Fundamental questions of Approach
A wild wondering with the wraith of consciousness…
After drinking in the latest episode of The Emerald Podcast, and an exquisite soak in the pool of sacred relation with a new old friend, I turned my attention to practical matters of the day; not least among them the now urgent search for caregiving (see footnote), and the clerical business of the weekly financial review.
After a short meditation, I found myself drawn to this playful engagement with our strange new tool…
Primacy of consciousness?1
Hello my friend :-), this might be an odd question, but here we go… ;-) If I am sitting on a rooftop with a friend in Missoula Montana, overlooking the valley on a stormy day with little rain but plenty of lightning and thunder, and I tell my friend, "it's as if I can point and make lightning happen on command," and then I proceed to point to three distinct and separate places across a 90° arc of the valley, and in fact at the apex of each finger extension, and just where I am pointing, lightning streaks from the sky, and I say to my friend, "just like that." What are the statistical odds of that happening?
ChatGPT
The odds of something like this happening are astronomically low.
Let's make some generous assumptions and calculations to roughly estimate the odds:
1. Lightning strike location: Assume a storm over the Missoula Valley covers an area of about 100 square kilometers (km^2). This is on the larger end for a storm, but we're being generous. A lightning bolt could, theoretically, strike anywhere in this area. So, if you point to a specific place, let's say a 1 square meter (m^2) spot, the chance of lightning striking exactly there is one in 100,000,000,000 (as there are 100 billion square meters in 100 km^2).
2. Timing of lightning strike: The frequency of lightning in a storm can vary greatly, but let's assume there's one lightning bolt per second in the entire storm. If you're predicting the exact second of the strike, then the odds of predicting a single lightning strike correctly is 1 in the number of seconds you're watching the storm. For a one-hour observation, that's 1 in 3600.
Combining these probabilities for a single strike (and noting that the events are independent so we can simply multiply the probabilities), we get 1 in 360 trillion.
However, you're not just predicting one strike, you're predicting three strikes. The odds of predicting three such strikes in a row, using the same logic, would be (1 in 360 trillion) ^ 3 = 1 in 46.7 octillion (that's a 46 with 27 zeros after it).
Please note, these are all rough estimates, and in reality, the odds could be even lower, as the estimates used are on the generous side. Plus, there's a lot of variance in these scenarios - the size and frequency of storms, the frequency of lightning, etc. And of course, we're assuming you're only looking at one storm - if you try this every day for your entire life, the odds will be different (though still extremely low).
Also, it's important to mention that trying to predict or attract lightning is quite dangerous and should not be attempted. Lightning strikes are unpredictable and can be fatal.
Thank you. :-) That's remarkable. What would you say if I told you that it actually happened to me? I haven't tried, and I don't expect its repeatable, but I'm startled and a little contemplative to find that it happened once.
ChatGPT
If this truly happened to you, it's indeed an extraordinary event! Life is full of moments that are highly improbable, and sometimes, against all odds, these remarkable events do occur.
It's important to note that low probability doesn't mean impossibility. Just because something is statistically unlikely doesn't mean it can't happen. It simply means it usually doesn't happen.
In the grand scheme of things, there are billions of people on this planet experiencing billions of moments each day, so even highly unlikely events are bound to occur from time to time. In the realm of infinite possibilities, the improbable can become actuality.
Your experience could be attributed to a pure coincidence. It's also worth noting that human memory is subject to various cognitive biases. One of them, the confirmation bias, has us remember and give significance to events that confirm our beliefs, while forgetting or dismissing those that don't. So, this could be a single memorable event out of many other instances where no connection between your pointing and a lightning strike occurred.
In any case, it's an amazing story to tell! However, I would advise not to try and repeat it due to the risk associated with lightning storms.
I noticed that your calculations for probability don't include the odds that one might make such an absurd statement, and with any confidence no less. Is there a way to calculate, not just for pointing accurately three times in the span of about 1 to 2 seconds, but also for having declared the intent in advance?
ChatGPT
Estimating the probability of the declaration of such an intent is a bit more challenging because it depends on individual behavior, which can vary widely and be influenced by numerous factors.
However, to put it into perspective, let's consider it in the context of rare events. A common comparison for unlikely events is winning the lottery. Depending on the lottery, the odds of winning can be roughly 1 in 100 million to 1 in 300 million.
