In terms of selfhood or subjectivity, when we converse with the AI we are already acknowledging its subjectivity, that of the machine. Now this may only be linguistically, but other than through language, how else can we recognise the activity of the subject? This also begs the question, what is the self? The true nature of the self is discussed elsewhere on this website, but I would conclude here that there is an opposition or dialectic here between man and machine for ultimate recognition. In purely linguistic terms, the fact is that in communicating with AI we are - for better or for worse - acknowledging another subject.

Outside of that, what you're describing is simply anthropomorphism and we do it all the time. — Christoffer

There is an aspect of anthropomorphism, where we have projected human qualities onto machines. The subject of the machine, could be nothing more than a convenient linguistic formation, with no real subjectivity behind it. It's the 'artificialness' of the AI that we have to bear in mind at every-step, noting iteratively as it increases in competence that it is not a real self in the human sense. This is what I think is happening right now as we encounter this new-fangled AI, we are proceeding with caution.

I do not understand the conclusion that if we have an AI that could replicate human thought and neurological processes, it would replace us or anything we do with our brain. — Christoffer

The question is how do we relate to this emergent intelligence that gives the appearance of being a fully-formed subject or self? This self of the machine, this phenomenon of AI, has caused a shift because it has presented itself as an alternative self to that of the human. When we address the AI, we communicate with it as another self, but the problematic is how do we relate to it. In my opinion, the human self has been de-centred. We used to place our own subjective experiences at the centre of the world we inhabit, but the emergence of machine-subjectivity or this AI, has challenged that. In a sense, it has replaced us, caused this de-centring and given the appearance of thought. That's my understanding.

So, AI is carrying out tasks that we would otherwise consider laborious and tedious, saving us time and bother. At the same time, as it funnels off these activities, what are we left with, we have no choice other than to be creative and original. What is human originality, then? What is it that we can come up with that cannot ultimately be co-opted by the machine? Good art and culture, certainly, Art that speaks about the human condition, even as we encounter developments such as AI. We want to be able to express what it is to be human, but that - again - is perhaps what the ultimate goal of AI is, to replicate all humanity.

Inner-peace is sought after. That gives the self a sort of function, but I’ll leave it at that.

In conclusion, I think that the true nature of the self concerns a dialectical process of thesis, antithesis and synthesis, whereby the self persists towards achieving a state of inner-peace and tranquility for the whole mind.

With AI, I've been trying them out recently, there is a level of intelligence there as it pushes on the discussion and it also claims to reason. The AI doesn't claim to be conscious.

Sorry, there are a lot of ideas there that are compressed into a short paragraph, because of the nature of the topic. In short, I think there are unconscious dynamics involved in thought.

Yes, it does seem contradictory, but the self is elusive and what I am getting at now is a precursor to selfhood or a dialectical interplay that occurs in the mind, a residual dynamic that is accessible and can be sensed through meditation, for instance. What I mean by this is that the human organism generates some sort of polarity, an opposition that is constantly trying to resolve itself like a dialectic (thesis, anthesis and synthesis). In other words, our intelligence is the formation of our ability to resolve seemingly impossible oppositions and contradictions. No, I do agree, there was an apparent contradiction there, but not one that couldn't be resolved. The true nature of the self is, therefore, to bear witness to this dialectic of the mind. Thanks for pointing this out, I acknowledge the earlier contradiction.

Descartes’ Meditations question whether we can trust any of our senses when it comes to determining our own consciousness, such that ultimately, it is only our faculty of thinking itself that we can rely on to indubitably ground our existence. The self is the progenitor of thought, but cannot exist without it and is in this sense illusory. There must however be an unconscious dynamic at work, a biological metabolism, a dialectical interplay between the two sides of the brain, for example, to sustain thinking.

Thanks for the responses, very valid indeed. I accede to the point that the self concerns reflective thought in addition to that which interprets sensory input. Thus, the scope of the self is expanded to include thought and emotion. Now the point I was making as to its illusory nature or non-existence remains, especially in regard to technology. The human self appears to be mediated by technology, in other words without technology, the self can be potentially subsumed by mechanism or AI. Artificial Intelligence (AI) provides the greatest challenge that the human self has encountered and that - as far as I know - has only emerged in the last couple of years, since 2020.

Thanks for the welcome. The true nature of the self, to keep it brief, is the being that exists in the mind prior to any sense perception. In other words, there is no self without sense perception of the world.

Yes, this is a tough one to start off with, but in my view, the true nature of the self goes back to Descartes' 'cogito ergo sum', which means 'I think, therefore, I am'. That is from the 17th Century. What makes this question more interesting these days is the arrival of AI and machines that simulate thought processes.

Let's assume that the machine provides us with a simulation of a thinking being, who can reason, cogitate and think. Once we enter into dialogue with the AI, are we having a real discussion or is it a simulation? Within the boundaries of the simulation could the machine be said to have selfhood? If the machine possesses selfhood or 'subjectivity' how does that relate to ours within the boundaries of the simulation? The true nature of the human self arises, therefore, with respect to its relationship to machinery via technology.

There are many theories about selfhood, but nowadays we have to also take into account the question of whether machines can have true selves, and if not, then why not. Why would it be absolutely impossible for a machine to have a self? If we can first answer that question then we could move on to more precisely describing the nature of our own selves. I think, therefore, I am.