This is an aspect of UK life which I find so worrying and leads me to believe that the UK is becoming an experiment in authoritarian totalitarianism. The biggest problem is that such interventions are on the basis of 'suspicion of fraud' as opposed to proof of it. The DWP makes so many mistakes and this is going to be a potential area for great disaster and a means by which the state can just take anyone's money.

So many individuals and organisations, including banks are opposed. Nevertheless, it is being pushed through by the current government alongside an agenda of many reforms aimed at giving increasing power to the state.

I have looked at the thread and the book sounds interesting. I particularly wonder about conspiracy theories as myths which are influential. Of course, they compete with so many myths in the context of relativism.

At one point, the myths arising from Christianity were so strong. In particular, the idea of apocalypse had so much influence, including on Ronald Reagan. This all came into play with so much expectation of the end of the world at 2000. The end didn't happen but 20 years on the world seems more fragile than end. The reality of climate change may hover as the major threat of an 'inevitable'. I remember when discussing the postmodernist ideas of 'end of history' in conjunction with the threat of the end of civilisation on this forum some saw such an end as almost inevitable. Part of the problem is that so many different systems of thought and worldviews contribute to mythic beliefs in 'doom and gloom' impact and this may be having a negative impact on intersubjective thinking and actions in the world.

Your way of differentiating between predictions and self-fulfilling prophesies is worth considering. Predictions are careful calculations. The potential to turn them into actions is more complex, unless one has a sense of the inevitability of destiny. For example, a nihilistic approach to what is likely to happen may affect it, as in hopelessness and giving up. It may involve the fight or flight mode and the way we face obstacles and adversity.

I am speaking of the transmogrication of fear into monsters on a metaphorical level. It is like inner demons. But such forces have a numinous power in effects.

Do you not think that the mythic has any power on outer life?Of course, every human being only has so much power and influence.

One aspect of the influence is positivity and negativity in the social sphere. I know that others respond so differently according to my own mindset. If I am in a negative mood it impacts on my relationships and outer life. Mindset may have a real affect in influencing so much which happens in outer life. It also has the power to demoralise or inspire others. It creates ripple consequences.

I am a believer in Jung's idea of synchronicity and have written on this site about it. The idea of synchronicity is about meaningful connections rather than causal ones. The patterns are observed by human consciousness. I first came across it when I was about 16 or 17 when I read Jung's autobiography and found it extremely helpful for making sense of inner experiences.

The inner world may be an important source and connection to imagination, whether this is seen as God or in a more secular view. I do have some sympathy for what Plato describes as the 'daimon', or higher self. You seem to dismiss prayer, prophecy, which alongside medication which may be essential aspects of the finetuning of subconscious depths. I am a little surprised by this as you write fiction which draws on mythic dimensions.

My understanding of prophecy is that it involves seeing patterns and correspondences. For example, astrology was about seeing reflections in the stars. I am a great believer in synchronicity. I also see parallels between inner and outer reality rather than dreams as being simply about the personal. We are all aspects of the cosmic web and are interconnected as systems within systems, the macrocosm and the microcosm.

I know that positive psychology is a strong movement, alongside cognitive techniques and mindfulness meditation. This is in contrast to psychoanalytical based therapies, which dig beneath the surface for past traumas. Both may have value and be complementary. Perhaps we need to rise above negativity into the positive but awareness of the negative sources is important.

It is probably the same with news, which I find a source of stress. We need to know what is going on in the world to be prepared but not let all the problems in the world become overwhelming.

One thing which I find is that some negative experiences may be an important stage in development. For example, I have a virus (which may or not be Covid) and it may be nature's way of allowing me to take time out and reflect. Even accidents may be about wake up calls from one's higher self, and I think that was how Bob Dylan viewed his motorbike accident many years ago. When I have broken bones, the recovery period can be seen as a way of drawing upon one's own inner resources in a positive way, which is about working with 'black swans'. For example, when I broke my elbow a couple of years ago, it was during this time that I rekindled my love of drawing which I had lost for about 5 years.

@Hanover (I have had to reply this way as the reply feature on the site won't work for some reason.)

l will try to keep positive but do struggle to do so. I swing from extremes of negativity and positivity generally. I actually think that I have developed Covid in the last couple of days, which doesn't help. That is why I haven't replied to some of the posts above at the moment...

