It sounds more like contrivance than solid conjecture.
What in the world is “a certain independence” - Seth’s hallucination I suppose?
Appreciating that I have a mindscape, that is populated by various emotion driven characters, along with a couple analytical ones, and that I’m constantly navigating environments that I’d better be decent at assessing if I want to prosper, or survive for that matter.
These are things that fascinate me, I’m getting increasing sick of, and grumpy towards all the rhetorical fancy dancers out there, with one eye on the mirror.
Why is there still no reference to the environment that’s feeding our sensing organs, while helping sustain our body’s homeostasis?
Also seems to me that suggesting AI has acquired “minds of its own” is outrunning our headlights, so to speak.
See, I can find confirmation in all those slightly different perspectives to pose a concept.
Tulpa IS a product of your mindscape and at the same time is supposed to assume a certain autonomy.
Your mindscape HAS a certain autonomy and relationship with the environment.
Ergo a Tulpa (3rd century Buddhism) is the same as “a product of the Mindscape”, is the same as Tegmark’s emergent autonomous intelligence of specific “natural patterns”.
The intentional stance is the strategy of interpreting the behavior of an entity (person, animal, artifact, whatever) by treating it as if it were a rational agent who governed its ‘choice’ of ‘action’ by a ‘consideration’ of its ‘beliefs’ and 'desires. https://ase.tufts.edu/cogstud/dennett/papers/intentionalsystems.pdf
As for Dennett’s “Intentional Systems Theory” essay, so much rambling, the academic with all that time on their hands, though, yes, it makes sense, for what it is, which I believe is summed up in this paragraph.
… The robot poker player that bluffs its makers seems to be guided by internal states that function just as a human poker player’s intentions do, and if that is not original intentionality, it is hard to say why not. Moreover, our ‘original’ intentionality, if it is not a miraculous or God-given property, must have evolved over the eons from ancestors with simpler cognitive equipment, and there is no plausible candidate for an origin of original intentionality that doesn’t run afoul of a problem with the second distinction, between literal and metaphorical attributions. …
Stuff like this feels melodramatic, absolutist and all together too “Abrahamic” and arrogantly lordly for my tastes. The puny human defining what nature is.
The process of natural selection is a blind, foresightless, purposeless process of trial and error, with the automatic retention of those slight improvements (relative to some challenge posed by the world) that happen by chance.
As opposed to my more passive observer of nature, with appreciation based on all I can absorb and learn about how it hangs together, all the while appreciating the sliver of the unknowable mystery regarding evolution’s drive. Not to presume anything into it. Savor the mystery, while focusing on appreciating what we really and honestly can know.
