Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
AbstractIn this piece I use the notion of the “Mystic and the Machine”. This creates a critical-counterpoint which allows us (me) to explore, critique, understand and start to dis-entangle what it is that we (I) reflect on when we engage with notions relating to the self and AI. This short piece starts to explore ideas and concepts, and is influenced by Autotheory, Anthropology, Design, Robotics, HCI, HRI, Theology and Critical Theory. Through taking this cross-disciplinary approach, we can start to look at the ways that the self, aligns with the Mystic, while AI resides in the world of the Machine. We then go on to contemplate how the self and AI might be brought into some alignment in a Liminal Design space allowing contemplation on the ways that we practically use AI, what it means to us (as the self) and the influences, memories and materials that impact upon the decisions that we make as the self. In taking this this stance, we are able to steer away from the strictly bounded disciplinary approaches of dogmatic research and look towards a more pragmatic liminal approach.This research was supported by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council through the Turing AI World Leading Researcher Fellowship in Somabotics: Creatively Embodying Artificial Intelligence [EP/Z534808/1] & Responsible AI UK [EP/Y009800/1] Generated Description An interdisciplinary exploration of the self, mystical experience and artificial intelligence, introducing Liminal Design as a way of bringing together embodied experience, contemplative practice, design and emerging technologies.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Alan Chamberlain (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: