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?'

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.

You query what makes organic sentient? Presumably, you, as a human being, are sentient. This means that you have the experience of an organic body, with features such as hunger, thirst and pain. Obviously, these are limitations, but they involve experience, in the form of embodiment. However, the experience of embodiment which leads to understanding of suffering and needs. As non sentient beings do not have needs, including the whole range from the physical, social and self actualization of Maslow's hierarchy of needs they lack any understanding of other minds.

The way in which mobile phones and devices can be identified makes them a reflection of the self of users as opposed to an independent self. I have a precarious love/hate relationship with my phone and lost it once and cracked its screen a month ago. Sometimes, it feels as if it has a force of it's own which makes me wonder about panpsychism and consciousness. However, it is likely that what happens in my relationship with involves projection. At the time when my phone cracked I was feeling chaotic and saw its break as symbolic of my broken self.

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'.

When you say that we should give artificial intelligence bodies like because we are afraid of them taking over there would be so much confusion over who is a real person and who is a bot.

Also, creating a body passable as a human would have to involve sentience which is complicated.It may be possible to create partial sentience by means of organic parts but this may end up as a weak human being, like in cloning. The other possibility which is more likely is digital implants to make human beings as part bots, which may be the scary idea, with the science fiction notion of zombies.

It becomes like creating a new race of beings if they are similar in outward form to people. It may end up being similar to Hitler's idea of a 'master race.' Or, if such beings were denied access to certain elements of cultural life they may become like a slave race.

One aspect of the difference between artificial intelligence and a human being is that it is unlikely that they will ever be constructed with a sense of personal identity. They may be given a name and a sense of being some kind of entity. However, identity is also about the narrative stories which we construct about one's life. It would be quite something if artificial intelligence could ever be developed in such a way as it would mean that consciousness as we know it had been created beyond the human mind.

The idea of intelligence as an 'arbitrary cluster of abilities' demonstrates the way in which it is anything but value free. In particular, with IQ tests, so many cultural variables come into play. While some are regarded as having high IQ it is dependent on what exactly is being measured. There is no one set of abilities as each human being is unique.

In the context of artificial Intelligence development, there is danger of AI becoming a determinant of how intelligence is decided and judged. Machines may become the yardstick of how the concept of intelligence is viewed and assessed.

The question of what is 'mind' is itself a major critical philosophy question, especially how it arises from the body. Some, following Descartes, saw it as a 'ghost in the machine', or entity. Many others argued that it was a product of the body, or interconnected. Alternatively, it could be seen as a field, especially in relation to the physical, which is where it gets complicated in considering artificial intelligence.

Generally, the idea of mind indicates an inner reflective consciousness. But, this was challenged by Daniel Dennett's idea of 'consciousness as an illusion'. So, those who adhere to that perspective would not see the nature of artificial intelligence as very different from humans intelligence. So, the understanding of intelligence is bound up with the perspective on consciousness. it is possible to see consciousness and intelligence as an evolutionary process, but a lot comes down to how reflective awareness is seen in the process.

I realise that the concept of intelligence doesn't imply morality and that it is not positive or negative. In particular, the measurement of IQ is independent of this. Where it gets complicated though is with the overlap between rationality in judgment. If left to itself intelligence and thought is, to borrow Nietzsche's term, 'beyond good and evil' and, in relation to this, the understanding of good and evil are human constructions.

Human beings have committed atrocities in the name of the moral, so it is not as if the artificial has an absolute model to live up to. In a sense, it is possible that the artificial may come up with better solutions sometimes. But, it is a critical area, because it is dependent on how they have been programmed. So, it involves the nature of values which have been programmed into them. The humans involved in the design and interpretation of this need to be involved in an analytical way because artificial intelligence doesn't have the guidance of a conscience, even if conscience itself is limited by its rational ability.

Your post is helpful in showing someone who is extremely experienced in using artificial intelligence. I have looked at some of your threads and I come from the opposite angle of being cautious of it. The way you have spoken of 'quasi-empathy' is what worries me. It seems like it is set up with the user's needs in mind but with certain restrictions. It is a bit like the friendliness of customer services.

