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.

I found the following legal definition of war:
'War is a phenomenon of organised collective violence that affects either the relations between two or more societies or more societies or the power relations within a society governed by the law of armed conflict, also called international humanitarian law', in 'War. The Practical Guide to Humanitarian Law' (hhtps// guide- humanitarian law org).

The legal definition may be a means of defining what is acceptable, including ethical assumptions. However, it does not look at the nature of war in any deeper analytical way. It could be seen as having an implicit assumption of war being 'natural'. However, it does not query the status quo at all, the history of war as a solution and the question of why do people fight wars?

The hatred and fear of difference is a factor in war and violence, whether it is another racial group, the 'other sex' or a minority group can be an example of inner conflict. That is because it is based on fear of that which is different. It goes back to Melanie Klein's ideas of splitting. This involves the separation of mother and child, as well as the splitting of the good vs bad mother. Fear itself is about opposites, especially bound up with ideas of otherness and ego identity.

War may be driven by beliefs, especially if they are fixed rather than flexible. It may also involve attachment to beliefs.

So, do you think that there is not a relationship between inner conflicts and outer ones? Is it simply a matter of the battlefield? How do you see the concept or definition of war? The idea of a 'political animal' is also worth thinking about because it involves sentient needs and desires, but also issues of power which are constructed externally and internally.

I wonder about the relationship between inner and outer conflict. It may relate to the psychology of projection, with people not recognising wars of opposites within and seeing faults in others, the enemy. The enemies may be another religious perspective, Sadam Hussein or a terrorist. It does connect the opposites of good and evil as constructed in the human psyche. It probably begins in the playground and ideas of 'otherness'.

Religion is bound up with worship, which in its worst form may involve distance from the dramas of life. In it's best form, it could be awareness of the 'transcendent', as the underlying force of nature, which is often called 'God'.

fIn thinking about the anthromorphic representations in the form of deity, it probably occurred because it is easier to imagine by thinking of as a 'person's to relate to. The problem may be where this became too fixed, with so much projected onto 'God', resulting in diminished consciousness of human nature and its flaws. The concept of the 'devil' or Satan allowed for evil to be projected outside or, if realised inside oneself as a source for guilt. The mythic aspect of good and evil within religion may have become too separate from the process of self-realisation.

The idealism of Hegel and some others does make an important contribution. From what I have read it seems that Hegel sees history as a realisation of potential. In this way, all the events in life can be seen as the enfoldment of mythic possibilities.

I think that your outpost is a very good critique of what is happening in the world, especially in relation to gender, but 'cultural wars' in general. It does involve aspects of race as @Leontiskos mentions. It also involves the nature of individualism in terms of personal identity, especially in a world fragmented by cultural relativism and movement into the digital age, of online images and identities.

With regard to gender, often the issue of transgender is looked at as the 'problem' of the individual who experiences gender identity issues. This misses the way in which identity is constructed socially. Feelings, thoughts and the development identity involves so much on an intersubjective level, is influenced by cultural ideas, such as the media, modernism and postmodernism as well as science.

The fragmented nature of identity construction is also affected by the way in which people's lives are experienced. Rather than the emphasis on individualism, there is a tendency in the digital age for people to be regarded as mere numbers amidst the 'mass' of humans, especially when they are expected to compete with machines and artificial intelligence. The fragmentation can be linked to a loss of appreciation of the uniqueness of the person, as well as so much emphasis on bodies and appearance in the media.

The 2 albums of 2024 which I would recommend are The The's, 'Ensoulment' and The Lemon Twigs, 'Everything Harmony. The The are one of my all time favourite bands as they are so philosophical. The Lemon Twigs are a newer act, but are quite retro and psychedelic, with hints of Beach Boy harmonies.

I am also contemplating buying the 2024 album by the Cure, based on reviews I have read.

Daniel Dennett is also one who speaks the language of neuroscience in a very concrete way. I like the way in which some Buddhists incorporate neuroscience, but in a less reductionist way.

I am inclined to the view that all explanation is mythic because narrative is built into human understanding. We have narrative identity and it is from this starting point that we develop all pictures of the world. I am not sure that 'reality' can be explained in a way which is different from myth, whether it is in terms of models or metaphors. I work from the assumption that my thinking, and that of all others, is based on story, and this involves the way in which a person has been taught or chosen to understand.

It is true that religion does involve belief in the supernatural in most instances, but not always. One interesting area is that of a miracles, which was challenged by David Hume. However, I do see there being more than just superstition in miracles. There are the stories of the healing at Lourdes. There is also the recent story of the canonisation of St Luigi. He died as a teenager, who had created a website on miracles, and miracles have been attributed to him. It may be my Catholic side coming out but I do think that there may be more to miracles than many would admit. It is about an invisible dimension beyond the material one.

You make sense very good points. In particular, I like the way in which you bring in neuroscience. That is because it may be the secular replacement of 'God', especially as an explanation for consciousness. The images of CT scans and in textbooks present a visual and causal explanatory logic which may be seen as fact and 'reality' itself. Also, science often claims objectivity as 'the truth', ignoring the way in which science, including physics only gives models. Science involves the mythic imagination.

I am sure that there is an overlap between magic and religion, but magic often involves belief in nature as alive as opposed to being about a specific deity. For example, there is the idea of sympathetic magic, which underlies systems of voodoism. There is also a shamanic element to magic.

The story of the resurrection involves a shamanic aspect. It is true that there is a recurrent theme of a dying god, rising again, such as in the myth of Osiris.

With your comment about power structures may change, that is where myth and story come into play. It is likely that the stories we read influence what happens in real life, like the Book of Revelation, and Orwell's '1984'. When I read Orwell's writing it is as if he is describing the way the world has become in many ways. Therefore, fiction authors have a big responsibility, just like philosophers, because they provide the mythic material which may influence the course of history.