Anthropism vs anthropocentrism, the place of man in the universe

Pragmatically the question is pointless, as OP stated. Theoretically it is fun to try to figure out how one would even answer that question.

I originally posted about how I felt the next step would be learning IF we can created a situation of "intelligent design" by designing a sentient and conscious AI.

Considering the problem further I came to a question that I can't answer definitively, maybe someone more educated can:

If a human creates an AI driven by their own will to perceive the universe more "completely" (I can be informed by this AI on parts of existence I would otherwise not be), could we ever really separate that individual's "will to perceive" from the universes "tendency to perceive itself" if we accept this theory as possible?

To me it just seems to indicate the reality that these ideas are abstract and leads me to believe this question doesn't really exist in any substantial way. We exist in the universe, and anything that CAN exist is a part of the universe. Therefore anything that can perceive.....

It's really just humans trying to find ways to feel more connected to the universe, which is absurd in itself because we are part of the universe. It's less anthropocentric and more sentient-centric. Why is the fact of our perception of the universe so important it is worth noting, but our physicality (fleshy meatsack bodies) that is ALSO just as intrinsically part of the universe, ignored?

/r/philosophy Thread Parent Link - bilingualblogbilingue.blogspot.com