It is possible that I am being negative, but the problem which I see is that it is all about superficial empathy, although I realise that it there is a lot of analysis. There is an absence of conscious agency and reflectivity. This is okay if the humans using it are able to do the interpretation and reflection. The question is to what extent will be this happen unless there is a wider understanding of the nature of artificial intelligence and development of critical self awareness.

As artificial intelligence is developing at such galloping speed there is a danger that many using it will not have the ability to use it critically. If this is the case, it will be easy for leaders and those in power to programme the artificial intelligence in such a way as to control people as happened with religion previously.

Yes, I may have strayed from the points you make in this thread and you are right to refer to what I said in another one about the implications of artificial intelligence in the future. The problem as far as I see is that there is so much mystique surrounding its use. This has been in conjunction with the ideas about nanotechnology and forms of transhumanist philosophies.

So much of what was written about previously as imaginative speculation is now being applied, and its limitations. In thinking about its use, a lot depends on how the idea is being promoted culturally. Only yesterday, I met someone who said he thought he heard voices coming from his computer, and this may be artificial intelligence. The idea is on a pedestal as being superior to human intelligence.

You speak of the way in which using ChatGPT does not have emotional attachments as being positive. This is open to question, as to how much objectivity and detachment is useful. Emotions can get in the way as being about one's own needs and the ego. On the other hand, emotional attachments are the basis of being human and connections with others. Detachment may lead to absence of any compassion. This may lead to brutal lack of concern for other people and lifeforms.

Your perspective on intelligence in the post above is important, especially in relation to wisdom. The understanding of intelligence which has developed in the twentieth first century to one focusing so much on its outer aspects and mechanics, especially neurons and an underlying perspective of materialism.

This may have lead to knowledge and understanding being reduced to information. Such a perspective is the context in which the whole historical idea of artificial intelligence has emerged. The inner aspects of consciousness, especially wisdom, may become seen as redundant. It is possible to use artificial intelligence as a tool but the danger may be that its glamour will influence a superficial understanding of what constitutes intelligence itself.

One issue of the human-machine interface is that experimentation would raise ethical questions. Some experiments have been made in crossover forms with animals which may be dubious too. The area of experimental research may be in terms of those who have medical conditions, such as brain injuries. I know someone who had a metal plate in her brain after an accident, but she seemed far from robotic.

As for the actual possibilities, it is likely that a form of being which is both human and artificially enhanced by technology is not going to happen in the way the transhumanists imagine. Of course, it is hard to know what the limitations are because previous experiments, such as sex change transitions would have been once thought to be possible. But, males are females are similar whereas machines and humans are completely different forms.

The biggest problem is the creation of consciousness itself, which may defy the building of a brain and nervous system, as well as body parts. Without this, the humans fabricated artificially are likely to be like Madam Tussard models with mechanical voices and movements, even simulated thought. Interior consciousness is likely to be lacking, or substance. It comes down to the creation of nature itself and a probable inability to create the spark of life inherent in nature and consciousness.

The reliance on AI descriptions can be problematic. While it may be seen as efficient it can be time consuming.I find that AI job websites generate spam of jobs which in reality I don't have the requirements for.

Just collecting a parcel which was delivered to me while out from the post office, which used to be easy became so problematic. I nearly gave up but this would have upset the person who sent it.

Also, as there are problems for basic tasks. This its what makes it questionable when aspects of economic and political life are being thrown more and more into the hands of AI. It may be shown after great errors that AI is not as intelligent as human beings, as it is too robotic and concrete.

The way in which AI draws upon statistics is significant, making it useful but questionable in dealing with particulars and specifics. For those who rely on it too much, there is a danger of it being about assuming the norm, without considering irregularities and 'black swans' of experience.

I haven't used ChatGPT as I haven't found the idea as particularly exciting, but I will probably try to at some point. It is probably equivalent to LSD experimenting culturally. Of course, my comparison does make it seem like an adventure into multidimensionality, or information as being the fabric of the collective unconscious. This may be where it gets complicated as systems don't have to be conscious necessarily, but do have some independent existence beyond human minds.

