In the Old Testament God introduced itself as "I am that I am". In Christianity, God is three persons, Father, Jesus, and Holy Spirit. God is called Allah in Islam. — MoK

"I am that I am" doesn't sound like a proper name. It sounds more like, "I think therefore I am.". Is it not a statement, that he is the one who exists? If it is what God said, then should he not given out why it is the case he exists?

Does God sometimes abandon his/her followers? — Corvus

Not according to what I am aware of. — MoK

But the OP is about the case that Jesus was claiming that he was being abandoned by God. Was Jesus claiming something which is not the case? Or perhaps sometimes God abandons folks, if he has some pre-planned mysterious intentions?

The artificial intelligence may be detached but the question is whether detachment helps or hinders understanding. It could probably go either way. — Jack Cummins

Detachment could help efficiency in their capacity carrying out the tasks whatever they are customised to conduct. Their limitation is the narrow field they can perform their customised tasks, but because of the narrowness, it also allows them more efficient, powerful and speedy in the given tasks.

It might be too late for the major organisations and institutions to rethink on the AI overtaking the majority of jobs. The tide has turned it seems, and there is no going back to the old traditional way of life and doing jobs in the status quo the now.

The beings of sentience may be lead astray by too much emotion and the detached could be unable to relate to the needs of the sentient beings. — Jack Cummins

What we can say is that the nature of AI intelligence is not the same intelligence of humans in any forms or shape, and that was the whole point of mine in my posts. I have never claimed I understand AI in any degree or level, as @wonderer1 claimed in his out of the blue post

Corvus, you are pretending to understand modern AI when you clearly don't. — wonderer1

AI is a topic that must be continuously monitored, assessed, learned and discussed as time goes by, because the situations are taking in rapid manner day by day actually changing the world as we speak.

How do you define practical reasoning? — MoK

I just had quick scan of Kant dictionary, and it says when moral judgements are based on the universal law or categorical imperative, it is then said to be based on pure practical reason. It is still practical reasoning, but pure here seems to mean that like from CPR, it is not based on experience.

Practical reasoning is the type of reasoning which come to judgements of moral good or bad on the human actions.

When it is based on the categorical imperatives or universal laws such as stealing is bad or killing is bad, then it could be classed as pure practical reason.

To me, practical reasoning is based on beliefs, feelings, opinions, and interests. What would the practical reasoning be based on if it is not based on these factors? — MoK

I don't agree. Reasoning has to be objective in nature. If it is subjective, then it is not reasoning anymore. Beliefs, feelings, opinions and interests would be psychological states or dispositions, which are indeed subjective. How can objective reasoning be based on subjective psychological states? Isn't it a contradiction? Practical reasoning is also reasoning. Practical reasoning doesn't mean it is beliefs, feelings, interests, opinions.

I don't think so. There are plenty of people who think that morality is subjective. — MoK

Well, there are many kind of folks in the world of course. Some will even say 1+1=2 is not true. It doesn't mean truth is falsity. We just have to accept the fact that some folks have no sense.

Sure, belief and faith on the Bible is not the main issue in logical and rational investigation to any topic of God. It would be more suitable for religious discussions. Therefore we could start by asking even what you mean by "God".

What is God? Is the name of God, God? All the Gods have their names, so what is the names of God in the Bible? If the God has no name, then is it a God? Does God sometimes abandon his/her followers? Why? etc etc.

Nietzsche: 'Willing in general is equivalent to the desire to become stronger, the desire for growth – and the desire to have the means for it.' — Number2018

Sure, I could go with that. Not quite same as my own idea and interpretation of Will to power, however it makes more sense to me. :up: :cool:

We can start with Thus Spoke Zarathustra Prologue Section 3 that expresses the sensation caused by the "Lightning" through reification we can empathize with the notion of a "lick of electricity" if you've ever been electrocuted even from the slightest bit such as licking a D Battery:

Wo ist doch der Blitz, der euch mit seiner Zunge lecke? — DifferentiatingEgg

Not quite sure if POWER means "the sensation caused by the "Lightning" through reification we can empathize with the notion of a "lick of electricity" if you've ever been electrocuted even from the slightest bit such as licking a D Battery:"

Power could be used to mean electric energy or force, but it seems to make little sense here.

