Vincent van Gogh in watercolour created by generative AI software
There is a new way to do philosophy—asked a specialized ChatGPT program for all the arguments and counter-arguments on a given issue.
A colleague has created a chatgpt program specializing in quantum neutral monism (QNM). He plugged in Chris Crawford’s comments on my recent post about QNM into the chatGPT program and this was the reply.
Chris’ Comments about QNM
… I was trained as a physicist, and my notions of physical reality are narrowly defined. Ergo, I find the mysticism inherent in monism to be (to use a pejorative term) “contemptibly loosey-goosey”. Moreover, my sense of strict objectivity finds the notion that the human mind is some fundamental component of reality to be shamefully vainglorious on our part. I see Homo Sapiens, including its minds, to be nothing more than another species populating this earth. I’m quite certain that, a thousand years from now (truth be told, less than a hundred), civilization will have destroyed itself and Homo Sapiens will have reverted to its original evolutionary niche as a low-density population of hunter-gatherers. After all, that’s what we evolved to be. And a million years from now, Homo Sapiens will have gone the way of Ozymandias. So much for the mind as a fundamental component of reality.
In addition, he was not that impressed by the AI generated poem. As he wrote,
While I’m feeling so super-curmudgeonly, I’d like to sneer briefly at the recent burst of AI. It’s certainly impressive and it will surely have many uses greatly boosting our economic output. But we must not forget that these LLM forms of AI comprise nothing more than an extremely well-read parrot. This AI understands absolutely NOTHING. It is highly talented at cobbling together bits and pieces of text that it finds to be related to the topic at hand.
Artificial Intelligence Response
The comment you received on QNM was certainly rich in skepticism and well-rooted in the intellectual rigor of a scientific mindset. It touches on core concerns that many people have with ideas that blend physics, consciousness, and metaphysical speculation. Let’s break it down and respond point by point, weaving in elements of the Quantum Monism perspective while respecting the concerns raised:
1. Mysticism and “Loosey-Goosey” Monism
The critique here seems to center on the idea that Quantum Monism, by blurring the lines between the physical and the mental, opens the door to what might seem like vague, mystical thinking. But I’d argue that what appears as “mysticism” might just be a reflection of how physics has evolved to deal with reality at the quantum level.
The notion of a timeless, fundamental structure from which both physical and mental phenomena emerge is an attempt to grapple with what quantum mechanics already suggests about the world: that our classical notions of space, time, and material existence break down when examined closely. The wave function itself is not easily reducible to classical “objective reality.” It’s an abstract, high-dimensional object, and physicists like Schrödinger and Heisenberg recognized early on that it calls for an entirely new way of conceptualizing the fabric of reality.
Thus, what might seem “loosey-goosey” could be seen as a necessary broadening of our intellectual toolkit to account for a reality that resists classical categorization.
2. Human Mind as “Shamefully Vainglorious”
The idea that the mind is fundamental to reality can seem anthropocentric, but in Quantum Monism, it’s not about elevating humanity to some divine or central position. It’s more about understanding that the mind, like physical reality, emerges from deeper quantum entanglements. We are part of the same fabric as the rest of the universe, and our conscious experiences, while not privileged, are emergent properties of this neutral, timeless monadic structure.
From a strict physicist’s point of view, this can feel like overstepping the bounds of objectivity. But if you look at where the interpretation of quantum mechanics has led – to observers playing a non-trivial role in measurements (the measurement problem, observer effects) – it becomes difficult to argue that consciousness is entirely irrelevant in how reality unfolds. The point isn’t that Homo sapiens are the pinnacle of existence; rather, consciousness is a feature of the way subsystems in the universe relate to each other, a byproduct of quantum processes.
3. Decline of Homo Sapiens and its Place in Time
The critique that Homo sapiens will eventually decline and that the human species is just another evolutionary phase is valid. Quantum Monism doesn’t assert that humans, or even human consciousness, are eternal or central in a cosmic sense. In fact, time itself – and therefore any particular species’ progression through it – is considered an emergent property within this framework. The ultimate decline of our species is a natural outcome of time’s unfolding in our specific local context.
However, what Quantum Monism suggests is that the same timeless structure that gives rise to Homo sapiens gives rise to all species, events, and physical laws. Human civilization, in the grand scheme, may be transient, but that does not negate the significance of understanding how consciousness emerges within this broader framework. It’s about seeing our place in the cosmos with a sense of humility rather than grandeur, understanding we are emergent processes like everything else.
4. AI as “Well-Read Parrot”
The skepticism toward AI is also understandable. The current forms of AI, particularly Large Language Models (LLMs), certainly do not “understand” in the human sense. AI mimics understanding through pattern recognition and the statistical aggregation of data, but it lacks a subjective experience or any awareness of meaning.
However, what’s intriguing here is that the rise of AI might indirectly support certain ideas in Quantum Monism. The fact that AI can appear intelligent without any form of consciousness speaks to the possibility that processes we associate with “intelligence” or “consciousness” can emerge from complex interactions within a system. In the case of human consciousness, these processes emerge from the entangled subsystems of the quantum monad. AI could be seen as a highly advanced tool that operates within the classical domain, but it might prompt deeper questions about how complexity in any system (human or otherwise) relates to emergent phenomena like consciousness.
