I've been looking lately at what the weather will be like in 2100. Even that soon some areas that are presently occupied will be too hot for human viability. I think that will become the driver of policy eventually.

Power and capital are already adjusting for this. Which is partly why the populists are shouting so loud at the moment.

I'm not holding my breath. I don't think there are any teeth on the cogs.

I don't see it gaining much traction for you and I.

Time for some silentism perhaps.

But Earth was formed way later than the creation of the universe.

So what, God still created it.

Do you mean that Earth and the universe were synonyms in ancient times?

Yes, they had no idea of a universe. Their universe was earth.

If there is a God and He does not know how to create, then there is only God. There is creation. Therefore, God knows how to create things.

We don’t know any of that, because the infinite God is inconceivable to us.

Isn't the medium itself created? If yes, then God knows how to create things.

As above. How do you know that God doesn’t need a medium?

Apparently, God knows how to create things, and he does not need a medium. Creation could be the universe. And of course, Earth was not created but formed as a result of dust rotating around the sun.

If God created the universe, then by implication, he created the earth at the same time. Because the material that formed the earth was part of that creation when he created the universe.
In the passage from the bible, “earth” means the universe.
How do you know that God knows how to create things? And how do you know he does not need a medium?

There are different ways to understand what is going on with the Holy Ghost/spirit. It is confusing and there seem to be more moving parts than needed. However there is a philosophical paradox at the heart of it, which it is grappling with. That God is infinite* and is creating something that is not infinite. How can he do this? And when he has done this, how does he interact with it?
The answer is through intermediaries, if we take a look at the first verse of the bible, there are some clues;

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

God created heaven, (the place where God and all the angels and heavenly hosts reside).
God created the earth, (the place where humans, animals and plants etc reside)

Now heaven is an intermediary and God only resides is essence, because he is infinitely large etc. So the way I see it is that heaven is in some way a place where transcendence happens. Transcendence of God, and what God says and the hosts and angels, translate, or draw it down into something finite.

So one way of seeing it is that when we are thinking, or communicating with God, we are actually referring to one of these heavenly hosts, because God is infinitely inaccessible, removed, distant from us. We can’t even conceive of it.

This gives us the idea that God is two people, the infinite God and his representative intermediary in heaven, the Holy Ghost.

Then the third person is the Christ(Jesus), the role of Christ is to be the representative of God on earth. Now in a sense this means humanity as a whole is this representative, because humanity has access to God via the heavenly hosts(the Holy Ghost).

The reason why there is a representative on earth is to bring(create) heaven on earth. That’s why they are doing all of this. This is God’s creation, for some reason he wants to create an earth, where heaven resides.

So in order to create a heaven on an earth three parts, or people are required. God, the Holy Ghost and the christ(humanity).
These can be written in correspondences;
God————God——father——-infinity
Holy Ghost—heaven—mother——finite universe
Christ———-earth——son———-a world where infinity is present/understood(heaven on earth)

* I don’t hold with infinity per say.

Maybe all the silent theists and believers, patiently being silent should now come forward and make their presence felt. Otherwise the casual observer might conclude that philosophy has won the debate that the issue of God and divinity in the world we find ourselves in has been put to bed. When in reality, they’ve just been told to be quiet.

orthogenesis

I often think while observing the insect world, that there seems to be an excess of awareness. A vibrant interactivity going on. A kind of bursting with life, which seems to outstrip the basic necessities of finding food and procreating, in their specific evolutionary niche.

yes, he’s hit the nail on the head. That is what’s going on and capitalism, as in free market capitalism has turned toxic.

But silence is difficult.

I have remained silent on the issue for a number of years. But you didn’t seem to have much to say about that. Or even acknowledge that I was doing it.

Perhaps you were also being silent.

You didn't answer the question: What is the duty of Jesus in creation?

I was talking about the trinity, which is a way of talking about these things. I represented Jesus as man(mankind). Jesus is the son of God and so is mankind.

I can’t tell you why the bible story of Jesus happens, you’ll have to ask a bible scholar about that.

I think that your version of God looks to human invention more. A God who needs a medium to act, exactly like humans!

You accept there is a medium to act in your post here;

Ok. Isn't that spacetime in which all things are? The Holy Spirit is defined as one in whom all things are

Spacetime is the medium in our instance. God isn’t spacetime, do you agree? (God is an omni present being who created spacetime).