The idea of 'confirmation bias' works better than 'prophesy' in some ways. That is because there is a lot of seeing so much as reflecting one's inherent beliefs. The one aspect of it as self- prophesy is as less static than confirmation bias. Belief may spiral and change within the processes of prophesies translating into what becomes manifest.

I can see why you see the idea of self-prophesy as evoking a conception of 'magic'. Ancient civilisations spoke of the 'evil eye' and 'voodoo'. Such perspectives were too concrete but that is not to deny that it is possible to kill through the transmission of negative subliminal messages . Of course, this would be the extreme end of a spectrum of less dire influence.

As regard to 'hope' versus 'faith', hope may be like the spark amidst darkness as a way through. I just wonder if it is too wishy washy and empty, like in Pandora's box. Faith is more affirmative about a mindset of achieving desired outcomes.

It sounds as if you think that the idea of self-fulfilling prophesy makes sense in connection with life choices. I do too and see it as where phenomenology and existential choice come together.

Your idea of 'codes', especially in conjunction with history is also pertinent. It is about subtext and subliminal messages. It can be used by leaders and organisations as a form of manipulation, in advertising and the manufacturing of news. It is an aspect of 'dark psychology' and politics.

I am sure that many may dismiss the significance of such 'dark psychology' as of importance as a worthy philosophy concern. However, I see it as central to individual wellbeing and the future of the world. It can involve breaking of personal spirit and will. Too much 'bad news', especially in the form of news and social media may give rise to nihilism. Also, it may lead to 'mental illness', and physical illness, which has some psychosomatic basis.

I originally wrote this and shelved it in the lounge shortly afterwards, as I saw my post as incomplete. However, I have brought it back into the main section as I received some helpful replies. I also updated the title for clarity.

I was going to use the words 'faith and fear' in title today. However, that might lead to some confusion because I noticed a new thread on 'what is faith?'. That thread is extremely different from mine because it looks more at faith in a religious context, as opposed to fear vs faith on an existential basis.

Beliefs, including self belief, have such a determining role. It is central to a sense of empowerment and autonomy. This is recognised by the cognitive behavioral thinkers.

The whole idea of mindset was also expressed in the thinkers of the tradition of the 'law of attraction'. This tradition may be dismissed as 'folk wisdom' or pseudoscience. This may be related to lack of experimental proof and dismissal of what works, or does not, pragmatically.

Your consideration of the idea of prophecy and prediction in connection with the nature of 'self- fulfilling prophecy' is very important. It does go back to the Old Testament times and comes with an element of belief in divination. Even those, such as Nostradamus, who predicted so much trouble around the time of the millennium, before and after, were believing in some kind of precognitive experiences. Many people do speak of such experiences, including precognitive dreams. There is the tension between such imaginary speculation and more 'scientific' aspects of prediction.

The factors involved in prediction which you mention are very important. But one book which I have found to be of significance is 'The Black Swan' by Nichols Taleb. His understanding of the irregularities of uncertainty is how the 'black swans' can be drawn upon and weaved into action positively. This may be an important element in self-fulfilling prophesy because it involves translation of potential uncertainties into action. This may be about intentionality at the level of working with detail in real life for desired outcomes. This may be done consciously, or occur unconsciously in a mindset of fear.

You say that there are no situations whereby faith has any power personally or collectively in bringing about desired ends, which does not make sense to me. Every time a desired end is thought of and actioned it involves a creative leap of faith. This is not bound up with religion but may involve some sense of being able to shape destiny. On the collective level, protest movements and the entire radical spirit( such as the 60s counterculture) may have been about a culture of faith inspired changes.

j
Yes, the term self-fulfilling prophesy is questionable, and, may in itself be open to philosophy scrutiny. It does arise in connection with fear and a culture of fear.

The issue may be about how the 'black hole' state affects causality, especially at the level of action. I know that I am guilty of 'black hole' negativity. Currently, I have been in a state as a result of reading too much news of Trump, Velensky and so much doom and gloom. Some of what I am reading may correspond with real threat, although there may be an element of disempowerment going on through a cultural manufacture of doom and gloom.

There is indeed a difference between the happy and unhappy person. The person in a state of doom and gloom may bring others down through negativity. On the other hand, the person who is happy may inspire others. Part of the area which I see as complex is the issue of whether ignoring the potential fear is about faith or blind faith, of burying one's head, hiding from troubles. Thinking about potential problems may be a way of thinking about them critically, or about magnifying them. This is the dilemma which I am concerned about and wonder about the issue of 'self- fulfilling prophecy' at the level of action and causality.

