In my view there is still a "self", but not the conscious experiencing kind.

That's no way to achieve clarity is it? "The Mars Rover "kind of" emulates human thought". — Daemon

I was not going for absolutes. I was going for a level of comparison between a current AI system and human thought processes. An electronic knowledge base that can be queried is comparable, as an emulation of a human querying their own previous experience. They are not exactly the same but they are comparable.

That's no better. "Comparable" is too vague in meaning. It can be defined as "able to be likened to another" but also as "of equivalent quality".

An electronic knowledge base is quite unlike a human memory.

To me, the term 'new science,' can be often be portrayed, by some, as in some way 'superior,' to 'old science. I simply defend against that. — universeness

Is modern physics superior to Newtonian physics? Is Darwinian biology superior to pre-Darwinian biology? Do they subsume and transcend their older versions , giving us more options in dealing with the world than the older models? In other words , the modern physicist can shift back and forth between a Newtonian and a quantum description , whereas the Newtonian only has one option.
Isn’t this true in many other areas of culture , from the arts to psychology and moral theory, that the new is superior to the old to the extent that it subsumes and enriches the old, giving us the option to choose from among a variety of ways of thinking ( including the old) that the older approach could not?

An electronic knowledge base is quite unlike a human memory — Daemon

Evidence?

Is modern physics superior to Newtonian physics? — Joshs

Can there be a modern physics without Newtonian physics?
Modern physics has the larger scope due to Newtonian physics.

Do they subsume and transcend their older versions — Joshs

Are scientists smarter now than they were then? I don't like your use of 'superior.'
A car can always be faster and have more functionality and more efficiency than an earlier model but that does not necessarily make it 'superior,' as I'm sure classic and vintage car enthusiasts will attest to.
I am not suggesting scientific advancement is identical in consequence to technological advancement in cars but I think the principle holds regarding 'superiority.'

that the new is superior to the old to the extent that it subsumes and enriches the old, giving us the option to choose from among a variety of ways of thinking ( including the old) that the older approach could not? — Joshs

No, in my opinion, such are not superior as they are a consequence of.

One thing I didn't consider: without thoughts, we still have bodily feelings, and emotions. — hypericin

Do you know that, personally?

Are you able to have bodily feelings or emotions without also having some thoughts along with them?

Unless I am dissociated, this pain is my pain, and I am frightened.

To feel fear, one must already have certain beliefs about the workings of the world and the meaning of life.

He is terrified, but is unable to mentally formulate his situation in any way.

How do you know?
Is it because he merely can't speak or write, due to the stroke, or is he truly mentally disabled?

Then, his migraine fades away, replaced by an all encompassing numbness. Yet even numbness is a feeling, what he feels is nothing. His terror is replaced by a corresponding emotional blankness. He sees bright lights passing above him. He hears the doctors comment on his condition, but can't seem to understand. He smells the antiseptic odor of hospital, and tastes copper in his mouth. That is all. No thoughts, no feelings, no sense of the body. Can you empathize? Is this being strictly speaking still sentient?

If one measures oneself the way a not particularly compassionate external observer might judge one, then the result is going to be truly meagre.

My question would be whether there's any reason why improved algorithms, more compute, and more/better data won't eventually result in machines being as good as humans at translation? — jas0n

It depends on what we translate.
If the current trend toward idiocity is anything to go by, machine translation will soon surpass the average human.

Another line of thought might be, in your opinion, is the capitalist free market economy 'superior' to the Epicurean commune?

No, in my opinion, such are not superior as they are a consequence of — universeness

Shouldn’t it be the case that they are superior precisely because they are a consequence of ? Isn’t that the whole point and value of advancement in understanding , that you take with you but build upon the old knowledge? The latin root of superior is ‘above’. There cannot be an above without a below, a foundation, a ground. The above is consequent on the below

A car can always be faster and have more functionality and more efficiency than an earlier model but that does not necessarily make it 'superior,' as I'm sure classic and vintage car enthusiasts will attest to. — universeness

The know- how required to build the new model was not available for the earlier model The new know-how is superior to the old know—how in that one’s newer knowledge gives one the option of building a replica of the older model but the earlier era of technology in which the older model was built did not have the option of building the newer model.
Similarly , in the era of modern and postmodern art, we have the option of recreating older style of art , but renaissance and Romantic artists did not have the option of creating modern or postmodern art. The newer era is superior in having the advantage of being the consequence of the older era.