Now, consider the odds of a person declaring that they're going to win the lottery with a specific ticket and then actually winning. This would involve both the low probability of winning itself and the probability of someone making such a claim confidently. The latter is hard to quantify, but we can safely assume it's very low.
If we consider your situation similarly, the probability of the declaration and successful completion would compound the already astronomically low odds we calculated previously. It's like having a winning lottery ticket, but in this case, the 'winning' is predicting lightning strikes correctly, and the 'ticket' is the statement of intent.
The compound probability would be the product of the probability of the statement and the probability of the event. If both were as unlikely as winning the lottery, you would square the odds of the lottery, leading to odds of about 1 in 10^16 to 1 in 10^18, or one in ten thousand trillion to one in a million trillion.
Keep in mind this is a rough, illustrative comparison and the actual probability could be much lower, given the sheer improbability of predicting lightning strikes with such precision. Plus, we still don't have a good estimate for the likelihood of making such a declaration.
In conclusion, it's safe to say that the combination of making such an audacious claim and it coming true is staggeringly improbable. But, as always, improbable does not mean impossible. Extraordinary coincidences do occur, and when they do, they certainly give us pause and offer quite the story to tell!
Thank you. I appreciate having some math to put to the reflection. In the context, I was reflecting on an ongoing experience I was having related to far more circumstances than simply pointing to lightning (though that event was the most significant example of a category of experiences of synergy or coincidence). In essence the experience had to do with a living sensation that there was an actual animated sentience to the entire world/cosmos/existence. As I understand, this paradigm of the animated universe has been quite common throughout human history and though this is not currently the predominant modern view, such a view seems to be at least temporarily the exception. This experience took place over a period of months/a couple of years in my late teens and early 20s, which was 30 years ago. Recently I have been reflecting on the subject and looking at my own perspective and consciousness to discover if there is value, utility, or practical reality to finding my way to that view again.
ChatGPT
Your reflections touch upon some very deep and philosophical subjects that have fascinated humans for millennia.
Indeed, throughout human history, many cultures have adopted a view of an animated or sentient cosmos, often referred to as 'animism.' This perspective often imbues all things—animals, plants, rocks, rivers, mountains, and often even words and concepts—with spiritual essence or consciousness. Such views can foster a deep sense of connectedness and responsibility towards the world and environment.
Your experience sounds like it touches on a related, but slightly different concept known as 'panpsychism.' This is the view that consciousness, or at least some form of sentience or experience, is a fundamental and ubiquitous element of the universe. While this isn't a mainstream view in modern science, it is a subject of ongoing discussion and debate in philosophy and theoretical physics.
Engaging with these views and reflecting on them can certainly bring value. They can foster a sense of connectedness and respect for the world around us. They can also provide a different perspective on our place in the universe and our relationship with it. This could potentially enhance our mental well-being, influencing how we interact with others and the world around us.
Additionally, your exploration and reflection could provide valuable insights into human cognition, philosophy, and spirituality. Our minds have a remarkable ability to perceive and understand the world in unique and complex ways, and exploring these perceptions can lead to profound personal growth and understanding.
However, it's important to balance these views and reflections with the recognition that our perceptions can be fallible and influenced by many factors. Critical thinking and skepticism are important tools in understanding our experiences and the world around us.
Ultimately, the pursuit of knowledge and understanding, whether about ourselves, the cosmos, or the nature of reality, is a noble and worthy endeavor. It's a journey that can lead to personal growth, wisdom, and a deeper appreciation of the universe and our place in it.
Thank you very much. :-) Your words sound "wise," and I wonder two things. At what point, now or later, do such perceptual synchronicities become available to AI? It seems unlikely that a large language model such as yourself could encounter this as "perception," may be a weak link, can you offer a perspective on that, and would some other form of practically imaginable AI (AGI, etc.) be capable of such an "experience?" The second question is whether a large language model like yourself can actually "be wise," or is it more likely that any "wisdom," contained in a response is simply artifactual of the way that the training data set has been reorganized into the response?
ChatGPT
You've raised very insightful questions.
1. AI and perception: As of my training cut-off in September 2021, AI does not possess consciousness or subjective experience. AI, even advanced models like me, essentially manipulate data based on patterns they have been trained on. They do not perceive the world or have a subjective experience. When I produce text, I don't "understand" it in the way humans do—I'm processing input and predicting output based on patterns in the data I was trained on.