So already you have two things. Then you have what happens in spacetime, which is referred to as Gods creation, man. Now you have three things.

God doesn’t “need” a medium to act. Rather, when he acts, he creates the medium through which the act is expressed.

Also, what is the definition of an Omnipotent God to you?

I don’t give much weight to an omnipotent God. I see the Omni’s as a human invention, like infinity. I don’t think there are any infinities.

What is the duty of Son here if it is part of creation?

The son is the result of the creator engaging the medium. The creator can’t create without engaging the medium. The son can’t be the same as either the medium, or the creator. Because the son is the medium + the creative input. And the son can’t be the same as the creator, because the son is what the creator has done to the medium.
However, the son is in a sense the creator, because the essence, or signature of the creator is expressed in the meduim. So we have three distinct things, creator, medium, creation.

Also without the son, we have a silent creator and a formless medium. It is only at the moment of creation that there is light and shade. Before this there is only a blank sheet of paper and an artist who has not produced any art.

If an omnipotent God creates something that is finite, then these rules must be present in some way.

Sorry, I forgot to answer your question. The duty of the son is to bring the creator into the world(the medium), upon the synthesis of son with father. Resulting in the divine marriage, the synthesis of creator and meduim, God and matter(energy, or medium).

The trinity is a system of relating principles, or concepts, based on the family unit, of father, mother and son. The idea that if there is a creator(father), then there is what the creator creates(son) and the medium through which it is created(mother). Any act of creation has at least three components.

It works well as correspondences;

God———-creator— —-law of nature—Father
Holy Spirit—meduim——energy————Mother
Man———-creation—-—matter————Son

This system can be applied to many things.

In man, the son becomes the father, so we have the synthesis of Father and Son, resulting in a duality, the divine marriage, as in Shiva and Parvati. On consummation becoming one, again.

I'm interested in the idea of underlying truth, especially when attempts to express that truth result in a convoluted story.

I’m not a biblical scholar, so I will leave that to others. I will point you to the kernel of truth in the kernel of truth I gave you. That once humanity reached a certain point in intellectual development she was not any more governed by instinct and adaptation to ecosystem changes. But became unshackled from these constraints and was able to do many novel and imaginative things through the power of thinking.
So a new constraint was necessary to avoid all manner of destructive (to the ecosystem and themselves) behaviour. Religion and it’s precursors played this role.

How does a person who hasn't had a lobotomy make sense of this? Could it be that most Christians throughout history didn't know this is the Christian narrative? Or did they know, but just held it at arm's length? Are myths always this way? Or is Christianity a special case?

I can understand your cinicism coming from a country where religion is such a dividing line. I’m in a country where religion is barely mentioned, plays almost no role in life. Most people are atheist, or just ambivalent and you wouldn’t know the difference between them unless you specifically asked.

I see this narrative, along with other ancient religious narratives as a mythology steeped in the kind of discourse that was used at the time. But with a kernel of truth underlying it. This was about the moral and ethical struggles involved in the birth of civilisation. Where order and cooperation were necessary for cohesion. This is laid out quite well in the Moses narrative.

This process probably happened many times in the ancient world before recorded history and the religious narratives which survived form the basis of our modern (last 2,000-3,000years) religions.

History is littered with examples of where order in civilised groups broke down.

Specify which "advice" you're referring to

I’m not a biblical scholar, so I’m only using it as an example of how religious ideology can modify one’s behaviour to benefit society. The other examples you gave include something equivalent an ethical code which improved the group experience in their societies. Whether Jesus was morally right, is not relevant. Because on the whole his teachings were constructive with regard to these ethical codes.

Voting should be restricted to legally competent adults.

What about dumb adults, or sheeple?
Here in the U.K. there is a large cohort who still subscribe to political vibes from about 40years ago. Often described as Essex man, or Mondeo man. This cohort handfistedly drove us off the cliff of Brexit and elected Boris Johnson. And now, they are lining up to elect Nigel Farage, Britain Trump.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essex_man

Thanks for the link, that’s interesting. I think they need a new section focussing on the use of social media and the rise of populism.

I would have to disagree with this sentiment as the young are easily influenced and so are more likely to fall prey to populist ideologies.

I understand this, but in my experience the most likely demographic falling prey to populist ideology in the U.K. are the boomers, ages 60-80 years of age. Although I am aware that there is an issue with young men being easily captured by Reform. This doesn’t seem to follow with young women, who lean more to Greens, with some to Labour and some to Lib Dems.
On balance I think those young voters are slightly less vulnerable, so reducing the age to 16 is a positive move, provided the schooling is implemented at the same time.

