Nice to cross paths again. It's an interesting topic with a variety of insights.

So to attempt to say that there is no difference between man and nature, or that human acts are simply natural acts, is really an attempt to dodge or hide from the reality of the human condition. — Wayfarer

I agree with you that they are different, except that you are ignoring the possibility of a hybrid, or a qualified "nature-ism."

To assume for illustration only that we accept the biblical story as helpful and refer to your re-reference to the myth of Eden, the so called fall represents the way/thing which takes humankind away from nature (compare to the cave). This movement to knowledge, is not a movement to an equal reality as the one God made, but an error. Hence, the "fall'. The choice made by Adam/Eve does not effectively eliminate or change so called God's creation. But rather, it is an error launching uniquely humans into a fall from their "God given" natures: nature. Their nature remains the same, Nature. Reality does not change, rather, human constructions of knowledge to displace life are just not reality, or, are 'false.'

Again, I don't purport to judge them ethically or functionally; but as far as ultimate Truth or Reality, we are nature. And as Nature, there is no judgement. It just is. And our make-up and clothes, that is the realm of judgement, where we are both transgressor and judge; and though useful, that realm is ultimately false. Those last words, particularly, (it.e., realm and false) to be understood loosely and broadly.

Now, respectfully, I will anticipate your reply might be directed at some literal interpretation of this suggestion, or a statement as to its failure to comply with a contemporaneous, scholarly, or biblical interpretation, so I reiterate, the myth was used in the same spirit as you used it, in the same spirit as Platos cave, not to be construed strictly, but as a fluid illustration of matters of which expression and discourse already remove said matters from the capacity to accurately pinpoint the truth.

.

I don’t think the ancient Greeks had much grasp of palaeontology. — Wayfarer

If I might chime in. My general agreement with the picture of Plato's allegory referring to prehistoric humans isn't to say he meant "cavemen." It's to say--whether wittingly or un--Plato was addressing an intuition he had (I speculate, from Socrates) that humans approach things already and inevitably "clouded" by the concepts history has constructed. While Plato then took a turn towards more history with his idea that reason is the path back to Truth; both his allegory, and the fact that he was already disciple of Socrates, suggests that his intuition was that the Truth lies in being (human-) unfettered by history, and hence, the 'animal' in its natural state of being.

Again, I don't dismiss history, nor reason. I'm not saying Plato's intuition was a return to nature. Just that the shadow paintings--constructions and projections--are not the locus of Truth, no matter how appealing or functional.

The truth is not knowing, but being. And what is being without knowing? Human [as] Nature.

ou know what Plato's cave allegory might be really talking about, at the end of the day? Maybe it's talking about the time, before the Paleolithic (before cavemen) when men and women were not human. — Arcane Sandwich

or, before they were historical humans.

I, too, see it that way.

To say we’re ’ultimately nature’ is to try to return to that state of primordial purity. And that’s what is a fantasy. The reality of the human condition is far from that. — Wayfarer

Paradoxically, I agree. To say we're ultimately nature is an idealization.

And I fully agree that the human condition is far from that.

But I still believe the reality is we are simply nature, and all else is the plasticization of nature, or as you noted, [not petroleum but] dead dinosaurs.

sorry, response above.

Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind? — Charles Darwin, private correspondence

Right. A monkey is free from the burden of trust and convictions. We are enslaved by these fantasies.

Sure. I'm not proposing we go back. We can't. And it's far too late. And I'm not suggesting our 'fantasies' aren't often beautiful, functional etc. Just that they are ultimately fantasies, and we are ultimately nature.

Therefore, as mankind is a part of nature, not separate to it, mankind's relationship with nature is outside any judgment of better or worse. — RussellA

I question that, Russell. If you were parachuted into a completely natural environment with no artifacts and minimal clothing, I suggest you would find survival extremely difficult (depending of course on the specific nature of the environment, rainforest probably being easier to survive than tundra or desert.) But our 'separateness' from nature seems perfectly obvious to me - we live in buildings, insulated by clothing, travelling in vehicles, none of which are naturally-occuring. — Wayfarer

Just because history has brought you, me and Russell to a 'place' where we are alienated from [our] nature, doesn't mean we are, by nature so alienated.