It seems like artificial intelligence has intervened to remove the video. It often seems to be used as a way of censorship as well as commerce. One of the most controversial commercial aspects is the UK banks upcoming plan is for banks to scan individuals' bank accounts. The aim is to flag up people on benefits who may have committed fraud. However, it focuses on people at the lower end of the power scale as opposed to those in powerful positions.

Also, about a week ago I saw an article in 'The Guardian' about potential consciousness and sentience in artificial intelligence. I was going to write down the references but couldn't find it again. What the article was arguing was on the supposition that it would be possible to do so. It went on to state that it would mean that such forms would be able to suffer like animals. Therefore, to 'kill them' or destroy them would involve ethical concerns. So, it seems that the machines would have rights.

The issue of difference which I see between your approach and mine is that you are trying to formulate arguments on the basis of logical propositions. In contrast, I am trying to understand the philosophy of religion by viewing it in the cultural and historical context in which it developed. They are such different perspective and I do not dismiss the validity of looking at logical propositions but, equally, the hermeneutics underlying the philosophy of religion have a critical role in consideration of concepts.

The quest for the historical Jesus is one which may get lost and buried in the history of Christianity. There were probably many Jesus's and many wandering Jews. We are left with the Gospels which were written many years after any specific person. Also, the accounts were dependent on what became part of the canon of texts accepted by the early Christian Church. This excluded texts, especially the ones which were recovered as Gnostic. The idea of Jesus as identical with God? rather than as having a Messianic role, is within this historical and literary context.

My understanding is that it was the Christian Church which decided that the person spoken of as Jesus was the living incarnation of 'God'. This was bound up with the idea of the Trinity, the Father, Son and Holy Ghost.

What is questionable is about the person or figure in the Bible's view. He definitely saw himself as having a mission but did not necessarily see himself as the incarnation of God. He spoke of himself as the Son and spoke of a Father in heaven. However, this does not mean that he saw himself as the only Son. In the Christian story everyone could be seen as sons and daughters of God. However, I am aware that my interpretation is different from mainstream and fundamentalist accounts as I see the Bible in a symbolic way.

What happens in the dialogue between the human and the artificial in ethics may be one of the most significant aspects for the future. There is indeed the the question about whether the artificial will develop it's own independent thought in the field of ethics? In speaking of ethics, my working definition is of it being the science and art of how one should live.

Considering this involves the question of the core basis of ethics and ethical values. There are varying approaches, especially the dichotomy between deontological and utilitarian approaches. If it is about smart thinking the artificial intelligence is likely to go in favour of the utilitarian. This is where some fear that AI will make sweeping choices, such as to bomb in order to protect the good of the greatest number. Or, supposing it made a judgement that humans should be destroyed as they have done so much harm and that a reset is needed?

A lot comes down to how the artificial is programmed in the first instance. For example, the core values may reflect cultural biases, even the religious or secular codes and ideals of its software and programmers. If it is able to achieve independence would it roll out a new set of moral rules, like those of Moses' tablet of 10 commandments? Also, there is the issue as to whether different artificial systems would agree any further than people.

If the independent ideas of AI were to differ significantly from those of the human, which would be followed? Humans would probably fall back on appeal to the emotional basis of ethics while the artificial may go in the direction of impartiality. It could lead to war between the humans and artificial. Or, alternatively, it could lead to a greater impartial understanding of aspects of ethics, including new insights into the dilemmas of justice, equality and freedom. How such ideas evolve in the artificial is a central factor in what may happen in this respect.

It is true to say that the criticism of artificial intelligence should not hinge on its potential use by leaders. They are separate issues and the only reason why they come together is that political leaders have such a significance role in determining their development and use. What may be helpful is the general development of ethics surrounding artificial technology as an area of focus in society, because it would open up dialogue for everyone. Of course, the leaders have more power and responsibility but if it considered as being about ethics it is less about moaning and blaming. The field of ethics may involve more impartially than pinning it down to politics, because it is about moral responsibility.

I do agree with you that the ideal would be artificial intelligence allowing for humans to do rewarding work. The problem is that what is happening is far from that because politicians are skewing it. This is why the relationship between humans and machines is vital. It is possible for the toxic elements of the human and that same potential in the artificial to come together in collusion. That is the specific danger and, the question is whether or not humanity itself has reached the level of consciousness and self awareness to unleash the power of the artificial.