Wouldn't it be closer to the mental drive for achieving good and positive things in life or needed in life in all living organisms? This still makes more sense to me.

From there we can move to something like The Antichrist Aphorism 2 what is good? Everything that is the FEELING of power. — DifferentiatingEgg

But isn't "life and pleasure" far better than FELLING of power? Without life, there is no power, no sensation. Just nothing and blankness forever. That can't have anything to do with feeling of power or Good. What about pleasure? Isn't it what life is all about?

Then we can simply ask ourselves what is will? A desire, a potential, a stimulus within us, a sensation of something prejudged within us something we can predicate ourselves in. — DifferentiatingEgg

For me "will" is desire or intentionality in the form of latent perception. It operates both consciously (in a mental way) and unconsciously (on a biological level). It is the underlying foundational perception of general perceptions and actions in the living organisms.

The reason that you wake up in the morning, opening your eyes from deep sleep, even though no one is waking you up is due to the act of your will wanting to face the day, and keep living sustaining your life. Your body feels hunger, thirst, tiredness etc, your mind feels bored so you want to do something to entertain you, and you want to meet your friends for chats to get rid of your boredom etc, all come from your will operating in your mind and body underneath your general perception and bodily functions.

That is my idea on the will to power of Nietzsche, but you may disagree. I kind of agree with your saying that will is a sensation, but sensation is via the bodily organs. Will as sensation has no bodily organ dealing with the sensation, hence it seems to be unclear on that point.

And power for electricity like feeling? It sounds too contingent. Some folks may experience feelings and sensation like that, but I cannot recall having such feelings or sensations at all. Hence the explanation is not quite making sense I am afraid.

How could you make a moral judgment in a situation if morality is not objective? Opinions, interests, beliefs, and feelings construct a situation where a decision is required. If pure reason cannot help us to judge a situation and decide accordingly then the decision is merely based on opinions, interests, beliefs, and feelings, therefore morality is subjective. — MoK

We say morality is objective when it is based on practical reasoning. When the judgements are based on your beliefs, feeling and opinions, that is not morality. It is your feelings, beliefs and opinions and dispositions.

Therefore saying morality is subjective is identical claim to there is no morality.

I use reason to discuss religious concepts. The religious concepts are based on the scriptures, in this case, the Bible. I reason that the doctrine of the Trinity is problematic, accepting the verses of the Bible to be true. As far as I can tell, this is a part of the philosophy of religion. — MoK

But you said

Belief is either based on reason or faith. People have faith in God and believe that the Bible is the word of God regardless of whether there is a reason for it or not. — MoK

That sound totally inconsistent and contradiction from your previous post. If the discussions are based on reason, then we must ask all the unclear parts with the topic and following arguments. You shouldn't be afraid of facing the questions and answering them in rational and logical manner. Bringing out beliefs and faiths of other folks for the evidence of the existence of God appears to be the act of the avoiding the rational investigation into the matter on this topic.

What do you mean by objective when it comes to morality? To me, objective morality is based on pure reason and all rational agents agree on it. — MoK

Your understanding on pure reason seems to be completely wrong. Please go and read about it again.

Pure reason is not deduction. Pure reason means the reasoning is not based on experience in Kant.
Pure reason also means when reason reflects on reason itself, it is called pure reason. it has nothing to do with deduction. Deductive reasoning means the reasoning is based on the meaning of the concept itself. For example, a bachelor is an unmarried man. Bachelor has the meaning included in the word itself.

Moral reasoning is different type of reasoning from deduction or induction, and it has nothing to do with pure reason.

Moral reason is based on practical reason on the human actions. Moral judgements are objective when they are based on pure reason which are objective and universal in human nature.

The electrical sensation of that often comes in pleasure and life affirming activities. That sensation that runs down your spine when you feel empowered. That doesn't mean idolize a will to live a "long life of pleasure...", the last man seeks a long life of meaningless pleasures. This is why Nietzsche doesn't object to tyranny and especially self tyranny, to build a discipline, is but an art form to Nietzsche. — DifferentiatingEgg

Where does he say that? We need the relevant quotes and the source of the original texts for the quotes at this point.