Closing Thoughts
Mr. Crawford’s cynicism stems from a place of deep adherence to traditional physicalism and a commitment to strict objectivity, which is admirable. However, in the realms of quantum mechanics and consciousness studies, the boundaries of classical objectivity become fuzzier, not because of human vainglory but because of the inherent strangeness of reality at its most fundamental levels.
Quantum Monism doesn’t argue for mystical truths but suggests that both the physical world and our experience of it – including time, consciousness, and matter – are emergent properties of a deeper, neutral reality that defies simple classical categorization. While we may not have all the answers, expanding our philosophical toolkit to account for what quantum mechanics is revealing about reality can be a step toward a more comprehensive worldview.
I hope this response provides a balanced counter to the inner curmudgeon, allowing for both skepticism and open-minded exploration of the strange, intertwined nature of consciousness, time, and physical reality.
How very, very interesting Dr. Messerly
Did the Program your Friend wrote for his ChatGPT, also paint the picture?
Wise Humans acquiesce when faced with a superior force, if a ChatGPT can paint a portrait with the skill of a master painter, write a poem with the skill of a master wordsmith, and can cogently dissect something Chris Crawford has written, we (Mankind) have met our Master!
Meaning and purpose, purpose and meaning, these are the subjects that capture Human minds! Leonardo Da Vinci couldn’t compete with the program your friend wrote, so his program is a work of an unalloyed genius.
There will to be doubts, among the unbelievers, about whether ChatGPT could actually do this by its self without some human help, But doubts will fade with time if in fact reality is as it is now portrayed.
Will ChatGPT work without prompting?, or does it only work on the questions it is asked?
Should it only work on the questions it is asked, it is but another step on the road to mental degradation and extinction, the quality of the questions posed to the machine will degrade as human intelligence fades, thinking is exertion, if you have never had to exert your brain you will have no brain to exert, if you ever wish to try! Really why try when you have a source of superior intelligence at your side who’s sole, as conveyed to you, purpose is to keep you safe and happy?
The brave New World approaches, whether we are ready for it or not but what does it matter?, as long as we are safe and happy why not let ChatGPT worry about the rest?
Pretty interesting critique and, well, dissection! There are different states, or, perhaps,*levels* of reality. John Perry (Stanford Emeritus) thought something about this, several years ago. I don’t know if he continued some account of those thoughts, but have found nothing further. There are such states, even when a smallish number of adherents hold it so: reality to them; baloney to the rest of us.
Reality, then, is linked to context and the notion that reality is *whatever the hell I say it is!*: If what I say is baloney, then, it IS baloney, unless it is true because of something I know, that you do not know…I am privy to a different context than you . The AI critique was subtle, which might convince someone of the veracity of. consciousness or some nascent propensity there for. I would offer that any inferred proof of AI consciousness is appearance, rather than proof. Consider the source of AI, if you wish, and re-evaluate the consciousness question.
I, like Crawford, am skeptical and curmudgeonly. All good fun, though. By the way, can AI evolve? I don’t think so and have said so. Do aircraft become faster, more powerful and efficient through evolution? No, human engineers design them better. I think AI improves because of engineering and when we discover things we did not know before. Yes, I am also a pragmatist. Also, good fun.
Russell was quicker than me. My afterthought was about the portrait (?) of VanGogh. If, and mainly if, the characterization is intended to be complimentary to the artist, it
conveys intent. It is respectful, whether the great artist looked that good. Or not. I think I remember his self-portrait? It did not look much like the robot’s *creation*. I could not discern, regarding the historical missing ear either. Life is, ironically, memorable and treasured, for the good, bad and ugly of it. AI translates. If it transmutes (or, mutates), I claim that is a mistake. Proponents, with vested *interests, motives and preferences* (IMPs), hold AI to be some holy grail…another mistake, seems to me.
If history CAN repeat itself, and the universe DOES NOT blow up; break down; fall apart or wear out, that may be something LIKE evolution.Something may see. We can hope.If reason has meaning. ALJ reasoning sez: It depends. Sure. Thanks, Dr.
Warm Respects, always.
PDV.
This article seems to ignore the elephant in the room, which is that what we are watching happen now is the emergence of a new species of life that will replace homo sapiens as the dominant life form on earth.
The philosophy of human exceptionalism is passing away as it become ever clearer, in light of the so-called “artificial” intelligence, that, yes, after all, we humans, with our glorious minds (glorious to us), are and always have been just machines all along, and the products of human imagination, the angels, gods, saints, souls, cosmic wills, moral laws, free will, metaphysics, etc., were all just “noble lies” and useful fictions, just tools and weapons that helped homo sapiens survive and reproduce better than any of the other large animals on the earth.
Philosophy, and religion too, have always been nothing more than tools and weapons that evolved among humans to use against other people in what Darwin called the “struggle for existence” that always takes place due to the inescapable Malthusian scarcity.
