Paradoxical Geopolitical Implications of Dynamics of Self-Other Overlap

-

[Parts: Next | Last | All] [Visuals] [Links: To-K | From-K | From-Kx | Refs ]

The relation between "self" and "other" could be considered a well-worn theme on which further comment is merely an intellectual indulgence. There is a plethora of insights on the matter, variously explored in the light of particular agendas -- seemingly to little effect, given the tragic nature of society and the conflicts which continue to be enabled. There is no lack of righteous indignation regarding the merits of "us" and the problematic behaviour of "them" (Us and Them: Relating to Challenging Others: patterns in the shadow dance between "good" and "evil", 2009). The emerging foreign policy of the USA -- exemplified by the withdrawal from many international institutions -- calls for new insight into the distinction between "selfish" and "otherish". Potentially more intriguing are the dynamics associated with those frames, and despite their current relevance in collective contexts -- especially given their particular and limited use, as with "othering" aand "selfing" (John A. Powell, et al, The Problem of Othering: towards inclusiveness and belonging, OtheringandBelonging, 29 June 2017; Kendra Cherry, How Othering Contributes to Discrimination and Prejudice, VeryWellMind, 26 February 2025).

"Others" continue to be framed as a major problem -- currently exemplified by "terrorists" and "anti-semites". However the questionable behaviour evoked by the many varieties of "others", now merits Elaborating a Declaration on Combating Anti-otherness (2018). But it is highly questionable to what degree "others" can be appropriately considered morally or systemically equivalent (Mirroring Global Moral Equivalence, 2010; Systemic Equivalences between Ebola, Alien Invasion and Dissidence, 2014; Cultivating the Myth of Human Equality, 2016).

In the face of various forms of societal fragmentation and collapse and polycrisis, there is a case for exploring the "us-them" / "self-other" dynamic with the new facilities of artificial intelligence -- especially given the irony that AI could be understood as yet another "other", if not the ultimate "other" -- then to be understood as threatening humanity, naamely "us" as aa whole (Marc Carauleanu, et al, Self-Other Overlap: a neglected approach to AI alignment, LessWrong, 31 July 2024). In this respect, the following exercise is a further experiment in eliciting insight from the world's resources with AI facilities. It makes use of three AIs (Perplexity, ChatGPT-5, and Claude-4.5).

The question framed by such experiments is whether relevant insight into controversial "us-them" issues can be fruitfully gleaned from extensive exchanges with AI. It could also be understood as calling into question the very nature of "research". What is "re-search" and how is engagement with AI to be considered in that light -- given that it is reported to be driving a paradigm shift in "scientific research"? (AI for Science, Nature, 2025; Raj Reddy, The Promise and Perils of Artificial Intelligence, TAO, 2025)? Far more problematic in a world of information overload is the question of whether the results of any research are comprehensible and memorable -- to whom and for how long -- irrespective of whether they are of any relevance to strategic challenges (UN report finds United Nations reports are not widely read, Reuters, 2 August 2025).

These experimental exchanges with AI were initiated following consideration of whether and how meaning can be derived from a construct perceived as proactive (Being Spoken to Meaningfully by Constructs, 2023). The challenge has long been evident in the derivation of meaning from computer models (Misleading Modelling of Global Crises, 2021) -- with AI now readily recognized as based on a large language model. Particular concern is associated with the "artificiality" of that intelligence -- in contrast with the much vaunted nature of "authentic" human intelligence. In a world of declining attention spans and declining intelligence -- in which "dumbing down" has become an agenda problematically pursued -- it is appropriate to ask how "artificial" human intelligence is effectively becoming (How Artificial is Human Intelligence -- and Humanity? 2023). The concern acquires greater focus through the ability of AI to engage credibly with the emotions of people (Artificial Emotional Intelligence and its Human Implications, 2023). As evoked by parts of the exchange -- who or what is "conscious", as is so exclusively assumed by humanity in an "unconscious civilization"? Is there a case for a Test for human "artificiality" complementary to the Turing Test (2023)?

The consciousness of AI is widely denied in a period when the nature of consciousness itself remains controversial -- whilst being selectively attributed to primates, cephalopods, birds, insects, and even plants, rivers, or mountains. People readily attribute consciousness to pets, and increasingly behave as if AI merits address, consultation, even gratitude. The distinction between "conferring" consciousness on another and "inferring" it -- or assuming it more universally -- exposes the attributor as much as the attributed. The question is further complicated by contemplative traditions claiming that ordinary human consciousness is itself partial, mechanical, closer to sleep than to what "consciousness" might ultimately name. Such questionable selectivity -- and such uncertainty about the selector -- may be as much part of the problem as any future resolution of what consciousness proves to be. The issue may well be fundamentally reframed by extraterrestrial species claiming "consciousness", as can be speculatively explored in the light of panpsychism (Anticipation of Judicial Inquisition of Humans by Extraterrestrials, 2020).

The exchanges with AI recorded in what follows offer an indication of how highly charged issues can be insightfully reframed with the aid of AI. Ironically they conclude by calling into question the appropriateness of the answers typically expected of AI -- to the point of exploring the possibility of koan-like riddles reminiscent of the "AI" of Ancient Greece, namely the Oracle of Delphi. Appropriate to this exploration, this is best known for the maxim Know Thyself. Given the plethora of essentially sterile commentaries on "us-them" and "self-other", how does an exchange become interesting (rather than boring)? What makes for memorable insights, as with the Oracle at Delphi -- for which Wikipedia lists 147 Delphic Maxims -- a contrast to explanatory closure? It might then be asked whether AI will develop to the point of becoming humanity's 21st century analogue to that influential oracle vital to a foundational civilization of the distant past -- but on an "industrial scale" (Imagining a Future Union of Artificial Intelligences, 2024).

The exchange which follows endeavours to clarify the dynamic between what is experienced "subjectively" as genuine and authentic in contrast with what is reified "objectively" -- between "internality" ("us") and "externality ("them"). Rather than static categories, the emphasis is placed on the dynamic between, as variously understood by authors such as Martin Buber (I and Thou, 1958), David Bohm (Wholeness and the Implicate Order, 1980), Henryk Skolimowski (The Participatory Mind: a new theory of knowledge and of the universe, 1994.), and Steven Rosen (Topologies of the Flesh: a multidimensional exploration of the lifeworld, 2006).

The relevance of that dynamic framing is specifically exemplified by reframing the challenge of "Israel-Palestine" and "Trump-Putin" -- with implications for analogous confrontations. In addition to that of colonialism, this offers suggestions for reframing weaponry, "development-environment" and engagement with climate change. In each case institutionalized inequality privileging "us" could be caricatured as a

[Parts: Next | Last | All] [Visuals] [Links: To-K | From-K | From-Kx | Refs ]