If the boomers had had the equivalent education when they were young, I think they would now be less vulnerable.

Personally, I was always going to vote Green from the age of about 15. What annoyed me is when I first voted at 19, there wasn’t a Green candidate on my ballot.

I agree with the government that it is time to reduce the voting age to 16. But more importantly, democracy and the role it plays in our nation should be taught in schools. So as the educate the electorate to at least understand and articulate the basic principles and pitfalls of voting and what is at stake.

This is needed now because social media is having a deleterious effect on democracy. With people being convinced to vote in certain ways as a result of lies and populism.

Why isn't it enough just to be "connected to" or "conduit of God"? Why "channel God" and undergo some (usually abject, mortifying, self-abegnating) "transformation to an exalted state"

On the assumption that it is the next stage in the development, or growth of the person*.

There are numerous reasons for this, there is lots of literature on the life lead by people who have a faith, the path of service, to chose the righteous path etc.
Also, there is the issue of making one’s contribution towards the harmony and success of humanity. For example, imagine if everyone had followed the advice of Jesus two thousand years ago and continued to for generations. We would presumably be living a better life by now.

*For me this process is part of endeavouring to live my best life. On the assumption that if one is following divine guidance, or direction, one is living a slightly better life than if one had not.

Why is X constructed? If the equivalent of everything we know in X is already present in Y, then why do we need X?

It’s a thought experiment. It shows a way in which a world of rigid material, where consciousness is so inevident, could have originated from a reality which is not rigid, but ethereal and consciousness plays much more of a role.
One reason could be that the ethereal beings wanted to try out something more concrete, more solid, more complex. After all what they’ve created here is so unimaginably complex. It could be that complexity they are interested in. And then they thought how could we then inhabit this amazing world we’ve just created. The result being the biosphere and humanity. In humanity they might see something more like home, with a conscious sentient, highly intelligent being.

I occasionally imagine that every atom, molecule, every movement. Is held in place, orchestrated by a team of ethereal beings. Some holding the atom in place, others providing energy, others moving things around, orchestrating time and cause and effect. Working alongside millions of others in the atoms around them. To create the artificial world we inhabit. Indeed, at the heart of each one of us might be one of these beings experiencing life through a physical body, in this world.

In the Judeo-Christian-Muslim traditions, God is wholly other*1 (Holy), so to equate oneself with God would be blasphemy. Therefore, Christian Mystics have always been viewed as outside the mainstream of Catholic doctrine. And, those who strive to remain on good terms with enforcers of orthodoxy, could never imagine themselves as a manifestation of God (Atman or son of God), or would hide it if they had such experiences.

It’s a contemplation technique, based on the idea that everything being an expression of God, and by implication is God, in essence. As to whether the person is God, or to what extent, that is not known. So when I think in this way, I’m not concluding that I am God, in that I can create things. But rather that somewhere in the self there is a connection to God, a conduit. But in order to channel that God the person would have reached the exhalted state of transfiguration like Jesus for example. So while I know I am a long way off any such stage of development, I consider that I am part of God and can allow myself to feel the comfort and communion of that realisation.

Such contemplation techniques allow one to free oneself from conditioning and enable one to mould one’s thought processes and ideas to those more condusive to spiritual development.

Consequently, my philosophical notion of the human Soul/Self*3 as an instance of G*D substance (more like causal Energy than ghostly Spirit) is merely an intellectual knowing, with little or no emotional feeling.

Yes, that’s fine, intellectual knowing is what we’re all here for (on this forum).

One hypothetical explanation for consciousness in the "consciousness is fundamental" category is proto-consciousness. I wrote about about this in my Property Dualism thread. All particles, in addition to physical properties like mass and electrical charge, have an experiential property. So every particle experiences itself. And particles functioning as a unit experience as a unit.

Ok, I’m on board now. I agree with your idea that consciousness is fundamental, but I think it needs teasing out a bit. The way I do this is to break apart the preconditioned ideas around the subject. To see the issue from a fresh perspective.

Let me suggest that physical material, the physical universe (that we know, I’ll call it X) is an artificial construct. That the real world Y is immaterial, there are things, beings, space, time, things happen, just like in X, but there is no physical material. In Y there is an equivalent to material, because there are forms and there is extension in time and space. But this material is composed of ideas, concepts, axioms, consciousness and experiences. Things that we typically (here in X) see as mental states and processes.

