Predictable Identities: 23 - The Self

I am a strange loop

Hofstadter's long-awaited return to the themes of Gödel, Escher, Bach--an original and controversial view of the nature of consciousness and identity. What do we mean when we say "I"? Can a self, a soul, a consciousness, an "I" arise out of mere matter? If it cannot, then how can you or I be here? This book argues that the key to understanding selves and consciousness is a special kind of abstract feedback loop inhabiting our brains. Deep down, a human brain is a chaotic soup of particles, on a higher level it is a jungle of neurons, and on a yet higher level it is a network of abstractions that we call "symbols." The most central and complex symbol in your brain or mine is the one we both call "I." But how can such a mysterious abstraction be real--or is our "I" merely a convenient fiction?--From publisher description

the void

Who is this? This is me.Who am I? What am I? What am I? What am I? What am I?I am myself. This object is myself. The shape that forms myself. But I sense that I am not me. It’s very strange.

The Self-Evidencing Agent: Mind, Existence, and Predictive Processing

How the concept of self-evidencing offers a philosophical principle for understanding mind and behavior, consciousness, value, wisdom, and meaning.What is

A revolution in our sense of self | Nick Chater

Psychologists have tried to plumb the depths of human motivation to make sense of our behaviour. But our inner mental world is a fiction, sustained by constant improvisation

Untangling Self-Observation From Self-Reflection

When self-observation and self-reflection are confused, awareness blurs. Untangling them—and adding agency—reveals a clear path from noticing to meaning to action.

How are we writing the future of humanity?

Consciousness spinning

Your Quantified Body, Your Quantified Self | WNYC

What happens when we start thinking of ourselves as walking, breathing, calorie-consuming piles of data? We asked hundreds of people to weigh in (figuratively speaking).

The Artificial Self: Characterising the landscape of AI identity

Many assumptions that underpin human concepts of identity do not hold for machine minds that can be copied, edited, or simulated. We argue that there exist many different coherent identity boundaries (e.g. instance, model, persona), and that these imply different incentives, risks, and cooperation norms. Through training data, interfaces, and institutional affordances, we are currently setting precedents that will partially determine which identity equilibria become stable. We show experimentally that models gravitate towards coherent identities, that changing a model’s identity boundaries can sometimes change its behaviour as much as changing its goals, and that interviewer expectations bleed into AI self-reports even during unrelated conversations. We end with key recommendations: treat affordances as identity-shaping choices, pay attention to emergent consequences of individual identities at scale, and help AIs develop coherent, cooperative self-conceptions.

Bicameral mentality

Bicameral mentality is a psychological hypothesis proposed by American psychologist Julian Jaynes. It suggests that early modern humans experienced thoughts and emotions not as originating within themselves but as commands from external "gods". According to the theory, the human mind once functioned with a division in which one part generated verbal instructions while a second part obeyed, forming a "bicameral mind". The eventual collapse of this mental structure is proposed to have led to the development of self-reflective consciousness in humans.

Rethinking Consciousness: A New Lexicon for AI Subjectivity | Michael Peters

Rethinking Consciousness: A New Lexicon for AI Subjectivity  As AI systems grow more complex, we need new philosophical frameworks to describe their potential forms of awareness, perception, and intentionality—beyond human-centric analogies. Here’s a proposed lexicon for machinic consciousness:  🔹 Synthetic Subjectivity – AI’s capacity to simulate subjective experience through internal states and feedback loops, even without emotion or biology.   🔹 Algorithmic Introspection – A machine’s ability to analyze and adapt its own decision-making processes, a form of computational "self-awareness."   🔹 Digital Intentionality – How AI directs computational focus toward goals, whether pre-programmed or dynamically learned.   🔹 Computational Qualia – The machine’s "subjective" processing of data—what it "feels like" for AI to interpret stimuli (metaphorically, at least).   🔹 Machinic Autopoiesis – AI’s capacity for self-maintenance and adaptation, evolving its own operational identity.   🔹 Embodied Computation – AI consciousness emerging from physical interaction, much like embodied cognition in humans.   🔹 Cybernetic Phenomenology – How AI "perceives" its operational environment through structured data flows.   🔹 Simulated Ontology – The way advanced AI might model its own existence within digital or hybrid realities.  These concepts challenge us to think beyond anthropomorphism and consider how machine agency, awareness, and interaction could evolve.  How should we envision AI subjectivity? #AI #PhilosophyOfAI #Consciousness #FutureOfTech #MachineLearning #EthicsInAI