We are conceited apes. Sure, the story about Eden is a myth; but an insightful one. If there is a human fall, it is our fall from nature; our infatuation with knowledge, the this and that of our own constructions, and our concomitant turning away from life, or nature, or so called God's creation, where, as Russell rightly observes, there is no judgement, no better, no worse; only 'is-ing'

Shouldn't we love other species — Arcane Sandwich

Absolutely.

Have fun! — Arcane Sandwich

It is fun, I'll admit; trying out arguments like moving chess pieces across the board. Especially when you're skilled, or have the necessary focus, which, I admit, I am not.

But aren't we just counting angels on the head of a pin?

Religion, like everything else humans do, can be reduced to function. If we eliminate the detractors (opiate of the masses, justification for maintaining the power structures, excuse for bigotry and war; all of which, I reject) there are basically two functions, both of which use Narrative to trigger real bodily feelings that trigger belief, followed by action. It is only in the feelings triggering action that any Real Truth manifests. The rest is counting angels.

The first (an inferior function in the hierarch of so called truth) is ethical. And the Jesus Narrative (or Christianity) is supposed to function to promote love for the species as the drive for all of our actions (Although we have often failed). The message of love, highlighted by the sacrifice, triggers us to love our species and act in ways which promote its survival and growth.

The second ("superior") is metaphysical. And that's where your question is placed. So, not exactly this but, for example: the mythical human Jesus being the same as the mythical God (we cannot know either to be true) triggers feelings which settle at a belief that our own ultimate truth is not in the appearances which we cling to, but in the hidden. If he is human, and yet God, then we too are human, yet (of/in communion with/atoned by) God. Our Truth is not ultimately in our narrated experiences, those things to which we are so attached; but rather, in our mystery, the unspoken, unspeakable hidden/mystery which we are but have forgotten. There are better ways to put it; I'm just saying...Jesus must be God in the Jesus myth, otherwise it fails to serve its function.

And it's not in the facticity that the myth function. Rather, it is in the effect upon your mind, awakening you to--for example--love, and transcendance/the mystery of being outside of the cacophony of becoming.

As for suffering, vulgar time and mouthfuls proffered: suffering is an illusion because it is pain made to linger by mouthfuls proffered through vulgar time.

Ok, I liked that (unsarcastically) but.. among other things which I've yet to consider, or process, my admittedly shallow review of the Lorenz you present, suggests to me, [ to which I will attach the corresponding association with the question of, which is Tao and which is the 10K things]:

1. There is a reality [Tao],
2. Contrary to the (mis)assumptions of phenomenologists, et. al., a thing can and does sense that reality as real sensory beings with real senses [Tao]
3. There must be something (presumably unique to humans) which has 'obstructed' or 'distorted' or 'displaced' (loosely/broadly) our real sensation of the real world to bring us outside of alignment with Tao, and into the so-called world of the myriad or 10k things [which I am suggesting we 'attribute to' human history].

So far---super generally---we are on the same page, right?

4. And/But Lorenz suggests that obstruction/distortion/displacement took place within the biological evolution of the human. I.E., The human cannot sense reality/tao for what it is, because its brain evolved in such a way that it obstructs it. Very interesting, if I do not misunderstand....but then, if Lorenz is scientifically correct, then why even Taoism?


(Although efforts are exerted to find the contrary) Taoism concerns itself neither with cosmology nor with questions about the structure of reality which most of our sciences purport to address. It assumes the reality of the natural universe and allows for its mystery to remain unknowable by referencing it as the way (of things/things are) or the endless changes of things.

It is not even a moral code pointing to universal Truths, nor an insight into True Reason or the Logic of Nature/Reality, because it denies their accessiblity, and, I dare say, relevance.