I can't quite imagine AI having the "I" consciousness no matter how sophisticated they are or will become. Physical is important in bonding between beings in emotional way. However bonding between humans and AI will always be task oriented nature i.e. humans control or order AI to do X tasks, and AI will perform the tasks the humans demanded or ordered.

And with the issue of Other Minds, we can't quite postulate fully blown human mind of intelligence from AI due to the fact that they lack the biological body, emotions and feelings like humans. Some robot AI might have been programmed to respond to humans as if they have human like emotions, and some humans might feel emotional bonds with their AI robot pets or assistants. But there will always be ideas that their robot pets and assistants or even BF & GF whatever are machines, not humans.

The state of AI mind (if we could call them minds - although I would rather call them the state of operational fitness) would be also same as Other minds of humans i.e. we never have full access to the mind of them. We can only interpret their state of the operational fitness as we would interpret Other Minds of humans i.e. by the way they perform their preprogrammed tasks, as we do on Other Minds of humans by their behavior, speeches and actions.

No, actually the will to power is a sensation above all, and certainly suggesting it is "Will to Life and pleasure," is the misnomer... — DifferentiatingEgg

I seem to be able to understand "Will to life and pleasure" ok. But I have no idea what "Will to Power" means.

Could you please explain what you mean by the will to power is a sensation above all? Did Nietzsche give out clear reference or explanation on Will to Power?

Could you also explain why "Will to life and pleasure" is a misnomer?

Belief is either based on reason or faith. People have faith in God and believe that the Bible is the word of God regardless of whether there is a reason for it or not. — MoK

OK, fair enough. However, if you say your concept of God is based on faith, and you believe God exists from your faith, then the whole discussion would turn to a religious nature. This is The Philosophy Forum. In philosophy, we discuss the topics based on mainly reason, not faith.

If something doesn't make sense in logic and reasoning, we discard them and reject them as falsity. We only accept what makes sense and logical, and we try to achieve clarify in our claims and arguments via critical reasoning and logical investigations and analysis on the claims in philosophy.

We cannot seek to resolve the conflicts in the bible based on the rational or logical basis, if you insist the OP is a religious topic purely based on blind faith.

You say, well this is what God intended to do, he had said this and this, done and this and that, and they all sounds impossible and contradictory. But you must trust them, no matter how absurd and nonsensical they sound, because by faith everything in the Bible is true. So must you and you and him and her. Amen. That is not then philosophy is it? It is a religion. Hallelujah.

No, I am just mentioning that there is always a conflict in the subjective moral worldview. — MoK

Of course there would be conflicts on judgements. But morality itself means that there is the objective universal law within the countries and societies one belongs to. Universal law means which will be regular and constant in its exercising in all cases, not the whole universe.

The world, fortunately, hasn't collapsed yet. The history of wars, conflicts, etc. is a witness that there have been always two sides, each side thinks it is right. — MoK

What does it tell you apart from the fact that the world is run by the universal law and objective morality, which governs right and wrong, hence the balance of moral goods and justice is being kept. Of course when the balance is tipped, there will be a collapse of the society or country.

A prior principle is a principle that is either evidently true or can be proven to be true based on deduction rather than observation and experience. — MoK

Isn't it just deduction? Why do you call it pure reason?

Well, from my knowledge deduction or induction has nothing to do with moral judgements.
Deduction is a kind of reasoning based on the definition of words, axioms, theorems or principles and laws. They are not from experience or the external world events.
Induction is reasoning based on the external world events and experiences from reality.

Both reasoning has nothing to do with moral judgements, because they deal with truth or falsity (in the case of deduction), and high or low probability (induction) on the conclusions or inferences .

Moral judgements are always right or wrong on the human actions. They have nothing to do with true or false, or probable or not probable on the value of the judgements.

Hence your claim that morality is based on pure reason, and pure reason is deduction, and morality is subjective is not making sense.

We are rational agents yet we are very dependent on opinions, interests, beliefs, and feelings in order to function. — MoK

Yes, I agree with you on that point. However, you seem to be missing the critical point. Opinions, interests, beliefs and feelings are not the foundation for morality. They are psychological states, which are not subject for moral judgements. For moral judgements, it is practical reason which is applied to the judgements.