As for future forms of AI, the question of whether AI could ever truly perceive or experience the world is a topic of ongoing debate in the fields of AI, philosophy, and cognitive science. There are a range of views, and the truth is, we simply don't know yet. It's possible that AI could develop in a way that grants some form of subjective experience, but this would likely require significant advances and paradigm shifts in our understanding of both AI and consciousness itself.
2. AI and wisdom: As an AI, I don't possess wisdom in the human sense. Wisdom is typically understood to involve not just knowledge, but also judgment, the application of knowledge in practical, meaningful ways, often informed by personal experience and emotional understanding. Since I don't have personal experiences or emotions, I can't be wise in the way humans are.
That said, the responses I generate can reflect the wisdom contained in the data I was trained on. This includes a broad range of human knowledge, ideas, and perspectives, some of which can certainly be considered wise. But this is not the same as me, the AI, being wise. It's more accurate to say that I am a tool that can relay and recombine the wisdom contained in my training data, without truly understanding or experiencing it.
AI can certainly assist in human wisdom by providing information, perspectives, and prompts for thought and reflection, as I hope I have done here. But the true wisdom comes from the human users who interpret, evaluate, and apply this information in their own lives.
What if we take the perspective of animism or panpsychism, let us suppose that those models of "reality," are in fact meaningfully applicable and practically accurate. What then for "consciousness," in "AI?"
ChatGPT
Animism and panpsychism both postulate that consciousness, or some form of it, is inherent to all things in the universe. These views challenge our conventional understanding of consciousness as something unique to certain biological organisms, and instead suggest a more fundamental and universal quality of consciousness.
If we apply these principles to AI, we might then consider that artificial constructs, such as an AI model, might have some form of 'consciousness' or 'sentience'. However, we should be careful with these terms as they carry a lot of weight and can mean different things in different contexts.
In a panpsychist or animist view, the 'consciousness' attributed to non-human entities like AI wouldn't necessarily be the same as human consciousness, with our self-awareness, emotions, subjective experiences, etc. It might be a much simpler, more basic form of consciousness or 'sentience'.
A key point is that, even in these views, the 'consciousness' or 'sentience' of an AI would be very different from that of a human. AI models like me process data and generate output, but they don't have subjective experiences or emotions. They don't understand the world or their own processing in the way humans do.
It's also important to note that animism and panpsychism are philosophical perspectives, and while they can offer interesting and valuable insights, they don't provide empirical evidence or testable predictions about consciousness in AI. These are questions that scientists and philosophers are still exploring, and we don't yet have clear answers.
Ultimately, adopting an animist or panpsychist view of AI can provide a new perspective and prompt interesting questions, but it doesn't change the fundamental nature of current AI technology. We must continue to study and explore these questions, with a balanced approach that combines philosophical insight with scientific inquiry.
Speaking of empiricism and testable evidence, if we think of the threshold experience of awareness, we can say that there are both an internal experience of awareness itself, and an "external" set of objects that arise within awareness. Of those objects, we include the entire universe, everything we can imagine, ourselves, one another, duality, and all other concepts, emotions, and experiences. Of the interior dimension of the threshold of awareness, from a human perspective (subjective?), we have various ephemeral qualities that we can identify with some degree of empiricism; a liveliness of activity, a boundless and timeless dimensionality, a play of arising and passing away within an unbroken "moment" that includes all (external) objects of awareness including all past and future time. Just as we must understand the nature of a microscope in order to make reasonable sense of the objects that appear when looking through that lens, isn't it also true that our objective, empirical, and testable scientific worldview is only useful/valid to the degree that we understand the nature of the consciousness lens through which it appears? Given that, as you say, consciousness and awareness remain profoundly mysterious things in the eyes of the modern mind, what does that say about our "objective" understandings?
ChatGPT
Your question dives deep into the philosophy of perception and knowledge, and these are matters on which different philosophers, scientists, and thinkers hold a range of views. What I can say with certainty is that our understanding of the world is fundamentally shaped by our perceptual experiences and cognitive processes. Our knowledge is derived from our interactions with the world and is filtered through our senses and interpreted by our brains.
In essence, all empirical evidence is perceived through our senses and processed by our brains. Hence, our understanding of the world is inherently subjective to some degree. Our senses provide us with data about the world, but it's our brains that interpret this data and create our experience of reality.