Rather, Taoism is a shoving, or a poking:
1. wake up, it says, there is a reality, [Tao]
2. it is your nature to be that reality (and, I reiterate, not to know it) [Tao]
3. but it's all of your make-believe, constructed and projected in an ironic and pathetic, frantic effort to know/dominate/master that reality [Tao] which has pushed you away from that reality; make-believe which, because they are functional, you have layered or superimposed upon your natural sensations, including your feelings, instincts and drives. But these are also what has caused your going astray/disorientated from the way of that reality, leading to all of your errors and sufferings. And these make-believes are not nature (hence, not a natural or necessary function of your brain/body--albeit, possible because of your brain body). They are the myriad things, which we humans make displacing reality or the Tao. Ironically, they are the Logos, or Reason, or science, economics, governance, law, or philosophy, etc etc etc, no matter how neatly they function from time to time in making the universe seem orderly and predictable. They give order to the so called chaotic (not a fair term--ultimately what are we to call it chaos or order?) Universe; they dont discover it.

Now granted,
1. it is challenging as hell to sense with our senses, and live in accordance with truth/reality/the Tao, especiallygiven how our make-believes have generated so much desire as a by-product, luring us in and owning us; but it is in our natures to be our natures, free from the fetters of our make-believes. We are not as animals, uniquely singled out aliens from another universe, nor demons born with original sin etc etc, inescapably stuck in fiction (I.e. as Lorenz suggests, incapable of sensing reality) We too are natural, and therefore it must be within our natures to be natural.
2. We can and should continue to function in human history as historical beings---taoism is not a call to live like advance apes, naked hunters and gatherers, or some sort of return to nature in that sense. One can be an investment banker, or the American President, following Tao(ism). Taoism is just a shove: wake up and realize that history (I.e. everything we conventionally accept as so called reality) is a myriad of human constructions and projections, not the Tao, but rather, things made up and believed. Go ahead and play all you like, but for Tao's sake, realize you are playing. Expect, the unexpected, be ready for the inevitable twists and turns of reality--those which, without our make-believes, we would live with just fine:pain would be painful, pleasure would be pleasurable, neither would be a long story about pain and pleasure, and a subject who is victim and victor.

If Lorenz is correct, and if we leap from his conclusions (which I think, can be restricted to, for example, a scientific explanation of the neurological---but that is so definitely not a conclusion I am qualified to make) and there is no way for us but to sense/behave unnaturally; that we are biologically doomed to be obstructed from the Tao (which would be saying the 10k things, all of what each one of us would agree are conventional things, are actually also built into our natures and therefore the Tao, thus there is nothing which is not the Tao and was right to ask/suggest that all along), then taoism's wake-up call is a farce.

I say this, noting that Taoism as an ism is ultimately a farce, as is Einstein, and all human constructions, but its wake-up call, only its shove, is not a farce. Like, Socrates is a farce, all but his wake-up call which isnt a farce.

To once again borrow from Zen to illuminate Taoism (Although as a shield against the anticipated pedantic objection, I recognize that the two are not the same), that is precisely why, first thing you do when the shove awakens you: you kill the Buddha. Because the Buddha too is a farce.

I most assuredly don't. But am intrigued by your so noting. Please explain if you are so inclined. I won't be back to read it for several hours, feel free to take your time.

EDIT: But I hasten to add, unless you mean the concept of biological evolution etc.

Even though i know it's all a game or a simulation of sorts, i still like to take it seriously every once in a while, because it makes it more fun. — punos

:up:

What feature of the Tao is missing in the quantum vacuum in your view? — punos

The concept "quantum vacuum." That's the fearure you won't find in the Tao.

Sorry, you could probably run circles around me regarding quantum vacuum. And conceptually, you probably make an intriguing and useful point.

I just think Taoism is an attempt to remind us that while we produce concepts, no matter how genius and functional, we can reduce/alleviate our universal anxiety by simply being aware that we are just producing concepts. It's like we can play football and take it as seriously as we want, even with complete determination to win, and so on, but if we forget we're just playing a game, we risk all of the suffering associated with winning/losing.

It's the same with these discussions. I'm prepared to entertain a Hypothesis that Taoism influenced Cha'an, or was a reaction against Confucianism, or that Taoism contemplates the quantum vacuum (which I'm certainly not instructed enough to even chime in on). And I acknowledge these hypotheses can be very fruitful etc. But ultimately, they're all ironically adding to the layers of dirt under which we've buried the so called Tao.