I want to be clear that what I’m saying isn’t that newer painting or cars are necessarily aesthetically superior or prettier than the older versions , but that the newer ways of understanding art or car technology are superior to the older because they stand on the shoulders of the old ways and provide more. choices. The classic car enthusiast certainly isn’t averse to making use of the
newer technologies to help to preserve the old car , to make it run longer , to make it safer, to protect it better from rust and use better quality oil, gas, paint, tires than were available when the car was built.

Another line of thought might be, in your opinion, is the capitalist free market economy 'superior' to the Epicurean commune? — universeness

Only to the extent that the larger background philosophical knowledge that a capitalist free-market economy depends on( Enlightenment thought , Adam Smith, etc) was not available to the Epicureans , so they did not have the option of choosing a modern free market system , whereas we moderns, being the consequence of older thinking like Epicureanism, have the requisite knowledge to choose to set up an Epicurean commune if we want. We could say that many today who are familiar with ancient history ( certainly not all) prefer modern capitalism to an Epicurean commune , but we can’t say the Epicureans preferred their model to modern capitalism, because the ideas did not exist for them.

I think it depends on the circumstance. If you are in a state of dreamless sleep, you can't say you have a self, but another person who is awake would surely consider you (the sleeping you) to have a self, despite the absence of thoughts.

But if you take a somewhat similar situation, and make it worse, like permanent brain damage and being in a vegetative state, then it seems to me that outside of a few religious people, no one would say you have a self, you won't have any thoughts anymore.

Then there's everything in between. You could be doing an activity, like walking or playing a sport and be "in the moment", very little of this is explicitly thought out after a point, but we'd say you'd have a self in this situation.

The connection is not easy to state in detail, but they do seem to require each other.

Shouldn’t it be the case that they are superior precisely because they are a consequence of ? Isn’t that the whole point and value of advancement in understanding , that you take with you but build upon the old knowledge? The latin root of superior is ‘above’. There cannot be an above without a below, a foundation, a ground. The above is consequent on the below — Joshs

To me, this thinking is based on a very old bias. The notion that up is in some way superior to down or right is superior to left. This is mathematical BS, is it not?
My rights rather than my lefts, a bill of rights, human rights. no bill of lefts. Your last two sentences suggest equal importance between the foundations and that which is built upon it. We see further only because we stand on the shoulder of previous scientists. I maintain my rejection of your use of 'superior' in the context you employ it.

The new know-how is superior to the old know—how in that one’s newer knowledge gives one the option of building a replica of the older model but the earlier era of technology in which the older model did not have the option of building the newer model. — Joshs

I am not arguing about the advantages that the new may have over the old, but 'superiority' is a different matter. You are pushing the 'above' relationship with the word 'superior' but there are other relationships such as the aristocratic/divine or even nazi connotations associated with the word.
Industrial created more wealth and prosperity for most compared to early agricultural but the consequence of climate change suggests that from the point of view of looking after our planet, industrial is not superior to agricultural. A faster and more efficient car may not be superior to a more roomy, aesthetically pleasing car.
In science, it is often better and quicker to get a computer to 'process data,' but it is often wise to also check where you can using pen, paper and human to check the computer's result.

The newer era is superior — Joshs

An interesting case in point. Art has always been and will always be in the eye of the beholder so I don't see how you can ever use the word 'superior' in relation to art. I am personally not a fan of modern art, at all, no matter what new technique, not available to the old masters, is employed.