Corvus, you are pretending to understand modern AI when you clearly don't. — wonderer1

You seem to be misusing the word "pretending" there. I was not trying to claim or make out something is true when it is not. I was not claiming anywhere in my writing that I understand modern AI.

I was just pointing out and trying to clarify some problems in the posters claims in their messages addressed to me relating to the topic. Philosophy is a mental activity by your own thinking, not keep quoting others writings for your points.

No, I am saying that the thief thinks he is right. I think he is not right so welcome to the subjective moral world. — MoK

It just sounds like you are contradicting yourself.

So who is really right? — Corvus

Any person thinks that he is right. — MoK

The world will collapse with break down of law and order if that was true.

By pure reason, I mean a sort of reason that is based on a prior principles. — MoK

What is a prior principles?

To me, practical reason is not based on a prior principle but on opinions, interests, beliefs, feelings, and the like. — MoK

They are just opinions, interests, beliefs, feelings. Why do they have to be practical reason?

The proof of God is not the subject of this thread. The main purpose of this thread is to point out the conflict between different verses from the Bible, accepting they are right. — MoK

Sure, but the suggestion was, wouldn't it be logical to come to some form of demonstration or proof on the existence of God, before going into pointing out the conflicts in the Bible?

When no one knows if God exists, or even what God is, then how could we discuss on the conflicts in the Bible which are supposed to be what God had said and did? It was just a suggestion in the form of question.

I would suggest that you go back in your mind to the time when you were learning your native language and describe what it was like, how you learned to use the scribbles and sounds, etc., and then explain what is different about how AI is learning to use language. I would suggest that the biggest difference is the way AI and humans interact with the world, not in some underlying structure of organic vs inorganic. — Harry Hindu

You would know yourself, when you were learning your native language, it was by interactions with the other folks around you, and observing the world you were living in. AI and machines don't have that type interaction from real life experience.

AI and machinery responses come from the developers designing and building the system by extensive data storing, and implementing the search algorithms.

Another critical point of AI's responses is that, they are predictable within the technological limitations and preprogramming specs. To the new users, they may appear to be intelligent and creative, but from the developers point of view, the whole thing is pre-planned and predicted debugging and simulations.

Finally when humans have conversation or discussions, the linguistic contents they exchange in the processes creates emotional states which stimulates their creativity or imaginations. AI don't have that capability either. Some emotional states they exhibit via the pre-programmed robots facial expressions are all but mechanistic and one dimensional act of flashing lights on and off type operations with no lasting expectation or possibility of creativity or imagination.

What is "desire" or "will power", if not an instinctive need to respond to stimuli that are obstacles to homeostasis? Sure, modern computers can only engage in achieving our goals, not their own. But that is a simple matter of design and programming. — Harry Hindu

Desire or will power is an instinctive need which is the base of all mental operations in the living. Obviously AI is incapable of that mental foundation in their operation due to the fact they are created by humans in the machinery structure and design. Therefore their operations are purely artificial and mechanistic procedures customized and designed to assist human chores.

Any type of projections of human minds into AI by some folks just sound nothing far from the shamanistic beliefs and religious propaganda.

Well, I did ask if intelligence is a thing or a process. I see it more as a process. If you see it more as a thing, then I encourage you to ask yourself the same questions you are asking me - where does intelligence start and end? I would say that intelligence, as a process, starts when you wake up in the morning and stops when you go to sleep. — Harry Hindu

Intelligence is neither process nor a thing. It is a mental capability of the living beings with the organ called brain.

Calling intelligence is a process, and it starts in the morning, and ends in the night when the agents sleeps, and AI machines are intelligent sound all absurd. As mechanical bodily structures, AI machines don't sleep. They could be put onto stand-by mode, which is wrongly referred to as "sleep" by some folks.

But even for humans or animals, saying that one is intelligent when awake, but unintelligent when asleep sound not making sense.

What is the question that I didn't answer? — MoK

The question was, shouldn't you try to prove the existence of God before discussing about the property of God? Have you proved the existence of God?

The thief and I have different opinions on stealing, so it does not follow from my opinion that morality is objective if that is what you want to conclude. — MoK

That sounds like you are accepting the thief's claim as morally right, while maintaining your claim as morally right too, which are totally contradicting judgements. So who is really right?

