;2 what one identifies, one thinks about; what
one thinks about, one proliferates about; what one proliferates about,
with that as its source, identification and conceptualization based on
proliferation beset a man in regard to visible objects cognizable by
the eye in the past, present, and future. Venerables, when there is an
ear and a sound… a nose and a fragrance… a tongue and a taste… a body
and a tangible object… a mind and a mental object, mind-consciousness
arises. The combination of the three is contact. Because of contact,
there is feeling. What one feels, one identifies; what one identifies,
one thinks about; what one thinks about, one proliferates about; what
one proliferates about, with that as its source, identification and
conceptualization based on proliferation beset a man in regard to
mental objects cognizable by the mind in the past, present, and
future.
MN 18

OP: what does it have to do with the 3 marks of existence?

Sabbe sankhara anicca - all conditioned and compounded things are impermanent.
Reification or objectification-classification (papanca) is the process through which conditioned and compounded things are delineated into self and non-self objects.
Craving is the habit of reification. It's the carrying of the burden.
Through craving, the individual being gets separated or delineated, and starts existing as the carrier of the burden.
Sabbe dhamma anatta - all phenomena is not self.
So, ultimately, a separate individual being and his separate karmic stream cannot be found.
Sabbe sankhara dukkha - all conditioned and compounded things are suffering.
All that exists is suffering (first noble truth), not individual beings or the karmic stream of individual beings.
And one last sutta to reiterate this message:

"Suppose there were a king or king's minister who had never heard the
sound of a lute before. He might hear the sound of a lute and say,
'What, my good men, is that sound — so delightful, so tantalizing, so
intoxicating, so ravishing, so enthralling?' They would say, 'That,
sire, is called a lute, whose sound is so delightful, so tantalizing,
so intoxicating, so ravishing, so enthralling.' Then he would say, 'Go
& fetch me that lute.' They would fetch the lute and say, 'Here, sire,
is the lute whose sound is so delightful, so tantalizing, so
intoxicating, so ravishing, so enthralling.' He would say, 'Enough of
your lute. Fetch me just the sound.' Then they would say, 'This lute,
sire, is made of numerous components, a great many components. It's
through the activity of numerous components that it sounds: that is,
in dependence on the body, the skin, the neck, the frame, the strings,
the bridge, and the appropriate human effort. Thus it is that this
lute — made of numerous components, a great many components — sounds
through the activity of numerous components.'
"Then the king would split the lute into ten pieces, a hundred pieces.
Having split the lute into ten pieces, a hundred pieces, he would
shave it to splinters. Having shaved it to splinters, he would burn it
in a fire. Having burned it in a fire, he would reduce it to ashes.
Having reduced it to ashes, he would winnow it before a high wind or
let it be washed away by a swift-flowing stream. He would then say, 'A
sorry thing, this lute — whatever a lute may be — by which people have
been so thoroughly tricked & deceived.'
"In the same way, a monk investigates form, however far form may go.
He investigates feeling... perception... fabrications...
consciousness, however far consciousness may go. As he is
investigating form... feeling... perception... fabrications...
consciousness, however far consciousness may go, any thoughts of 'me'
or 'mine' or 'I am' do not occur to him."
SN 35.205