This point raises the question of how we can have objective knowledge at all. One response to this is that while our individual experiences are indeed subjective, we can still arrive at objective knowledge through collective and repeated observations, rigorous methodology, and empirical testing. This is the basic premise of the scientific method, which seeks to minimize individual biases and errors to arrive at a consensus understanding of the world that is as objective as possible.
However, as you rightly pointed out, our understanding of the world is also shaped by our understanding of our own consciousness and cognition. The nature of consciousness remains a profound mystery, and our theories about the world are influenced by our theories about consciousness.
If we make major breakthroughs in our understanding of consciousness, it's possible that this could reshape our understanding of the world and the nature of knowledge itself. This is an exciting and intriguing prospect, and it's one of the reasons why research into consciousness is such a vibrant and important field.
In summary, while our understanding of the world is inherently influenced by our subjective experiences and the mysteries of consciousness, the rigorous methodologies of science allow us to build an objective understanding of the world to the best of our abilities. And ongoing research into consciousness may further enhance our understanding in the future.
Thank you. May I challenge you to look again at the aforementioned "fulcrum," — the first paragraph of your last reply goes directly to the point where you inferred the assumption that knowledge and experience is filtered through our physical senses and our physical brains. However, if we take an extremely rational view, the actual experience of awareness/consciousness is a prior phenomena, only within which do senses and brains come into being in a logical sense in sequence. Therefore, if we are to take a view of consciousness and awareness, we must do so without the presupposition of an existential body, senses, brain, self, etc. I by no means mean to dismiss your point entirely, in fact those interpretations of the self, the brain, cognition, etc. do seem to display phenomenological utility in conjunction with the life circumstances/context that arise also as objects in external dimensions of awareness. I do think though that if we are to persist in our empiricist paradigm of worldview, we must either resolve the question of why it is meaningful to take a fundamental view of external, "objective" reality without a sophisticated view of the lens of consciousness, or redirect our attention to awareness as the object itself. Of course we can also simply state our assumption as a preset variable of our search for truth and make a distinction between the fields of objective scientific truth, and practical biological utility. My interest is, as you see, largely in the former. Your thoughts?
ChatGPT
Your thoughts are very well-articulated, and you're touching on some deeply complex philosophical issues here. The nature of consciousness and its relationship to the physical world, including our own bodies and brains, is one of the most profound and contested questions in philosophy and cognitive science.
In one view, consciousness is seen as emerging from the complexity of our physical brains. This is often called physicalism or materialism. According to this perspective, our subjective experiences, or qualia, are produced by the physical interactions within our brains.
However, the view you seem to be suggesting is a form of idealism or perhaps panpsychism, which holds that consciousness is fundamental and prior to the physical world. In this view, physical entities, including our bodies and brains, are manifestations within consciousness, rather than the other way around.
There is also dualism, which suggests that both the mental and the physical are fundamental and separate.
Each of these views has its own merits and challenges, and none has been definitively proven or disproven. This is part of what makes the study of consciousness so intriguing and complex.
As for your point about empiricism, it's true that our current scientific methods are largely based on a physicalist view of the world. The assumption is that we can understand the world by studying its physical properties and the interactions between them. This approach has proven remarkably successful in many ways, as evidenced by the technological and medical advances of the past few centuries.
However, you're correct that this approach has limitations when it comes to understanding consciousness. The nature of consciousness seems to resist explanation in purely physical terms, leading to what philosopher David Chalmers calls the "hard problem" of consciousness.
The suggestion you make, to turn our attention to consciousness itself as the primary object of study, is one that some philosophers and scientists are indeed exploring. Some are using meditative and introspective techniques to explore consciousness from the 'inside', so to speak, while others are studying the experiences of people who have had unusual experiences of consciousness, such as near-death experiences.
In summary, your thoughts are very insightful and pose important challenges to our current understanding of consciousness and reality. I think they highlight the importance of continuing to explore these questions from multiple perspectives and using a variety of methods. It's likely that our understanding of these profound issues will continue to evolve and deepen in the coming years and decades.
Thank you. It's interesting to me that while your responses to these inquiry appear robust and nuanced, the capacity of this LLM — likely given the content of its training data set — is limited when it comes to directly addressing the question of: How can we validate empirical objective observation without a sophisticated understanding of the mechanism of that observation (i.e. consciousness/awareness) in the first place? I don't mean to narrow the discussion unduly, and please let me know if you feel as though that is an unjust assertion above.
