When I was three and a half years younger I wrote a short paper for my own edification entitled "Thoughts and Questions on AI and self". This was actually more of a list of questions and was compiled almost immediately after reading William Gibson's Neuromancer. At the same time I was taking an anthropology class "hunters and gatherers" at Northwestern and it's also relevant to say that I knew nothing of Buddhism other than a vague concept of "a middle path" at the time. The main gist of said paper was my concern with a permanent "self". In Neuromancer, there were things called constructs, which were approximations of people's personalities and knowledge. There were also Neuromancer and Wintermute, two artificial intelligences who were vying for control of one another. With all of the talk about pre human hominids in my anthropology class the nature of self began to tug at my attention. The angle of the questions asked were along the lines of what causes sentience, and if these parameters are specific to humans or if any other animals or even computer constructs were capable of this trait. I imagine that had I known more of Buddhism at the time that I might have written a very different set of questions.

Where as before I was very concerned about what defines a self, Buddhism often times asks whether there is any self to be defined in the first place. By this logic, at a first glance, I could easily write off my earlier written thoughts as a valueless exercise… but at a second glance I can not discredit my previous actions as it is only by their virtue that I find myself writing what is written now. Indeed I still might find it helpful (to me) or interesting (as and exercise) to compose some Thoughts and Questions on AI (artificial intelligence, ig a self aware computer program and or network) and Self today. So, In what ways might I be able to address these questions? Or, what ARE the questions that I feel like addressing? To tell you the truth, similar questions that arose three and a half years ago rose again about half of a year a go and I gave the matter some thought, from a different interest and motivation, once again. This inspiration came after watching a discovery channel or national geographic television show that was exploring the intelligence and sentience of dolphins, bonobos chimpanzees, elephants, and baboons. In a way this re-look at the presence of a self nature could go the way of Joshu. If I were to ask him if a computer or a dolphin have Buddha nature would he respond "Mu"?

After this prologue, I ask if the Zen Buddhist notions of non-self, emptiness, and universal Mind are valid models for universal truths or not. To some extent we have to look at these doctrines as vague names given to some illusive ultimate nature which could equally well be described as their converse of self, fullness, and no mind. With this in mind, how does one who has not experienced wu wei engage the question of Joshu's "Mu"? Or rather, how do I see the implications of emptiness and no Buddha nature / Buddha nature in regards to my question of the quantity and quality of human sentience, computer sentience, or dolphin/chimp/elephant sentience? As an exercise I will attempt to explore this relationship.

My previous query had the presupposition of a permanent self. However, in Buddhism, there is a doctrine of no self and no not self. What is there then… what lies between self and no self? If I pose the question what lies between no permanent self and no permanent not self a definition of "then what is there" becomes a bit more manifest. What we find is something closer to an ever changing collective that pragmatically can be construed as an impermanent self. This super conscious collective could equally be given flavor by the spice of emptiness, wu wei. Of course Joshu answered "Mu" meaning no, but also meaning emptiness when asked if a dog has Buddha nature. This answer would definitely apply to the same question in context of humans or our other before mentioned (sentient?) beings in question. I can't really presume to know the deep wisdom of the patriarchs but for the sake of exercise I think that I will expand Joshu's answer.

Mu! What Buddha nature? What dog? Who is asking this question right now? The funny thing is the "Who?" is equally described by Mu. What Buddha nature? What who? A dog has just asked this question right now. While it is true that there is not much difference between a man and a dog, society in general feels that there is actually quite a bit of a difference between us. There is a perception that rabbits are less sentient than dogs, who are less sentient than gorillas, who are less sentient than humans. No one, as far as I know, has suggested that children of 8 years old are less sentient than adult humans. Indeed it has been said that children are observant and quick to learn. But when we talk about sentience, aren't we really talking about intelligence? And when we think of humans as the superior organisms on this planet don't we justify it by our intelligence? If intelligence is equivalent to sentience, then an adult bonobo is as sentient as an 8-year-old child. Their math, language, and cognitive skills are at about the same level. If sentience is not equivalent to intelligence, then on what grounds do we assume our right of dominance over the animal kingdom? Why is it so easy for us to overlook the suffering of an animal species in order to create more comfort for the human species?

Clearly the concept of sentience goes beyond that of intelligence… in a way it is more primal and more cosmic. We know that we are alive, really alive, when we express emotions, when we feel pleasure from breathing the sweet air of spring and the crisp air of winter. When we stub our toes and when we orgasm… these primal experiences that in an instant seem as though they could last an eternity. But where is the logic in these experiences? Where is our intelligence when we are invigorated with life? Which do you hold more dear? Surely dogs experience these phenomena with the same lust and rejuvenation that we as humans do. Maybe more so! Look how they run, wag their tails, and go about in their dog manner, they make no secret of their excitement to be alive and when scolded they become as withdrawn as any human. But, they're not as intelligent as us humans, right?

So, is Buddha nature a function of intelligence or of sentience? The sutras and the patriarchs make no secret that Buddha nature is the essence of mind and inherit in all aspects of the universe. The mind is the universe and the universe is the mind. Nothing exists outside of this universal mind. In some sense, computers are already sentient… but only in that they are a manifestation of dharma, like a rock or a stream. I think that in the future, computers will have a very good chance at becoming just as delusional as us humans are.