I don't mean to spoil the fun, or purport to criticize the genius of the connections being drawn.

I'll bow out.

If something is not the Tao, then what is it, what could it be instead?
—

One of the 10,000 things. — T Clark

Yah, everything conditioning those of us born into human history is not the Tao. To borrow from Zen, the Tao is your original face, the face you had before you were born.

If everything that can be said misses the mark then there is no point discussing it. On the other hand how could you know if the mark has been missed if you don't know what it is? — Janus

The "mark" is the "problem." The mark is not a place, or a fact, or a destination. You're already the mark. If the mark is the hand pointing, of course it's missing the mark when it points [away]. Then why point? Because with all of our pointing; not just wisdom like so-called Taoism; but calling a certain fruit an apple, proposing that e=mc², etc etc, we've succeeded at something spectacular and functional, and thereby forgotten that the hand pointing is the mark. At least, the wisdom like taoism and phenomenology, etc etc, is attempting to remember that the hand pointing has been and will continue to be the mark. But because we are so attached to the [language of] the pointing, and forgotten that the hand pointing is the mark, pointing is the only thing we've got. How could you know? That's the problem. You can't know the hand pointing at the mark, knowing is pointing. You must be the hand pointing at the mark. Then both pointing and mark finally fall away.

Do you have any reasonining to back it up? — wonderer1

No strong reasoning. Not dogma, hyperbole. Sorry. Did not intend to pass it off as either reasoning or law. If I feel inclined, I might provide more of my reasoning than the admittedly little I already provided in my first post on this thread; but being neither a scientist nor prophet, no doubt it will be lacking, and unsatisfying to you and me both.
Then why even chime in? Just to suggest a place where someone might start hammering

we could engineer something like a sympathetic nervous response for an AI. Would it be sentient — frank

My intuition tells me that could be the tacky superficial replica of a human. Its words, ie thinking would certainly make our words/thinking fall prey to believing it had feelings, like a toddler could be fooled by its toys. But it would be us, not the computer, making that actual leap.

Nature is natural, machines are artificial, and never the twain shall meet

Hinton's argument is basically that AI is sentient because they think like we do. People may object to this by saying animals have subjective experience and AI's don't, — frank

My objection would be nearly the opposite. AI might think like we do. Other animals might not. But animals are sentient. AI are not. Because AI doesn't feel like we and other animals do. Any thoughts, ideas etc., which AI might have, might be 'generated' by 'itself',seem organic, might not only resemble, but even exceed our own. But any pleasure/displeasure AI has, and any corresponding drives, cannot resemble nor exceed our own, or that of many animals, without being obviously superficial, even tacky. There is no drive to avoid discomfort, or pain, to bond with others of the species, reproduce, and survive; no organs besides the thinking and perceiving brain, being replicated.

It's not so much what that says about AI that interests me, but what it says about what humans and AI have in common, not sentience, but thinking. Unlike the other animals, human thinking is an artificial intelligence. Perhaps, a leap of logic, on its face, but perhaps worthy of deeper contemplation.

why do you assume being human "means" anything at all? — 180 Proof

Exactly.

Whether there is a God(s) or not isnt relevant to my view which follows.

In my view the Eden myth referred to in the opening, was designed to express that humanity's desire for meaning is its downfall. In a nutshell, its message was, although humans have the physiology to go beyond nature and construct a universe of make-believe, don't. Choose living over knowing.

Sure, the side effects have given us things like quantum mechanics and an ever increasing advancement of technology. And unsarcastically, I am generally not maligning knowledge.

But as a species, we definitely chose knowing over living, and that has lead to an insatiable desire to construct meaning.

It is only because we construct meaning that we have irresolvable suffering.

As an animal, I fracture a bone, or cannot sustain my group with adequate food and safety, and that leads to pain, which prompts my next actions. The pain may continue until I am able to heal or procure the necessities. Then I return to a stable bliss until the next painful trigger comes along.

