Artificial Intelligence and Philosophy

[image error]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.