As I mentioned before, objective morality is based on pure reason. — MoK

What do you mean by pure reason? Is it a Kantian term? Or is it your own definition of reason?

Could you please explain the difference between pure reason and practical reason in Kantian philosophy?

Amnesia is the destruction of self? And also, if I lose 90% of my memories, am I 90% less a self? — RogueAI

It sounds highly likely.

Ok, I hope things are clear now. — MoK

It is clear you haven't answered the question.

It is subjective if it is based on opinions, beliefs, interests, and the like. — MoK

If a guy comes to Mok's house, and steals everything, then what would MoK say about the stealing?

The guy says to MoK, he is morally right to steal MoK's life saving possessions, because he and his mates were thirsty and had to buy some beer and whisky for him and his friends in the pub from the money he made stealing MoK's life time savings.

In fact he was not just morally right in stealing but he must be also awarded for his bravery breaking into MoK's house risking his life in order to save him and his mates lives from dying of thirst in the global warming apocalypse. And then he sent you an invoice of 1 million dollars to MoK for the compensation for making it challenging for him to break into the house by installing various security devices and security alarms, which made his stealing more difficult than it would have been.

Would MoK approve the guy's moral judgement and agree to compensate him, because according to MoK, morality is subjective, and his moral judgement is true?

Widely known to the public "Will to power" by Nietzsche is a misnomer, which has been misinterpreted and misused for the political slogans. It should be "Will to life and pleasure".

I don't think that is a valid and sound argument for the existence of God. — MoK

I wasn't arguing anything at all. I was just asking you a question.

No, they are not. At least according to Kant. — MoK

You need to be able to read between the lines on his writings to be able to apply them into your own circumstances wisely.

How do you define objective and subjective when it comes to morality? — MoK

I think I repeated on them numerous times, even with the examples. You need to go back and reread them if you missed the points.

Artificial intelligence does have memory, so it is likely that this could be used as a basis for creativity. The central aspects of consciousness may be harder to create. I would imagine simulated dream states as showing up as fragmented images and words. It would be rather surreal. — Jack Cummins

Of course AI can have memory, and they are very good at memorizing. In fact, the whole responses from AI on the questions put forward by users come from their memories, and large part of the idea of self seems to be based on one's past memories. When a person lost all his/her memories, the idea of self would have gone too.

I agree on the point that the central aspects of consciousness would be harder to create, if possible at all. It just reminds me at this moment actually what is the central aspect of consciousness by the way? I am not sure at this moment.

I did see a session of AI seance advertised. It would probably involve attempts to conjure up disembodied spirits or appear to do so. — Jack Cummins

"disembodied spirits"? Do spirits exist? Of they did, what form of substance would they be?

As far as AI goes, it would be good to question it about its self and identity. I was rather tempted to try this on a phone call which was artificial intelligence. — Jack Cummins

For self identify of the informative devices, I too sometimes get into illusion they have some sort of mental states. When my mobile phone disappears from my reach when I am needing it desperately, I used to think, this bloody phone is trying to rebel against me by absconding without notice. When I find it under the desk or in the corner of the kitchen shelf or even under the car seat, I then realise it was my forgetfulness or carelessness losing the track on its last placement rather than the mobile phone's naughtiness.

These are what people believe. — MoK

Who are the "people"?

Of course, not. — MoK

If you are an agnostic, shouldn't you try to prove on the existence of God? Talking about the properties of God gave a strong indication that you are not an agnostic.

The SEP article you cited states what universal means: "Second, recast that maxim as a universal law of nature governing all rational agents, and so as holding that all must, by natural law, act as you yourself propose to act in these circumstances." — MoK

Within the country you live in, by the law and by the judgements of the society, they are the universal law.

You already mentioned that societies have different moral codes based on their opinions, beliefs, and practical reasoning, yet you claim morality is objective. — MoK

Please read above.

It is what it is. Morality is subjective when there is no solid ground, the pure reason, that all rational agents can agree on. — MoK

Practical reason deals with the moral judgements on your moral actions. Pure reason deals with reflections on your reasoning itself. But if one denies the objectivity of reasoning, then reason cannot help to guide you into truth. As Hume said, "Reason is a slave of passion." Passion and emotions on your beliefs on the wrong ideas and falsity could blind your faculty of reason.