As a child of so-called Adam/Eve, I take those pains, and construct meaning to attach: damn it, why did I have to climb that tree and sprain my ankle? Damn it, why are my kids worse off than my neighbor? Etc. I know why, because Im stupid, or a sinner, or that is the plight of humankind, etc. Now, with a narrative [made up meaning] to attach to the pain, it is able to linger as suffering.

See also Ecclesiastes: [finding meaning is] vanity and chasing wind. Reproduce, labor only for sustenance, and try to survive into old age. All meaning is not only vanity, bur goes against so-called God, or as I prefer to think of It, Nature; our nature.

Am I oversimplifying your conundrum? Is it not because the human processes of reflection and perception are structured and conditioned by language, and therefore grammatic? That is, the thinking cannot be isolated from the subject thinking, without evoking the uneasiness of the bad logic. If there were no grammar conditioning how we think in the first place, we would look at oak tree shedding leaves without separation of oak tree and perceiver. It would just be--without the words or concepts--oak tree shedding. There would be no subject/object distinction, therefore no I superimposed into the event.

I agree that we cannot think without the I think at the very least subtly implied or lurking in the shadows of thought, but I do not think that reflects the ultimate reality. It is like a virtually permanent glitch we must endure with the advantages of having a Mind beyond our animal consciousness or, the pure untainted aware-ing of our senses and drives within nature.

beauty could be very much closely related to bodily sensory perceptions, which cause aesthetically pleasing emotions in us. — Corvus

I agree...for what it's worth

them sitting in the same spot for prolonged periods of time without doing too much, just staring off into the distance), — Prometheus2

Thank you.

My thinking is that my dog did that too. And likely other advanced animals. Likely, if it weren’t for thinking, any spare time we had prehistorically/pre-advanced-linguistically, would have been occupied in a blissful bonding with Nature.

don't you think this is maybe more of a problem of language and not the mind itself? — Prometheus2

Without the extensive explanation required, and which you are entitled to. Yes, precisely. But I think Mind is structured by/emerged with (or out of) language ( using that word very broadly).

Do you think there is a way (or ways) for us to actively stop this process from happening or at least try avoid it in order to enjoy such moments and experiences for what they truly could be? — Prometheus2

Very briefly; only as glimpses. You indeed, had such a glimpse. But you cannot do that through language (e.g. don't think of 'monkey'--if you are familiar with that little gem). But I don't fret. 1. Mind and Language obviously have their pros. 2. A glimpse might be enough to raise the awareness so that attachments and desires are put in their place, and Nature/Reality can at the very least be appreciated.

Again, all to brief, likely dissatisfying, but what can we do?

Sorry, but this is an essential final point. For all we know, every time a sophisticated animal, or prehistoric human animal looked at nature the way you did, the same blissful feelings are always aroused; but with Mind, constructs are always flooding that experience and displacing or diluting it with well tread paths of conditioned responses. I am confident you have described something real and venerable, but by so describing, you have also inadvertently buried its true potency. Again, 'you' here applies similarly to me, and all of us.

The constructs are useful as hell, but they are also what has alienated us from always feeling that bliss. Ironically, you were, at that moment, not expecting it; thus, not paying (conventional) attention and so reality was able to slip through. Lucky you!

this experience in essence really is might not be describable in mere words (at all)?
Therefore, as soon as we label this moment as 'something' (for example as the word 'beautiful') it loses some (or all) of its' actual 'meaning'/essence of what it is? — Prometheus2

Yes, exactly. I would dare to go as far as your parenthetical 'not at all'. Your experience was one thing: real, natural, felt organically by the real you in the present, i.e. the only 'place' where reality is. Then--owing to the human condition, I.e. that we have built a cage and locked ourselves in it:Mind--that feeling in its entirety, is displaced by the construct, say, 'beautiful', which in turn begins a process of triggering more 'constructs' by association, then triggering other feelings, all of which are utterly not that initial so called 'beautiful' feeling long gone.

But as you say, we all do this. And I suggest inescapably, and autonomously, Mind being that process of triggers leading to responses, in a continual feedback loop which we think of as time.