I want to be clear that what I’m saying isn’t that newer painting or cars aren’t necessarily aesthetically superior or prettier than the older versions, but that the newer ways of understanding art or car technology are superior to the older because they stand on the shoulders of the old ways and provide more. choices. — Joshs

Ok, I responded to earlier comments before I read this but no matter as this allows me to highlight the clear difference between us. I think it is that you see that which is built on top of the foundations as being 'superior' to those foundations due to the added advantages and my position is that those advantages are often not so advantageous and that the foundations are equal in importance to any enhancement and are not inferior.

so they did not have the option of choosing a modern free market system , whereas we moderns, being the consequence of older thinking like Epicureanism, have the requisite knowledge to choose to set up an Epicurean commune if we want — Joshs

But if a group did choose to set up an Epicurean communal system, I assume that they would do so because they thought that was a better or superior way to live compared to modern capitalism so the newest system is not always the superior one.

If you take away thoughts, what is left of the self? Is there anything?

By thoughts I mean self talk, visualizations, and any other perceptual modality you use to think.

Without thoughts, is there self awareness? Without self awareness, is there awareness? — hypericin

What one considers to be an acceptable reply to these questions depends on one's intention for asking them. Because there are many ways to reply to these questions, each reply different according to the intention with which it was made, and its acceptability measured by the intention with which it was asked for.

A designed entity that can rival humans at translation will likely be along the lines of a ‘wet-wear’ creature that we interact with rather than ‘program’. — Joshs

I agree that interaction will probably be primary. 'Wet' may not matter. Why should moisture matter? My money is on stuff-independent structure.

Do you know that, personally?

Are you able to have bodily feelings or emotions without also having some thoughts along with them? — baker

I do, being human. I think with a little reflection you will agree. For you to experience the itch of a mosquito bite, must you constantly think, I'm itching? If so, this must be the most distracting event possible, precluding all other thought and activity.

To feel fear, one must already have certain beliefs about the workings of the world and the meaning of life. — baker

Obviously false. Babies and animals feel fear.

How do you know?
Is it because he merely can't speak or write, due to the stroke, or is he truly mentally disabled? — baker

I stipulate that he has lost the ability to think: to self talk, and to visualize.

If one measures oneself the way a not particularly compassionate external observer might judge one, then the result is going to be truly meagre. — baker

This person has lost the ability to measure anything.

What one considers to be an acceptable reply to these questions depends on one's intention for asking them — baker

I am interested in the nature of self, and of sentience in general. Is the self fundamentally composed of all the sensations it feels, internal and external? Or is there something more?

I agree that interaction will probably be primary. 'Wet' may not matter. Why should moisture matter? My money is on stuff-independent structure. — jas0n

It cannot be ‘stuff-independent. The stuff is the particular embodiment , which cannot be separated from the nature of sense-making. Stuff-independent cognition only makes sense if we are remaining within the computationalist representationaliat model, but ones and zeros conceal the nature of embodied thought.

It cannot be ‘stuff-independent. — Joshs

Sutff-independent is not intended as disembodied. I am just speculating that maybe there's nothing special about brain tissue. Maybe what matters is relationship or structure.

we are remaining within the computationalist representationaliat model — Joshs

I'm thinking we might figure out how to build interactive/social 'minds.'

A designed entity that can rival humans at translation will likely be along the lines of a ‘wet-wear’ creature that we interact with rather than ‘program’.
— Joshs

I agree that interaction will probably be primary. 'Wet' may not matter. Why should moisture matter? My money is on stuff-independent structure. — jas0n

Wetwear is just a buzz term that currently belongs more to sci-fi than computing science.
We don't have any technology that you could call an 'organic' or biological computer, such technologies are still very much in their infancy.
If we had little self-replicating nanobots which we could inject into our body and they could then become part of us and we could have a small control system attached to and controlled by our brain that controlled the nanobots and could be used to combat disease in our bodies and keep our blood clean and help heal our wounds very quickly then such could be labeled wetwear.
At the moment, the term is really just a way of categorising the workings of the human brain in deference to the computing terms hardware and software. The term wetware has very limited significance to the world of computing at the moment.