Now X, being artificial requires a whole series of technologies and infrastructure to produce and maintain. But also it requires, or produces constraints, because it is very rigid and dense. One of those constraints is that consciousness can’t easily be transposed and requires biological structures to bring it into that world. The reason why we see consciousness, ideas, concepts experiences as mental states is because the only place in X where they happen is in biological brains. Whereas in Y, they are everywhere, in everything and form the very material of that world. Remember Y is real, X is artificial.

It's important to disassociate consciousness with anything mental. I believe we have been confusing the two things all along.

Agreed. Consciousness is a state, mental activity is differing types of computation.

However, even if the universe does have a "meaning" (purpose), then, like the universe as a whole, such a "meaning" (purpose) is humanly unknowable (Nietzsche, Camus) – merelogical necessity: part(ipant)s in a whole cannot encompass (completely know à la Gödel(?)) that whole.

Yes, from a perspective from inside the whole, it is entirely inaccessible.

It doesn’t follow from this though, that there isn’t a purpose. Or that that purpose may be reflected in some way within the whole. The purpose might be, for example, to demonstrate the innate patterns entailed in extension.

Unfortunately, I seem to be innately god-blind compared to the emotional & mystical sciences.

In mysticism it is accepted that one is god-blind(although some worship a subjective image, which they feel they know), but also acknowledged that one’s self is god, as, as you say the living cosmos is the manifestation of god. So one plays a game with oneself, reaffirming that one does know god, because one is god, so how could one not know it? Perhaps one is wearing blinkers, which one needs to take off. In a sense mysticism is how to do this.

But they seem to view the god/man relationship as a continuity, with the human soul as a "chip off the old block"*2, so to speak. And that metaphor may also apply to my own notion of a transcendent Mind who has transformed, for unknown reasons, abstract Potential into concrete Actual : our physical world.

Yes, I subscribe to the Hindu cosmogony, not literally, but in spirit.

I take part in those discussions often enough. But I'd like to have a different discussion at the moment.

Agreed, I like the idea you’re proposing. I have a sneaky feeling though, that you are describing something which is identical to what we understand as Matter(as in physics). While saying it is something quite different, like something that plays a role in human awareness. I can see how any living organism can be conscious, which I subscribe to. But as for matter, I don’t have a line of thought that takes me there.

I have no issue with Enformationism. It sounds like a useful theory and compatible with my way of seeing things. G*D being the crux of the issue, is unknown and unknowable*.
While I have an apophatic approach, I also leave wide open what a creator would entail, free from any preconceived ideas.

*while I agree that G*D, or the truths of our predicament are unknown, or unknowable. This does not mean that these things cannot be known, but only that they remain entirely unknown at this point. We don’t know if this information can, or cannot be known by humanity. So I remain open to the idea that this information could be provided at any time. Like a God imminent to us.

I once had a lucid dream where I inhabited a plant, briefly. It was like my consciousness, disembodied, was moving around a landscape. At one point, I moved into a plant and could feel being the shape of the plant and the energies coursing through the xylem tubes. There were intense colours across a spectrum, it was very thrilling. Then I moved out of the plant and across the landscape again and remember looking back at the plant and wanting to be that plant again. It was like I experienced what it was like to be a plant.

He doesn’t want it to become a discussion about materialism versus idealism. That’s all. Although that may not be possible on. This forum.

It's the essence of culture.

Quite. This involves direct oral communication and communication embibed by communion between people. Enabling understanding and knowledge not reliant or defined by intellectual discourse and prescription. But rather alongside it, with teaching involving experience and practice which has no intellectual content.

And I have been accused of propagating woo-woo nonsense when I attempt to discuss the possibility of a transcendent god-like entity that I have never experienced in any way, shape, or form.

Yes, it’s unfortunate, we are on a site populated by people who have studied academic philosophy, wherein the current zeitgeist is critical of what has been deemed woo. Not without good reason, though, because there is a lot of woo out there. But when it comes to shooting down people who have a genuine interest and are prepared to exercise some critical analysis, I think it goes a bit too far on occasion.

Have you ever engaged in an Ayahuasca retreat, where many people can have similar experiences, and then discuss their Jaguar exploits in the spirit world with others who will understand what you are talking about?