The theoretical ideal of AI replacing the 'bullshit jobs' seems to be going the other way round mainly. The jobs which many would have done, such as in shops and libraries are being cut down to the minimum with the introduction of automated machines and artificial technology. What remains are high positions, for which there is so much competition or jobs which require so many hours of hard physical labour, such as in warehouses. The introduction of pressures in jobs in relation to pressures and demands because more out of work is leading people to become ill, especially with stress.

The idea of universal income would only work if it was livable on and economically sustainable. In the UK, more people have been claiming benefits for unemployment and sickness leading to crisis. There is a current crackdown to find all ways to reduce benefits, with further use and development of AI. Obviously, some of this is about the state of English politics, but it likely reflects global trends.

At the present, the situation is that many have been educated to expect a job which is meaningful and to earn money. It is becoming increasingly difficult for many to find jobs for either of these purposes. It does not help when political leaders blame the unemployed and those who are unwell by saying that they lack a work ethic.

The use of artificial technology is likely to create a wider gulf between the rich and the poor. Those thrown into poverty are going to be able to access less education and afford less smart technology. This will lead to benefits for the elite and fortunate ones with finances.

What started out with a theoretical goal of better quality of life for many is gradually becoming the opposite. What seems to be happening is a capitalist emphasis on economic growth without emphasis on the needs of people. The artificial intelligence which is designed and programmed seems to be reinforcing this, alongside the authoritarian control of state socialism. Many are opposed to what is taking place politically and what remains unclear is how democracy will remain amidst this.

The debate about the comparisons and contrasts between human and artificial intelligence is an important aspect of thinking about what consciousness is and where it comes from as a source. This is an area which is significant for neuroscientists and those developing artificial simulations. Some may argue that seeking to create artificial does not have to be about trying to develop 'consciousness', but If reflection and sentience are dismissed as 'folk wisdom' for whom are the machines created, if not for the 'folk' and natural lifeforms?

Part of the problem of anthromorphism comes from an attempt to make the artificial mimic the human in terms of voice and friendly demeanour. It makes the artificial seductive as a way of replacing humans with the artificial. This may leave people as jobless and isolated in a world of machines. The artificial may benefit the wealthy but cast many outside the scope of participation into poverty and social limbo gradually.

I will seek to clarify my area of questioning. You suggest that 'reflection', 'suffering' and 'crying out in pain' are aspects of 'folk wisdom', which is what I am querying. Are you dismissing the interior dimension of consciousness, in a similar way to Dennett's idea of 'consciousness as an illusion'? Àlso, are you suggesting that artificial intelligence is superior to human thought?

Are the concepts of 'reflect' ' protest' and 'crying out in pain' aspects of folk wisdom?.I do see the question of anthromorphising ideas of 'artificial intelligence' as questionable. However, it does raise the issue of a higher order of intelligence and consciousness, as aspects of rationality and qualia. How may this be established clearly and, is it fettered by the sentient aspects of human perception and thinking?.

The most absurd aspect of so many computer sites is verification by clicking that one is 'human' as opposed to artificial. Presumably, it is meant to show that a human has looked at it but I am sure that devices could find ways of doing this automatically.

The whole of this concept of what it means to be 'human' and going beyond is the likely opposite of Nietzsche's idea of the 'superhuman'. That is becaus his whole understanding was based on the evolution of consciousness, especially in 'Thus Spake Zarathrustra'. It is about going beyond the robotic functioning of the mass to the a unique way of seeing.

In many respects, the use of artificial intelligence is about reduction to the robotic. There is also the likelihood of artificial intelligence acquiring flaws and viruses and with potential problems of errors. If the artificial are relied on it could result in devastating consequences, such as in military operations and transport networks . I am wondering if use of artificial intelligence was a factor in either of the 2 recent plane crashes in America, as the full details of these critical incidents are still being investigated.

The artificial is likely subject to intentional manipulation and breakdowns. Unlike humans, it won't be able to reflect on this. It may flag up faults but it won't cry out in pain or go out of it's way to protest about its suffering. The most it may do is go into shutdown mode and if people are relying on this results in chaos, such as in banks and hospitals.