I am unsure of what self reference entails because I am not convinced that it comes down to knowing one's name. Identity involves so much more of lived experience and goes beyond the persona itself. Some of it comes down to processing and in some ways a computer may be able to do that. I wonder if artificial intelligence would have dream sleep which is essential to subconscious processing, and what such dreams would entail. As the Philip K Dick novel title asks, ''Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?' — Jack Cummins

I suppose AI could be programmed to project what the central processor is processing in the form of dreams, imaginations and remembrances, hopes and wishes into the monitors with special effect sound reproduction system. It could be actually quite interesting to see what type of data would be outputting into the screens and sound system from the AI processors.

However, the question still remains needing to clarify whether such dreams, imaginations, remembrances, hopes and wishes, or even depressions are genuine in nature. The word "artificial" in AI reminds us that they are ultimately the creation of human intelligence, not genuine intelligence.

A sense of self and self awareness involves so much about the fantasy aspects of identity. We don't just assimilate facts about oneself but the meaning of facts. Self is not just about raw data but hopes, aspirations and intentions. — Jack Cummins

println() "Hello world!!".
printlin() "Agreed"
printlin() "Have a good day"
printlin() "Logged out"

To me, two things help us distinguish objects from each other: essence and attributes. Essence is about what an object is—attribute however allows us to distinguish objects that have the same essence. — MoK

Could you have used the word "property" or "attribute" rather than "essence"? I am sure the concept "essence" can mean different things.

The main attributes of God are Omniscient, Omnipresent, and Omnipotent. — MoK

Herein arises questions. You claimed that you are an agnostic. If you don't know if God exists, then how do you know what God is, and how do you know God is omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent?

Are you able to know the properties of God without knowing if God exists, or what God means?

I rather consult the SEP webpage that you cited to see what Kant means with the universal laws. — MoK

The SEP articles are written in standard English. To understand them, you need to understand the standard definition of the words in English.

Morality is objective only if it is based on pure reason. I claim that there is no such thing as pure reasoning when it comes to morality. Therefore, morality is subjective. — MoK

If everyone was saying, what they feel and believe is morality, then there would no point talking about morality. It would be better to say, what everyone feels and believes is right. That would be same as saying there is no morality.

Saying morality is subjective is denying morality, but also at the same time denying the fact that morality is being denied.

Again, how is what you are saying AI does is any different from what you are doing right now reading this? Are you a glorified search engine? What is needed to make one more than a glorified search engine? — Harry Hindu

I wonder if AI can understand and respond in witty and appropriate way to the user inputs in some metaphor or joke forms. I doubt they can. They often used to respond with totally inappropriate way to even normal questions which didn't make sense.

We often say that the one of the sure sign of mastering a language is when one can fully utilize and understand the dialogues in jokes and metaphors.

It's not designed to hallucinate users. It is a tool designed to provide information using everyday language use instead of searching through irrelevant links that appear in your search, like ads. — Harry Hindu

It is perfectly fine when AI or ChatBot users take them as informational assistance searching for data they are looking for. But you notice some folks talk as if they have human minds just because they respond in ordinary conversational language which are pre-programmed by the AI developers and computer programmers.

I did define intelligence earlier in the thread:

Let's start off with a definition of intelligence as: the process of achieving a goal in the face of obstacles. What about this definition works and what doesn't? — Harry Hindu

I am not sure the definition is logically, semantically correct or fit for use. There are obscurities and absurdities in the definition. First of all, it talks about achieving a goal. How could machines try to achieve a goal, when they have no desire or will power in doing so?

The process of achieving a goal? Here again, what do you mean by process? Is intelligence always in the form of process? Does it have starting and ending? So what is the start of intelligence? What is the ending of intelligence?

I just deny objective morality. To me, each individual has all rights to his/her life and has no right to the lives of others. — MoK

Of course, there is. People as you mentioned yourself have different opinions about an action, whether it is right or wrong. That means that morality is subjective and not objective. — MoK

Think of this example. It is a fact, and truth that there is a book titled "General Logic" on my desk right now. But you wouldn't have known the fact until you read what I typed up above. You would have never believed that the book existed on my desk until you read the sentence. What does it tell you?