No, although I did have a few similar exploits in my youth, I don’t seek out people so as to discuss the finer detail of the issue, simply because they are as rare as hens teeth. Taking strong hallucinogenics isn’t a mystical experience, although it does free the self from some, or many of the constraints of an ordinary life, temporarily. However the person taking them is experiencing something akin to a rollercoaster ride. With no idea, or understanding of what’s happening. The guides administering the drugs, know little more than them, and are there to help them ride the waves, peaks and troughs of the experience.

I see the use of drugs in this as a way of helping people to begin to free themselves from their conditioning and give them an understanding of the extent of the conditioning. But after that initial experience the drugs are a hindrance and best left alone. They are destructive to the health of body and mind and can cause atrophy in the parts of of the being specifically required to make further progress.

This is interesting in that it might help to explain what is involved by contrasting what I’m describing with the experience of someone taking one of these hallucinogenic drugs. Some mystical experiences are like the drugged state, such as the experience of a higher being, or presence (fitting the preferred, spiritual teaching). Or a feeling of being outside of the body, or feelings of peace, silence, or visioning profound knowledge, or experiences. I think these are equivalent to the hallucinogenic experiences and are part of the process of freeing parts of the being from their conditioning and mental straight jacket. Rather like the opening of a flower from the tough outer casing of a bud.

However the difference being is that the person is usually following an established spiritual philosophy and ideology through which the experience can be both articulated intellectually and viewed and experienced as part of a social and cultural process of spiritual enlightenment, within a school. Surrounded by students and masters of different levels of development. This context is crucial because it provides fertile ground for a person to grow into knowledge and understanding and become one of the more advanced students sitting alongside them. This entire process is holistic and aspects of it can’t easily, or successfully be removed from it. Although I think one can beyond a certain point leave this setting and continue outside the school and in the world. Having already mastered, or developed the required skills to continue moving forward.

If God is totally ineffable, why would we waste time debating on this effing forum?

The ineffable God* can be known, understood and experienced by being it, in mysticism. Just not directly, It is done by it being witnessed, known through the experience of it and one becomes it, through the mystical practice. None of these means relies on intellectual, thought, or understanding, but rather a direct knowing, or knowledge of it.

That may be why you seldom find Mystics posting on philosophy forums. Of course, a few mystics --- e.g. Meister Eckhart --- have attempted to translate their sublime experiences into mundane words.

I am happy to attempt this, but it may not bear fruit. Who knows?


*as Tom Storm says, the God of mysticism is not that described in religious teachings. It may not be an overarching demiurge, it may be something more mundane, or something else unexpected. The important thing is that it is accessed through the self, the being of the self. Not externally, although, this is not to mean it can’t be known, witnessed, or experienced, externally. But that if this were to happen it would be an external [to the self] intervention.

how can any one/thing not always already be "a conduit for the will ..."?

The person, the person conditioned by society to behave in a certain way. You know like a Follower of Donald Trump, for example.

But in asking the question about more philosophical accounts of God, I guess I was primarily asking if this is fundamentally a matter of contrasting theistic personalism with apophatic theology/mysticism?

I’ve found that people on this site are guarded about what they think about such a disputed issue. Or perhaps it’s that once they have read philosophy beyond a certain point, they only ever talk, or see things in accepted philosophical terms, or only use those terms. Like a straight jacket on accepted modes of thought, academia.

Whereas I come from the opposite direction, the apophatic approach. Where I am concerned with unlearning these things, negating intellectual contamination. Putting the mind in a box to one side and contemplating the issue through different means*. So I have a kind of straight jacket in that I can’t easily insert my thinking into these accepted philosophical terms.

We are left in a Mexican stand off.

So what to do, do I now have to become fluent in philosophy so that I can become the interpreter. Or do philosophers need to learn the more apophatic mysticism in the other direction to become the interpreter?

Fortunately Wayfarer has put in some of the hard yards in addressing this divide and provides valuable context in discussions. Although I see that he often finds himself under attic from the more physicalist elements of the forum.

There shouldn’t be this divide, especially in a world which is becoming increasingly divided.


*I know it seems counter intuitive to claim to negate thought, while relying on it. To put mind to one side, while continuing to use it. But this kind of approach is common in mystical practice. In the beginning it is more a case of cancelling out conditioning, such as the idea that God is an old man with a long white beard sitting on a throne. Then at a deeper level cancelling out the egocentric thoughts driven by human desire, self importance, envy, greed, selfishness etc. To reach a point of coming to terms with yourself, learning to collaborate, to work together. Followed by a deeper point, or crisis where one reaches an accommodation with your divine self, to collaborate with an idealised version of yourself. To become a conduit for the will of the divine.