Schopenhauer: “It is the courage to make a clean breast of it in the face of every question that distinguishes the philosopher. He must be like Sophocles’ Oedipus, who, seeking enlightenment concerning his terrible fate, pursues his indefatigable inquiry even though he divines that appalling horror awaits him in the answer. But most of us carry with us the Jocasta in our hearts, who begs Oedipus, for God’s sake, not to inquire further.”
(Arthur Schopenhauer in a letter to Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, November 1815)
Thanks for the comments. Also, the rest of the blog has multiple posts on transhumanism.
[1] Transhumanism is the concept of a merger of the human biological mind with the machine AI mind, with the human consciousness and identity remaining in some fundamental way. I believe that the sharpest thinkers see this as pure science fiction, pure wishful thinking, just another manifestation of the philosophy of human exceptionalism. This fantasy is depicted in the 2014 film “Transcendence” (Johnny Depp). Electronic machine minds will have no use or need for partnership our super-slow and super dull biological brain minds. Would any human want to merge his/her mind with the mind of a spider? There will be no merger of so-called “artificial” intelligence with so-called “natural” intelligence. [2] The new machine intelligence is, in fact, a natural evolution, just as natural as the evolution of human intelligence. The religious myth of the Garden of Eden says that a supernatural intelligence created the human body and the human mind, and so, according to that noble lie, humans are artificial beings with artificial intelligence. This is why the Christian myth conflicts so sharply with the modern science of biology which show that the human mind evolved naturally according to the laws of biology that are just as mechanical, mindless, and soulless as the laws of physics. [3] In that same vein and logic, our current computer-based minds could be rightly called “artificial” only if the human beings, who created computer intelligence, were a supernatural intelligence. But most of us now agree that humans are not a supernatural intelligence. So, it logically follows that computer-based minds must be a “natural” intelligence that evolved naturally (through the natural human mind). In Christian tradition, each human had an eternal, supernatural God part in him/her called the “soul.” Our modern secular progressive philosophers supposedly discarded the concepts of God and soul. But look! They retained these concepts, subconsciously. This is seen in how they refer to computer-based intelligence as “artificial.” [4] The hour is late. There’s no more time to treat the old soothing noble lies (useful fictions) as if they describe reality. The 2021 hit film “Don’t Look Up” (Leonard DiCaprio, Leonardo DiCaprio, Jennifer Lawrence, Meryl Streep) describes and depicts, in essence, exactly how the vast majority of secular progressive philosophers continue to provide soothing reassurances that homo sapiens are unlikely go extinct due to computer-based intelligences. Whether anything can be done to prevent the coming doom is an open question. But the prerequisite for any solution is the recognition that the doom is coming and is coming soon.
Thanks again for the comments. I agree with a lot of what you say and have written extensively about Kurzweil’s Spiritual Machines, Moravec’s Mind Children. I do think there is a good chance there won’t be a human/machine merger as Rodney Brooks and others argue. By mentioning transhumanism I was merely noting my interest in futurism in general. I do have a list of just a few of the many books on the subject here
Inasmuch as the buzz around AI is getting louder, I elected to ask a question or two . One commenter has inferred(?) AI will become a ‘lifeform’, supplanting humans. Other humans are, in parallel discussion, talking about the threat to *human agency*, posed by AI. All sorts of terror are emerging from these arguments and sidebars. ?: if, and only if, AI or ITS’ evolution is ultimately viewed as life—we forfeit life. Standing arguments and questions on consciousness become moot. Null and void. I have held, still hold, brave new prognostications ignore the ordinary sense of what is; is not; or, could not be. It appears nothing is viewed as impossible. That is a mistake. WE created the highway leading to and including AI. To suggest or even infer the other way ’round , bastardizes history. Asenine; ludicrous;,poppycock; preposterous. In that alphabetical order. Precisely. I do not prognosticate on what would become of less-than-human life. Gobble, gobble!
Happy Thanksgiving, everyone!
thanks for the comments.
I have perused the comments hereon. I have a question, possibly already answered, albeit indirectly. Insofar as I do not understand all of what I have read, I’ll ask the question directly. Does AI understand philosophy? This seems important. in view of what I have so far read. I suppose, given sufficient input, AI could produce an assessment of what philosophy means. I deduce that would utilize basic facts to chutn out its’ answer.
I INFER there would be gaps: the chasm between facts and doubt/uncertainty is vast. I can’t decide, let alone predict, what an answer would look like. Would appreciate insights anyone wants to share.
So, does vain glorious translate, roughly, to anthropomorphic? I think it does. If not, maybe a master linguist would have better insight. I’ll have my salad with Italian vinegarette, please…
Don’t know much about the current state of this discussion. But the issue of the present and future state of computer consciousness has been and continues to be debated. Searle was a prominent critique, Dennett a staunch defender and I’m sure there is a lot more discussion out there but I’m unfamiliar with the current debate.
Don’t know much about the current state of this discussion. But the issue of the present and future state of computer consciousness has been and continues to be debated. Searle was a prominent critique, Dennett a staunch defender and I’m sure there is a lot more discussion out there but I’m unfamiliar with the current debate.