Without Mind, but only consciousness, like our advanced cousins among the animals; that real feeling would have been present to our aware-ing, but only in its presence. There would have been no dragging it with the Subject into the future by attaching it to a word, nor looking back, both a function of attachment and desire, and both at best, re-presented but no longer real.

That's as briefly as I am capable of putting it. I do think you already got the gist.

because our "folk" idea of what memory actually is, has become somewhat "tarnished", if you will, by the "commonality" of our ordinary lives, if that makes any sense to anyone. — Arcane Sandwich

Makes sense to me.
I should read Eco. Does the film do it justice? Thanks

numbers don't exist. — Art48

I agree with you. They exist. But they are ultimately make-believe. Functional tools we have constructed, projected into the natural world as such, and because they are Functional, collectively believe.

In that sense, as 'opposed' to the real and natural world against which we project them, they are ontologically not real. So they exist, but only for humans, and only in that fictional layer which we have imposed upon reality, hiding it only from ourselves. When humans are nowhere to be found, so too will numbers be.*

*assuming that no other organism evolves to adopt them, and that even our AI etc are gone.

I used 'so-called' because, given I am not a brain scientist (etc) I wish to reserve the possibility that I am mistaken/open to tweaking needed for precision.

However, your secondary point, regarding [so called] collective memory, seems to have grasped tge point I was trying to make. A red rose is whatever it is to our organic senses. But our perception of red rose, as 21st C, humans able to converse in English, has been reshaped by our common narratives--eg. romance, beauty, thorny, fragrant, Shakespeare, English history and so on. Because of this collective memory, a red rose is not what it might have been to a prehistoric human animal. Try as we might, we cannot see it with our senses, unmediated by our shared Mind.

My senses can deceive me, — A Realist

I believe your sense don't deceive you. When you hear a loud crash behind you and you jump, your senses were functioning in truth, and effectively.

It is the almost immediate displacement of your senses with a human made construction--perception--which is susceptible to deception.

When a traveler sees a rope in the distance and thinks it's a snake, it's minds displacement which deceived her. Not her eyes.

I would [pardon my presumptiousness] suggest that at the instant that your eyes saw, your body had a/some real feeling(s)--perhaps an organic bonding with Nature (or, your place within that whole). The moment you identified it as a thing, 'beautiful' your real connection with that unnamable thing, became displaced by the conventional concept, thereafter relegated to Mind and History, forever displacing that moment of reality with our construction of it. Real beauty is that organic sensory experience, and not any of this discourse about it.

I submit you will yearn to repeat it, but the yearning belongs to the label, and this discourse. You cannot repeat it. But it can return. When it does, like the moment you described, it will surprise you and make you feel something real...until the nanosecond after, when, again, you acknowledge it with "beautiful."

No need to attribute. Happy to contribute.

that there's the real object which science discerns, then how it appears to us on a sensory level. — Wayfarer

Granted, certain animals may sense differently than humans. But the 'subjective' you are alluding to and discuss in your very interesting paper (offsite) applies to perception--as you say 'experience. The Narratives shaping us (as specifically human) and stored in our so called individual memories 'color' our sensation. That does not mean our sensations are subjective. If there were no Narratives coloring our experience, you and I might 'see' a red rose in exactly the same way. Of course, we would not be able to confirm that without creating and sharing a narrative about it. But that will in turn, bump the vision out of sensation and place it in perception/experience...and so on.

Taoism suggests we remain free and easy about our Narratives so that we can navigate through them without getting caught or trapped.

there is a purpose in life, it's to find what your purpose is and be the best at it as your authentic, genuine self. — MrLiminal