There is a whole system and philosophy based around this approach. Which was brought to the West by Madame Blavatsky in the 19th century and became the Theosophical society. Unfortunately for a myriad of reasons she and other members of the Theosophical society became mired in controversy and were ostracised and mocked extensively, even now on this forum.

"both thinkers seem to find it hard to grasp what exactly the other is really saying". So, the key barrier to communication seems to be "systemic and structural cognitive biases" in the form of Realistic vs Idealistic worldviews & belief systems.

Pretty much sums it up. Might as well throw a few flat earthers in there, to get the debate going

Thus enabling a more holistic, or 3 dimensional (by analogy) perspective.
— Punshhh
What do you mean by this?

To see and know ourselves through an understanding of and with the body, through an understand of and being being and through growing, or progressing in these activities. Alongside an intellectual understanding and enquiry. One, or more of these means can inform the others and in a personal way integrate with the others. Forming a broader understanding, or knowing, in which the intellect is no more important in attaining that growth than the other means.

Do you mind if I ask, what does it feel like to hold the beliefs you have? Is there reassurance, or a profound sense of meaning? Or is it ineffable?

I don’t really hold beliefs any more, (apart from beliefs relating to living a life in the world), because they are intellectually derived, rather, I see them as an obstacle. Faith is different, because it isn’t entirely intellectually derived. For me faith plays a role similar to humility, piety(a piety largely absent religious meaning) and a sense of communion (not religious).

Yes, there’s reassurance, a sense of meaning and knowing and an ineffable part, which is what is contemplated beyond what we know in this world. An ability to maintain these things in the face of incoming conditioning and problematic situations with friends and family etc and defuse them.
I suppose the main benefit, is a sense of peace, contentment, happiness etc. While nurturing a sense of wonder and a childlike humility.
(I spent many years engaged in self development, rooting out conditioning, trauma and indoctrination. Alongside meditation, contemplation and rebuilding my personality etc. along with developing a personal spiritual philosophy and mystical practice.)

Mystical traditions, contemplative practices, and certain strands of idealist or existentialist philosophy have all tried to develop alternatives to that constraint. Which is not to reject Kant but to broaden the context in which his questions are considered.

In that sense, the question isn’t just “what can we know?” but “what counts as knowing?” And that’s still very much a live question.

Very much so, do you know about 95% of my philosophy and what I spend my time thinking about, I can’t write on this forum. Because it’s a different language from what is discussed here. At best it gets pigeon holed as some kind of panpsychism, or mysticism. And yet I can’t go to a spiritual, or mystical based forum to discuss it there because they are places full of people with very little critical rigour in their philosophies, or ideologies. Most of it is out and out woo. I expect you know what I am referring to as you spent time involved in the New Age movement.

I have three, or four friends and family members who I can debate with on these issues and I’m happy to carry on in isolation apart from that. But there doesn’t seem to be a community where this is discussed with any kind of intellectual rigour.

I know that there are spiritual based organisations and communities within the schools of thought, such as Buddhism, Yoga, Theosophy etc. But I don’t want to become involved in any of these movements at this point. I’ve been there and done that.

This brings me to a more speculative point: perhaps we will never be able to fully understand ourselves. Not for mystical reasons, but because of a structural limitation: a system may need more complexity than itself to fully model itself. In other words, explaining a human brain might require more computational capacity than the brain possesses. Maybe we will someday fully understand an insect, or a fish—but not a human being.

I would suggest that mysticism is the only way to fully understand ourselves. This is because it endeavours to develop understanding not simply through the intellect, but also through the body, through being and through growth. Thus enabling a more holistic, or 3 dimensional (by analogy) perspective.

Also I would suggest that fully understanding anything, other than abstract concepts is not possible. Because it would require an understanding of the whole context in which it resides. Something which we are not in a position to do.

To address your question about AI and subjectivity. I don’t see why subjectivity, or anything else a human brain does can’t be modelled. But subjectivity etc is not the same as consciousness, which is something present in living organisms. Resulting from biological processes, rather than computation in the nervous system. Just like the robot in Star Trek, known as Data, AI can conceivably be programmed to perform anything a human can do, but it simply isn’t conscious. It’s a machine carrying out preordained processes.