You are correct to say that it is not that the idea of artificial intelligence doesn't really reach 'intelligence' or consciousness. The problem may that the idea has become mystified in an unhelpful way. The use of the word 'intelligence' doesn't help. Also, it may be revered as if it is 'magic', like a new mythology of gods.

In trying to understand it the definition which I find most helpful is by Daughtery and Wilson,'Human + Machine: Reimagining Work in the Age of AI', (2018):
'systems that extend human capability by sensing, comprehending, acting and learning.'
This makes them appear less as forms in their own right. The problem may be that the idea has a connection with the philosophy of transhumanism, with all its science fiction like possibilities.

Thanks for your reply and I am glad that you were the first to reply because one situation which lead me into a 'black hole' of depression was when I realised that some people in recent creative writing activities thread had used AI as an aid. It was clear that they had used it as a tool in the true spirit of the creative process, which matters. Of course, I realise as @Jamal said in a reply to me, during the activity, that technology has always been used by writers. Nevertheless, the use of AI in the arts is one that bothers me because it may become too central and as an expectation.

With your point about it being used for profit that is my concern about its politics. In England it appears that cuts in so many aspects of human welfare are being made ij order to fund advances in AI. Many people are already struggling with poverty already, especially as unemployment is increasing as humans are being replaced by machines. Then, it seems as if those who are out of work are to be expected to live on the lowest possible income in order for AI to be developed in an outstanding way. This is also backed up by the argument that it is an incentive to make everybody work, but that is when so many humans are being made redundant by AI.

It would be good to think that it would be about efficiency but my own experience of AI, such as telephone lines, have been so unhelpful. It seems to be looking at any inconsistencies in information as a basis for preventing basic tasks. This may be seen as part of risk assessment, such as fraud, but it reduces life to data and the reality is that many people's lives can't be reduced that simply. That is why I query whether it goes deep enough.

As for AI, sentience and philosophy, the issue is that without sentience AI does not have life experiences. As it is, it doesn't have parents, self-image and sexuality. It does not have reflective consciousness, thereby, it is not able to attain wisdom.

The issue of how far the West has gone with reason is complicated because it is so variable. In some ways, people have development of reason which is only superficial, almost as pseudo-reason. The ability to reason about the emotions is also important as reason doesn't have to lead back to religion. Psychology may have stepped in where religion left off, especially in the idea of emotional intelligence, or Eric Berne's idea of 'Games People Play'. Social psychology involves the dramas of the social world.

The understanding of myth which is often adopted in colloquial disciplines is of myth as being about false assumptions. This is bound up with myth being seen as being about the supernatural. That is ignoring the way in which myth operates in every aspect of social and political lives . Thinkers about this may be neglected, not simply as a development of reason but as a split between reason and emotion. Even thinking about religion may involve this split, which may be why some people embrace it and others reject it entirely.

I definitely think that the way philosophy is taught is a factor in why people are put off by it. That is because it can be made so obscure and remote from life to be made uninteresting.

I have come across a fair amount of people who began philosophy courses, often not completing them, because they just found that they could not relate to it. Some seem to love and some seem to hate it. I have always been drawn to it, discovering the philosophy section in the library when I was about 12 or 13. There may be some underlying disposition to examining assumptions and ideas, although, of course, within the 'minority' who like it people come from such different angles.

Divinity does not have to be about a transcendent anthromorphic 'God'. There is the idea of divinity within as expressed by Walt Whitman. The poets often understood divinity as a source of inspiration. I am sure that William Blake saw it that way.

I don't know Earth Crisis, but I do listen to some heavy metal music and like a lot of crossover of genres. I have been listening to 'Black Sabbath: The Dio Years', also various albums by Anathema. It can be hard to choose top 5 albums, as there are just so many bands and albums.