The idea and application in our lives of "purpose" is made-up. If it serves one well, so be it. Often, however, it is distracting, misleading, even blinding or entrapping. I think "Taoism" (if there is such a unified, identifiable, thing), is pointing in a direction away from the conventional attachment to, even fixation with, purpose. Be an uncarved block, it suggests. Have no adherence to any purpose outside of sustaining life--as is the so called purpose of every other living organism. The rest, for humans, is a perpetual flow of stories we construct and project. Given that, "Taoism" suggests we be always free and ready to adapt to the narratives which flow in our direction, and surround us. One popular example is (extremely abridged here) the 'parable' of the aged and deformed tree--not suitable for lumber. Conventional think condemns it as useless and pathetic, Taoism recognizes it as an undisturbed place for shade...and so on. Another (also extremely abridged) is the parable of the man able to survive the rapids of a powerful river. He does so by allowing the flow to carry him, while adapting to it, rather than by trying to oppose or overcome it [with his own purpose/notions about the river and swimming].

shedding the illusion is often rather more traumatic than a snake shedding its skin. — Wayfarer

I can imagine. So would actually turning the other cheek. And, anyway, what really is ethics? Yet if decisions were made in the direction of these ideals, might not they be tending towards the ethical?

the concept of the 'middle way' is a blurry one in application to ethical dilemmas — Jack Cummins

I think of the Middle Way, even in its ethical application, as not so much a behavioural/choices path of moderation, as a 'place' or 'state' or 'perspective' which exists in the 'gap' 'between' the extremes; or where there is no thing such as extremes, because there are no opposites period; that is, differences are dissolved (whether that is a psychological, metaphysical or epistemological 'place' or concern, let the experts decide). I.e., the path to insight is neither one of overindulging the Subject nor depriving It; but rather shedding the illusion that there is a Subject to overindulge or deprive.

How this path translates into ethics is now more clear. For the sake of brevity, at least as a starting point, Ethical behavior is not driven by the desires of the illusory Subject. Or, in more conventional terms, ethical decisions are egoless.

feelings are central. — GrahamJ

Yes, but my own thoughts may not align fully with either yours or Lett's (based on my extremely limited exposure here). While not wishing to put any of them into identifiable boxes, my thinking may be a strange hybrid.

I will explain super-briefly and in the context of this discussion about AI and my original reply to the OP.

I think emotions are a painting over of direct sensation; the paint being meaning.

I think feelings are a direct sensation, they regulate the body's mood but in a much broader way than conventionally thought of. To keep it brief, even that which triggers belief is a sensation.

The 'code' which Mind writes and projects into the world to give meaning to these direct feelings is emotion.

The emotion is available to AI because it is just code/meaning.

It's the feelings which are unique to living beings like us and therefore not accessible to AI. And I would speculate never will be.

To give an overly simplistic illustration.

I hold my newborn child fresh out of the womb and instantly feel [a bond]. That is an organic and real sensation the AI cannot have.

Within 'a second' Mind constructs from history, meaning to attach to the feeling (because I am human and blessed/burdened with Mind) 'love' to displace that initial feeling. Now I have the emotion, subjective, "I love my baby." That emotion is a construction and can be programmed into AI.

But just as for us, the emotion is not Consciousness. It is not even real. It is programmed code. Triggered by the same feedback loop that makes me nervous when I hear a siren and call upon History to attach meaning.

I'm saying the AI cannot have consciousness not because it cannot have emotions which only we humans construct; but because it cannot have feelings, the real source of our drives, moods, etc., and that which we share with many other species in the real world.

Anyway this may have been to brief and simple, but for what it's worth...

Your information by the way was fascinating. I sense that I might unwittingly align with Hofstadter. I'm not sure about terminology, 'cognition' etc. But for me real 'experience' for humans is like that nanosecond before the sensation gets flooded with constructions from History and displaced by perception or emotion or desire etc. etc.

Suicide is necessarily a settlement of the Mind, imposed upon the Body. If you think, as I do, that the Mind constructs and projects Fictions, to support the Body in its drive to live, then the Mind has no business imposing a glitch or pathology so permanently upon the Body. Rather, it must fulfill its 'fiduciary' role and repair the glitch. Of course, the Body suffers real pain because ot the glitch, which only exasperates the glitch ultimately leading to the fatal but clearly false settlement. So there must be compassion in the meantime, people in that condition need others to care about their suffering. But to me without a doubt suicide is a mistake and Mind has no business imposing it on a Body with a drive to live.