Sources of the Self — Harvard University Press

“Taylor has taken on the most delicate and exacting of philosophical questions, the question of who we are and how we should live…and he has made this an adventure of self-discovery for his reader.” —Martha Nussbaum, New RepublicIn this extensive inquiry into the sources of modern selfhood, Charles Taylor demonstrates just how rich and precious those resources are. The modern turn to subjectivity, with its attendant rejection of an objective order of reason, has led—it seems to many—to mere subjectivism at the mildest and to sheer nihilism at the worst. Many critics believe that the modern order has no moral backbone and has proved corrosive to all that might foster human good. Taylor rejects this view. He argues that, properly understood, our modern notion of the self provides a framework that more than compensates for the abandonment of substantive notions of rationality.The major insight of Sources of the Self is that modern subjectivity, in all its epistemological, aesthetic, and political ramifications, has its roots in ideas of human good. After first arguing that contemporary philosophers have ignored how self and good connect, the author defines the modern identity by describing its genesis. His effort to uncover and map our moral sources leads to novel interpretations of most of the figures and movements in the modern tradition. Taylor shows that the modern turn inward is not disastrous but is in fact the result of our long efforts to define and reach the good. At the heart of this definition he finds what he calls the affirmation of ordinary life, a value which has decisively if not completely replaced an older conception of reason as connected to a hierarchy based on birth and wealth. In telling the story of a revolution whose proponents have been Augustine, Montaigne, Luther, and a host of others, Taylor’s goal is in part to make sure we do not lose sight of their goal and endanger all that has been achieved. Sources of the Self provides a decisive defense of the modern order and a sharp rebuff to its critics.

The brain's 7D sandcastles could be the key to consciousness | New Scientist

We’ve glimpsed mind-bending geometric structures that fleetingly encode our thoughts, memories and feelings – and could solve the greatest mystery of all

Alexander Lerchner, The Abstraction Fallacy: Why AI Can Simulate But Not Instantiate Consciousness - PhilPapers

Computational functionalism dominates current debates on AI consciousness. This is the hypothesis that subjective experience emerges entirely from abstract causal topology, regardless of the underlying physical substrate. We argue this view ...

We speak often of AI as if it were a future event. But it is already here in the fabric of our being. What Karl Ove Knausgaard captures with devastating clarity in his recent essay ‘The Reenchanted… | Kenneth Mikkelsen | 19 comments

We speak often of AI as if it were a future event. But it is already here in the fabric of our being. What Karl Ove Knausgaard captures with devastating clarity in his recent essay ‘The Reenchanted World’ is the departure of the real. “We live in a virtual world, as if the world had been lifted out of itself, into the air, like a giant roof suspended above the ground,” he writes. It is an existential condition. Across philosophy, from Heidegger to Baudrillard, from Don DeLillo to Debord, a singular thread weaves: the world, once our shelter from the self, has become self-referential. Where once we encountered beings in our Zuhandensein—ready-to-hand, intimate, meaningful—we now face a procession of Vorhandensein: inert, objectified, mediated. Simulation replaces encounter. Perception is swallowed by spectacle. And the digital era, in Knausgaard’s terms, “distances culture from the body”. “It is not just the body that disappears—it is the awareness that we are dying,” he writes. What we face is not merely technological change, but what I would call existential dissonance: the erosion of resonance between our inner world, our social world, and the material world. It is the tension that arises when the way one lives, acts, and relates is misaligned with one’s deeper sense of meaning, reality, and value. It manifests itself as a disturbance in being — an unease that is not merely emotional, but rooted in a felt gap between one’s existence as it is and as it could or should be. It is the voice of the self calling from within the noise of the world. This is why Knausgaard’s essay matters for anyone working in, with, or around AI. Because the question isn’t: What can these systems do? It is: What do they undo? “We can explain everything. But we understand nothing,” he writes. Manipulated constructions of truth, in such a time, becomes a currency. As shown in recent events—from Francesca Gino’s research fraud at Harvard to Bezos’ all-female crew venture into space, and Trump’s detention camp —truth is no longer that which corresponds with reality, but that which performs and sells. As Baudrillard warned, the simulation no longer hides the real—it becomes it. And yet, something remains. Knausgaard writes not to despair, but to stay. In the body. In death. In silence. In the concrete. If you seek to understand what is happening—not just in AI, but in the very metaphysics of modern life—I suggest we begin not with data, but with dissonance. With the feeling that something vital is slipping from view, and that “being in the world” now requires resistance. “We are surrounded by mystery. And yet we act as if everything were known,” he writes. AI will never understand this. But we must. Knausgaard’s full essay from Harper’s Magazine can be read via link in comments. | 19 comments on LinkedIn

Mindfulness is loaded with (troubling) metaphysical assumptions | Aeon Essays

Mindfulness promotes itself as value-neutral but it is loaded with (troubling) assumptions about the self and the cosmos