Even if some folks don't believe a fact or truth, that doesn't mean the fact or truth don't exist.
Likewise, moral rights or wrong is objective whether some folks have different ideas, feelings, beliefs or judgements. Just because you have different morality doesn't mean morality is subjective.

Opinion, belief, feeling, and like play an important role in morality to me. These are however personal, therefore I believe in moral subjectivism. — MoK

Well, they are just your psychological state, which has nothing to do with morality. People can have different feelings, beliefs and opinions, but that doesn't mean morality is subjective. If you say morality is subjective, and what you feel and believe is morality, then it is no longer morality. It is just your feelings and beliefs on certain aspects of human actions to other humans.

Neither did your comment about AIs being overrated search engines. — Harry Hindu

If you looked into the coding of AI, they are just a database of what the AI designers have typed in to hard drives in order to respond to the users' input with some customization. AI is glorified search engine.

You cannot have a philosophical discussion with a search engine. The only other object I can have a philosophical discussion with is another human being. Does that not say something? — Harry Hindu

Exactly. But AI is designed to hallucinate the users as if they are having the real life conversations or discussions with them.

It says that we could still investigate and discuss what makes AI to get the users to project human minds onto them. It is still an interesting topic I guess.

All I'm trying to do is get at the core meaning of intelligence, not its boundaries. — Harry Hindu

Yes, still waiting for your definition of intelligence. If you don't know what intelligence is, then how could you have asked if AI is intelligent? Without clear definition of intelligence, whatever answer would be meaningless.

The boundary of concept is critical for analysis of their the logic of implications and legitimacy of applications.

I say that morality is personal. A person with locked-in syndrome has the right to terminate his/her life for example. — MoK

Morality is value judgements on the actions of humans by the other humans, hence saying morality is personal is negating morality. Life is precious, and should be prolonged no matter what circumstances the life is in.

That is the moral code from the ancient times which is accepted by the majority of the civilized countries even now. Hence it would be morally wrong to assist in terminating life of the locked-in man. That would be a judgement from morality. TBC~

Saying that, I think that the solid structure of self is just as questionable as mind. I draw upon the Buddhist idea of 'no self'. That is the self, even though it is has ego identity, is not a permanent structure, despite narrative continuity. But the nature of identity is dependent on a sense of 'I', which may be traced back to Descartes. There is the idea of I as self-reference, which artificial intelligence may be able to achieve, but probably not as the seat of consciousness, once referred to as 'soul'. — Jack Cummins

I can sympathise your experience of various ups and downs events with your mobile phone. And suppose the idea of self is a massive and illusive topic of philosophy, psychology and religion on its own.
I am not sure if, self-reference could be regarded as part of the idea of self. You seem to sound not quite concrete about the suggestion.

My thought on the idea of self was to include the psychological states including emotions, sensations and feelings as well as reasoning backed by historical memories since the birth of an individual all bundled into a perception of reflective "I". Hence machines cannot have it.

Two substances could have different essences. Two substances could have the same essence but different properties, such as location. Two Omnipresent substances however have to have different essences if all their other properties are the same. — MoK

Here again, your understanding on "essence" seems to be wrong. The essence of God means all the attributes that make God for what the God is. You should have listed all the attributes or properties what make the God Jesus, and also the God who created the world.

The question was looking for the details of the attributes and properties for those Gods.

I don't think that there is such a thing as objective morality. I gave you time to defend objective morality. You mentioned Kant's formulations that are based on pure reason, at least his first formulation to the best of my understanding. You on the one hand believe in objective morality and on the other hand believe that different societies are allowed to have different beliefs on the rightness and wrongness of an action. — MoK

I think your problem seems to come from not understanding what "universal" means. Universal doesn't mean the whole universe in here. It means in all occasions. Please consult the Oxford Dictionary on the meaning. A word has different meanings, and here it is being used for the specific meaning. Hence the universal law can be effective in one country or the society you live in.

For Kant's morality, he was talking about the way moral judgements are made. Not what the morality is.
I wasn't defending objectivity of morality. I was just trying to clarify your misunderstandings.

I am busy on doing other stuff the now, but will get back to you with the other points. But this is just a quick post to point out the main problem you seem to have on the topic.