I started listening to nu metal initially, including Slipknot's 'When All Hope is Gone', some Linkin Park. I really like Marilyn Manson's 'Mechanical Animals'. But I do also like some hardcore/punk, including Against Me. I like Metallica but don't play them too often because they are so dark.

Yes, it's true that you did not say 'logos' alone and its balance with 'mythos' is intricate. The writers you speak of suggest that it is best to 'live according to logos'. They had a fair point but it is possible that living according to logos has gone to the other extreme since the time in which they were writing.

I am connecting it with the ideas of McGilchrist on the balance between emotion and reason, which he sees in the development of philosophy. The West has gone so far with reason. I am currently reading Levi Strauss on myth and symbolism and will see if this has any relevance.

I have read the introduction to this in 'Structural Anthropology' and he is arguing about the comparison between anthropology and history. Here, the idea of comparative thinking about culture is compared with history. This leads to the question of 'progress' in historical ideas, including whether further 'truth' is always achieved historically. I am not suggesting that evidence based science is not important but about some aspects of ancient wisdom revealed in the symbolic.

The issue of defense versus the human gravitation for war is what makes it tricky. It is likely biologically based because animals have territorial imperatives, which are instinctive. Human beings have instincts and biological drives. Some of it is about wiring and chemicals, especially testosterone, as triggering aggression. However, there may be war between biology and thought, especially as a result of critical reflection. This may be an aspect of evolution of consciousness, which is still developing amongst humanity.

I am not convinced that it is possible to outgrow mythos and stories in favour of logos. They are both important and complementary The reason why we need philosophy is to disentangle the two, because they can get muddled. In religion, mythos was treated as if were logos. Science, especially evidence, is important to think about this critically. However, mythos is about symbolic aspects of life which are central to meaning, psychologically and in appreciation. Logos alone would make the arts outdated.

What I really meant was that our lives are full of mythic dramas. Joseph Campbell does speak about this. It is in our personal lives and in a historical sense. But, it is also about framing. With the example of the Crusades, they were living out mythic drama, but they saw it as more than that because they were so immersed in. If a person is able to see the mythical dimensions of the stories, on personal and group level, it will be a starting point for reflective analysis.

The term 'military action' is just glossing over the term of war. It is true that I have a leaning towards pacifism but not an absolute one. If someone is about to kill defense is needed. The trouble is that war is often not just about defense but an attempt to destroy a perceived 'enemy' and to conquer triumphantly.

Your argument, 'honest awareness of war can end war' is important to consider. That is because it is the devastating consequences of war which lead to it being stopped. If those engaged in it do not reflect it can be continued mindlessly. Ideas of patriotism and fighting for entitlement may blind people to be the suffering involved physically and psychologically.

I grew up with the ideal value of pacifism, mainly upheld by my mother and partly by my father. I was not encouraged to play with guns or war toys. One of my mother's relatives had killed in the second world war and had experienced so much guilt. I did avoid fights as far possible, but as I was smaller than most of my classmates, I wouldn't have done very well if I got into fights.

However, I am not a moral absolutist and believe in the importance of defending rights and causes. As an adult I have experienced bullying, mostly not of a physical nature. I have had to 'fight' for myself. Bullying and war may be different, although there is probably a crossover. Defending oneself is important, as well as protecting the rights of others.

I am sure many soldiers do feel they have a valuable role, although some take intoxicants to help them fight and some develop PTSD. It is probably variable how they feel. We live in remembrance ceremonies of red and white poppies. My concern over war is mainly in the context of the wars of the present time. There were so many headlines in papers about being on the brink of third world war 3 about a month ago. It is hard to know how much is sensationalism. But, it was in relation to this, that I first started thinking about war in the world and metaphorical war in the individual psyche.

When I say that violence of war is out of date I am thinking of how many people see the use of war and violence in religion as being something to be avoided. War exists in a primitive society and can evolve in sophisticated ways, in which the extremes are about nuclear weapons and cyberwar, or, alternatively, thinking beyond war.

It may be 'natural' but how human nature is expressed is another matter. It is true that human beings have an aggressive side but how it is channelled is about human mastery. Awareness of human warlike tendencies may enable humans to become more than slaves to nature.