It does seem like science fiction to think of humans worshipping the AI or AI worshipping humans. It would seem ancient forms of sun worship and fertility rites of paganism. The more grim possibility of 'worship' may be allegiances in the forms of being obliged to connections through digital ID and biometrics, which is already happening in some ways. It could be done from birth to death with access to all aspects of social life and survival being dependent on such allegiance and subservience to the global government of AI eventually.

I wonder if there would be rebellion in the form of utopian anarchist communities as alternatives. Or, would such rebels face punishment as the new 'Witches', in a similar way to those perceived as heretics in Christendom.

Of course, I am imagining the worst extremes possible, not counting apocalyptic destruction through military AI interventions. It is hard to know what will happen in reality, because, the role of AI is partial but still in fairly early stages. Some see it with fear, including some public figures, such as Robbie Williams. Others embrace the possibilities thinking it will lead to significant changes to the quality of life for human beings. Like with the issue of climate change the field of philosophy can be significant in disentangling realistic fear and blind faith about its potential.

If AI surveils the world throughout it will become like 'God' itself as the judge, especially if it gives prescriptive commands. Of course, it is unclear how far this would go, especially in relation to the fate of human beings itself. James Lovelock, in his final writings spoke of the possiblity of a race of artificial intelligent beings and some remaining human beings overseeing the natural world.

When you question how the AI would see human beings and revere them I wonder if it would be the other way round. Who would be servant and master? Would it be a matter of humans 'worshipping' the artificial intelligent beings as the superior 'overlords'? Some may see this question as ridiculous, but I do think it is one that needs looking at, especially if AI is being used to determine welfare and needs of humans and other aspects of nature.

Yes, it is unlikely that AI can be avoided, especially in the world of work. To not use it all would mean not being able to participate fully in so much of life. The trouble may be that it is being used so much for profit and to do this without questioning may be like the problem of climate change and burying oneself in the sand and pretending that the tide is far away. It also comes with a possible form of authoritarian surveillance which is not being explored fully or questioned by so many people. It's dark potential may go unnoticed as it is being championed in the glamour of less paper and efficiency. It is open to hacking and abuse of power.

Basically, I keep an open mind about Omega point theory. I am aware that it may be pseudoscience. I read Teilhard de chardin's writing briefly when I was at school and would like to come to it again in the light of reading since then. Understanding of the nature of the physics behind the philosophical arguments is an area which I find difficult because I don't have a sufficient background in physics. There is probably a need for dialogue within philosophy and physicists in relation to simulation. You have a background in neuroscience and I only started reading around this area since joining this forum.

So much is unknown about what is possible. I have looked at your links and discussions in threads. There is a lot to read and think about, especially in relation to issues of brain replacement. I see the whole area of simulation, artificial intelligence and consciousness as one of the most important challenging areas of the present time. That is because we are at a critical juncture and understanding such issue is of critical nature to thinking about the future.

What I am concerned about is that so much development is happening so fast. Of course it is an adventure of discovery but slow thinking and caution is needed. That is because so many mistakes have been made in history and errors in cyberspace may have catastrophic consequences.

The transference of a human brain onto a system does raise the question of whether such immortality would be desirable. I find the idea of my ego consciousness as having to exist for eternity as rather daunting. It is hard enough to have to live this life without having to live forever.

Of course, it does raise the issue of what aspect of oneself would continue to exist as a form of consciousness. A resurrection involves a body as the central aspect. The Jehovah Witnesses are physicalists as they believe that the body dies and is reanimated by a resurrection at the end of the world.

In contrast, those who believe in reincarnation see there being some principle of consciousness in a continuity of other lives. I like the idea of reincarnation because it raises the possibility of living other lives and experiences. As an option reincarnation, as a simulation of new bodies and further selves, appeals to me. Some would argue that such rebirth is not the continuity of the person, especially as the person doesn't remember the former self. However, it does come down to what is essential to a person and whether it is merely the existence of a conscious ego.

The question as to whether an artificially simulated form of being would have a sense of ego seems central. Personal identity is bound up with the sense of personhood but whether it is central to consciousness itself is debatable. Is reflective consciousness dependent on this existence of ego, which may not be exactly the same as 'I'. The 'I' may be a form of reference but the structure of ego as a form of personality, although not identical to persona. The persona is the outer aspect whereas ego is about the sense of the core of personal identity.

The whole nature of what constitutes personhood is important for those who wish to simulate consciousness. That is if the aim is to create anything beyond something which is a mere search engine or automated system of information. Would it be possible to create Spinoza's form of substance itself in a system as opposed to in nature?