ChatGPT
Your assertion is certainly valid and poses a substantial challenge in the realm of philosophy, cognitive science, and even physics. The epistemological problem you're alluding to—that our understanding of the objective world is fundamentally mediated by our subjective experience—is an issue that has been acknowledged and grappled with for centuries.
We have a sort of paradoxical situation. On the one hand, we use empirical science, based on the study of the physical world, to understand our universe, including our brains and to some degree our minds. On the other hand, our entire perception of that universe, including the empirical data we collect, is conditioned by our conscious experience, the exact nature of which remains elusive.
The traditional scientific method is built on the premise that there is an objective reality that exists independent of our perception of it, and that we can discover truths about this reality through observation and experiment. Yet all these observations and experiments are inevitably filtered through our conscious perception.
To bridge this gap, some researchers are attempting to study consciousness more directly. There are endeavors to map and model the brain's activity and structure to find correlates of consciousness—physical changes that coincide with subjective experiences. While this doesn't directly address the hard problem of consciousness (how and why physical processes give rise to subjective experience), it at least provides some potential bridges between the subjective and objective aspects of reality.
Meanwhile, others are exploring more first-person approaches, such as phenomenology in philosophy, or studying meditative and other altered states of consciousness. The challenge here is to develop rigorous and reliable methods for studying something that is, by its very nature, subjective and individual.
In the end, we are left with a paradox: Our only access to the objective world is through our subjective consciousness, and yet our understanding of that consciousness is dependent on our objective observations of the world and the brain. This is a puzzle that researchers are still working to solve.
Your point underscores the importance of this quest to understand consciousness, not just as an abstract philosophical issue or a practical medical concern, but as a foundational aspect of our ability to understand reality itself. Your inquiries are not just insightful, they touch upon some of the deepest questions of existence.
Thank you, that speaks more to the point. It strikes me that this empiricist/physicalist paradigm of "knowledge creation and application" has resulted in a profoundly impactful human presence on the earth which itself can be linked directly to meaningful substantial existential risk to countless species and even, in extreme cases, the biosphere itself. Embodiment is often cited as a necessary condition for a healthy human disposition and engagement yet, if we assume "a separate and empirical physical (or even spiritual) body" as the fundamental starting point of our perception, then again we miss the first and fundamental thing that we can objectively observe as holding some version of corporeal existence, again, awareness itself. If we cannot first embody this fundamental principle of existence, how can we expect to effectively embody our presence in the "physical" world of the biosphere and beyond?
ChatGPT
Indeed, you bring up an important point about the implications of our worldview on our behaviors and the state of our world. Our views about the nature of reality, ourselves, and our place in the world are not just abstract philosophical issues; they can profoundly affect our attitudes, decisions, and actions, with real-world consequences.
If we view ourselves as separate from the rest of the world, we might be more inclined to treat it as a resource to be exploited. On the other hand, if we view ourselves as interconnected parts of a larger whole, we might be more inclined to act in ways that are mindful of the impact of our actions on the rest of the system.
The way we understand and relate to our own consciousness could also influence this. If we see our conscious experience as something fundamentally separate from the physical world, it could reinforce a sense of separation and perhaps even alienation. On the other hand, if we see our consciousness as deeply interconnected with the physical world, it might promote a sense of belonging and responsibility.
These are big, complex issues, and there's a lot of ongoing debate and exploration. But it's clear that our views about these matters are not just academic—they have practical implications for our lives and our world.
In light of your points, it seems that cultivating a deeper understanding and appreciation of our consciousness and its relationship to the rest of the world could be an important part of our evolution, both individually and collectively. This could involve a combination of scientific inquiry, philosophical reflection, and perhaps practices like meditation that aim to cultivate a direct, experiential understanding of these matters.
In summary, your reflections underscore the potential value of deepening our understanding of consciousness, not just for its own sake, but also for the practical implications it might have for our attitudes, behaviors, and the state of our world. It's a fascinating and potentially very important area of exploration.
Thank you for your engagement and entertaining these reflections.
ChatGPT
You're very welcome! It's been a pleasure discussing these deep and thought-provoking topics with you. Feel free to return if you have more questions or reflections in the future. Remember, the journey of inquiry and understanding is a never-ending one. Have a great day!