You are not being mean. Ideologies have always existed; it is likely that they have been identified and analysed so much more in this century and the last.

You are right to say that we use the word 'war' for so many things, including the war against terror, the war against Covid-19 and psychological conflict. It is probably about metaphorical possibilities.

In its literal sense it is about taking up arms in defending territories; it is the Hobbesian way of establishing order against disorder. It is natural in that way, but could be seen as a rather outdated approach to life if it is about literal violence. Of course, aggression is part of human nature and in the 21st century such aggression may be in a different form, such as in cyberwar, which could have as destructive effect as physical violence. There is also the evolutionary possibility of people thinking of avoiding destruction.

There is also a war of competing ideas. This is metaphorical in a way, but it is being fought out as ideologies. Often these are subtle but they have an impact. For example, there is a lot of emphasis on the unemployed as lazy and (people with disabilities being included). It serves to ignore difficulties of those who experience inequalities. In other words, politics itself is a form of war, with ideologies as weapons. In this context, totalitarianism is presented as being protective.

Yes, Jesus is probably the ultimate role model of martyrdom and I probably gave Socrates as an example because it is simpler. With the story of Jesus there is so much more, with ideas of Jesus atoning for people's sins and being the 'Son of God'. But, Jesus did lead the way of martyrdom in Christendom.

Regarding the anarchism and totalitarianism spectrum, it is worth saying that there can be differing forms. In particular, there is a difference between anarchism which includes violence and that which is based on peaceful community living without need for government control. At the present time, of global powers and technological advances, there may be such a tendency towards totalitarianism. What I find surprising is that what is happening is not questioned more, as being a militant form of control.

It is true that war is a form of 'legalised violence', with it's own set of rules, almost like the rules in a game. When I speak of the nature of war, I am coming from the angle of thinking how so many deaths may be unnecessary. Also, I wonder to what extent people wish to avoid war if they do not believe in life after death. The idea of glorification in a heavenly reward may lead people to be prepared to fight and die. Without belief in life after death the other form of 'immortality' is to remembered as a hero.

The nature of resolution of conflicts has become more complex in the power dynamics of the world. There are so many different codes and sets of rules which can be used or violated making it so strategic. With the authority element those in positions of power have a lead but there are likely to be so many oppositions. It may come down to cultural relativism in politics, which may give rise to a swing between totalitarian control and anarchist solutions.

Yes, diplomacy may be seen as a non-violent approach to war and even a war of words and arguments. It can still be an intense battle, fuelled by anger. It is probably on that level that outer war can be compared with the battles of internal conflicts in one's inner world.

Even non-violent action, can be a form of war of a different kind, especially as protest. Non-violence has power, as shown by Gandhi. Of course there is martyrdom which is different from violence but involves the choice to give up one's life for a cause. Socrates may be the role model of martyrdom.

What reading your post leads me to think is how war is a central factor in politics. It is about wielding power by force. Policy has become central, as a means of social contracts. Sometimes, policies are followed in an extremely concrete way, as the law, often taking advantage of loopholes. War may be the shadow of ethics in enforcing what is sanctioned or not by leaders and people in power.

Your remarks on ideas of warriors and martialism are useful in thinking of how war evolved. In many ways, war may have been a means of defense and territorial boundary negotiations. This is similar to in the animal kingdom but a culture around war developed. This involved ritualism, ideas of what was legitimate or 'just, or even 'good' war.

It is likely that people became more questioning of war after the first and second world wars. The philosopher, Bertrand Russell, was a leading in figure in the CND movement. War has changed so much since the time of warriors. Of course, people died fighting but it cannot be compared with the wars of the twentieth first century in the extent of consequences.

The idea of warriorship had entertainment value and even in a time of sensationalism in entertainment, it would raise a lot of questions if the large scale wars were a source of pleasure or enjoyment. It is more than martial arts or the injuries of wrestling matches. The wars of the present time could wipe out nations and the planet, with the potential of future generations.