It is a couple of years since I read Tipler's book. He draws upon Teilhard de chardin's idea of the Omega point to argue for the principle of God and the resurrection of the body. Strangely, he doesn't believe in God or life after death but sees it as a potential argument. He concludes it is unlikely to be true in reality.


The potential arguments which he sees for resurrection is one in which computers could be used to create bodies of all those who ever lived. Alternatively, he thinks that it could a resurrection of the dead could be possible if computers were a model of God. We have the idea of God as anthropomorphic and he is seeing the possibility of a computermorphic conception of 'God'.

Part of the problem of not knowing the minds of artificial intelligence means not knowing their potential effects. Only today, I read a news item of wariness of AI after a Chinese one may have caused trillions of pounds of loss, mainly to Western nations. I only read a brief newspaper article and it is hard to know the full details from what I read.

However, too much reliance on the intelligence of an unknown force may be catastrophic. It may also be a potential source of manipulation for political. Also, I read a brief headline on my phone that the UK may have to rethink plans to introduce many means of AI government. That is because there are so many potential mistakes relying on machines.

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

The possibility of creation of consciousness remains speculative in the same way in way as virtual afterlife does. Frank J Tipler explored this in 'The Physics of Immortality'. He looked at the simulation of resurrected bodies by computers.

Some families have created virtual simulations of deceased family members but these are only images. They are not the actual people. It is like suggesting that when one hears John Lennon singing it is really him, even if his voice could be used to record other songs. Artificial simulation is only replica unless the lifeforce is recreated.

The question of zombies is about diminished consciousness and it's the very opposite to the evolution of consciousness. This is a philosophical muddle and it may be luring leaders and creators of AI astray almost like a symbolic apocalyptic beast.

Based on what I have written in the post above to @180 Proof, I generally see artificial intelligence as problematic as being without reflective self. On the other hand, it is possible that the 'I' consciousness is not entirely reducible to the physical alone. The ancients spoke of the 'I am' consciousness as a life force or consciousness itself.

It is the debate as to whether the absence of self as in humans is dependent on human limitations in thinking about consciousness. I think that was the question which Philip Ball was raising in 'Other Minds'. This is a tricky issue.

I find the perspective of Neil and Anil Seth to be interesting because, in spite of my concerns about the increasing use of AI, I do wonder if it could be a new form in the evolution of consciousness. It is possible that there have been and will be other forms of consciousness than the ones conceived and perceived of in humans and sentient beings.

At times I have wondered if there were beings at the beginning of time, such as the pagan gods and fallen angels. The gods of the ancients are mythological in the sense of being possibly disembodied or connected to the planets. In that sense, the emergence of a race of AI could be a return to such a state represented by the idea of a virtual state of being. It is questionable but it is a possiblity.

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.

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

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. As it was, it struggled with some of the questions which I was asking and 'the lady' kept saying, 'I did not quite catch that question.' It felt so obvious that the person was automated and had no reflective ability whatsoever. But, I did get the call back which she said I would get so it was efficient as often real people say that a call will come and it doesn't happen.

When it comes down to knowing what it is like to be anything other than human, it comes down to imaginary speculations. As far as the car is concerned, many people almost treat them like people. This is based on fantasy and conceptions of imaginary minds.

I always imagined my teddy bears as having minds, because I grew up with a mother who acted in plays. She taught me to play and fantasise and see my toys as characters. On some occasions,I think that people misinterpreted my understanding thinking that I believed that my bears had minds and thoughts. These people may have thought that I was psychotic and when I tried to explain the imaginary minds I gave to bears were fantasy they often seemed confused and perplexed.

Human beings sometimes realising fantasy projection and imaginary minds. The concept of imaginary minds is so different from that of possible minds because the possible ones may exist or exist at some point. Creating a mind for a car or teddy bear is not possible unless they could be given a lifeforce independently of human projection.

I am sure that there are objective means of demonstrating sentience. Cell division and growth are aspects of this. Objects don't grow of there own accord and don't have DNA. The energy field of sentient beings is also likely to be different, although artificial intelligence and computers do have energy fields as well.

The creation of a nervous system may be possible and even the development of artificial eyes. However, the actual development of sensory perception is likely to be a lot harder to achieve, as an aspect of qualia which may not be reduced to bodily processes completely.