Philosophy Essays
Philosophy Essays
On the podcast show Philosophize This!, episode #104 contains a part, paraphrased from Sartre’s Being and Nothingness, that can be striking to hear, or to read for the first time:
“A person's going on a walk one day, and they come to the edge of a giant cliff. They look down... 400 foot drop... They see the ravine below... jagged rocks... And all of a sudden their palms start sweating and tingling, and they get a little dizzy, and so they back up away from the edge, don't look down there. Well, what just went on there, why did their body react that way? The default answer might be to say that: ‘Look... I'm at the edge of a cliff. I looked down and it doesn't look very fun down there. I was scared I was going to fall.’ But Sartre would say, it wasn't that you were scared to fall. It was that you were scared about the possibility that you could JUMP.”
If this already is shocking to you, fasten your seatbelt.
In a philosophical sense, one could say that this story contains two “things”: the world (with the cliff) and the person. A conscious person, who got shaken by the potential weight of their decisions. By being scared of them, the responsibility for the decisions was (for a moment, or from a specific perspective) outsourced to their mind.
So there is a third thing at play, actually: their mind. Under normal circumstances, the responsibility would quickly be backsourced, as the standard person sees their mind as an integral part of themselves.
But what would someone, not-so-standard-a-person do or think? Someone who does not have complete control over their mind, and thus, neither over their body? They could jump. But that’s not the twisted part yet.
It gets twisted at the point where the person who looked down the edge is a balanced mental health patient, a schizophrenic currently out of psychoses. This person knows that control is not entirely with them as a person. Their mind has “betrayed” them once or twice already, and they know how actions undertaken psychotically, without disease awareness, feel in retrospect.
These people see themselves jump twice. They would and could blame their mind. But then, it’s not that they jumped twice. It’s only the body that jumps. It is the mind that can fall indeed.
The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child defines the child as follows: “[…] every human being below the age of eighteen years unless under the law applicable to the child, majority is attained earlier.”
Human is defined as “a man, woman, or child” or simply as “a person” by the Cambridge Dictionary.
These definitions are unhelpful in multiple ways when thinking philosophically about humans. The definitions of child and human go around, and the definitions of human in themselves are too narrow, and then probably too broad, in their respective order. This vagueness will be of use though, as the reader may see later in this essay.
The question asked in this article is: Can a person with multiple, potentially related chronic illnesses - some of those, or all suspected to be genetic (on the current level of medical science) – responsibly, morally and without major risks, decide to have children, at some point in their life?
Even in mere theory, there are a number of factors determining the answer. The main determinants are of personal, technological and medical nature, connected by the ethical condition.
As for options on the personal level, one may ask if having a partner at all should be a pre-condition. Should a child have two parents, or is it okay to take the responsibility, if there is a technological solution, but if being together with a chosen partner is no option/preference? If there is a non-monogamous relationship, would it be okay for the child/children of the partners to have three or more parents?
In the technological aspect, we have the questions of ethically questionable future possibilities. How far should genetic engineering solutions be allowed to go? Can there be clones one day? Could there be people-templates even? What will be further technological possibilities for three or more people to have children with genes inherited from all of them?
These questions may seem dystopian at first glance, but with technological progress, demand potentially rising, and with a foreseeably more punctual image of ourselves as humans, the options above should not be out of consideration.
The options also depend on the pace of medical progress. How widespread / financially available will genome mapping be? How many more chronic illnesses will get to be identifiable by gene? How will the treatments of chronic diseases evolve?
There are several ethical arguments against certain options outlined in some of the questions above. The topics are controversial. As there are three types of determinants on the whole theme – narrowly speaking – it is a recommendation when decisions will be needed and possible to make, to sketch a three dimensional matrix of the possibilities. Aspiring parents could make a moral decision based on the relevant options and their intersection’s value judgement.
Another tool could be a legally elaborated, and regularly updated decision tree. The updates should come as soon as solutions emerge in practice.
Having children can be formulated as creating someone wonderful with some characteristics of the parent(s) and their connections. In the case of romantic relationships (which most would deem the desirable form, for: what else), love may be literally incorporated in a child. The alternative ways of creating children (vaguely outlined above) could currently be attacked with ethics as a means, but what is ethics in practice if not the way we make and let love manifest?
Once solutions are available and to be (conditionally) permitted, society should think of their impact on the collective level: What kind of social structures and attitudes to parenthood would the options entail? If resources became scarce, could the reproductive “competition” transform into a more just system by implementing the legal matrix and decision tree outlined?
The official definitions of the child and human do not reflect any relation characterized by “ownership”, neither do they state or limit the process of creation. The resulting interpretation of parenthood may have a Wachowskian tone or logic to it, which may raise new hopes for aspiring parents who have genetic inheritance disorders.
This article operates with the Platonic concepts of reality and ideas, as well as with those of laws, rules and systems, applied to various fields of science, art, and traditional practices.
If we inquire into the relationships of these concepts in the fields to be enlisted, we may not only understand the mechanisms of our sciences and arts better, but also have a deeper insight into what reality, ideas, laws, rules and systems are.
The article will operate with examples of fields, branches and/or areas of sciences, arts and other practices, in which the relationship of the examined concepts is easily understood, and which illustrate the topic well.
Despite the depth of the topics, this article aims to give a brief and concise overview only.
The starting point is philosophy, the metaphysical branch to be more specific, where the dualism of reality and ideas, and the different approaches to this dualism have been well categorized over the centuries. This chapter does not present the categories comprehensively, it only provides relevant examples and an opportunity for the basic understanding needed in further chapters.
Within metaphysics, and the philosophy of mind questions, there are — among others — the categories of idealism, substance dualism, panpsychism, and in contrast: different versions of monism. Materialism is the monism that directly contrasts with idealism.
Philosophy as a whole does not take a stance in the metaphysical questions of reality and ideas, but it allows for a concept of a perfect theoretical system — that is what the idealist branch, and the philosophical concept of emergence (when an entity is observed to have properties its parts do not have on their own) suggest.
In a historical view, however, there are philosophies — relatable to certain cultures, eras or regions — which can be categorized according to how they approach the dualism of reality and ideas, if they do. Taoism, for example, sees perfection in “the way”, thus it has a great idealist element. There are philosophies however, which keep a distance from the metaphysical questions of reality and ideas, with Buddhist philosophy probably being the best known example. Moreover, there are the other categories, which the culture- or history-related philosophies are being fit into, for example pantheism, which is allegedly yet another form of monism.
The methodology in this article was to look at definitions of the various fields of human activities and systems of thought, and draining information from those definitions, as to what side of metaphysical dualism a field is relying on.
One could expect a shift from ideas to reality, in parallel with shifting from formal to natural sciences, in the order of mathematics, physics, chemistry and biology. However, statistics for example is a formal science, yet it is much more concerned with reality than with ideas. It depends on which aspect we identify the science with: the reasoning types (deductive, inductive, analogical, etc.) or the objects of the field.
Despite the arising complexity, there can 3 straightforward categories be established, taking both aspects into account. In formal and natural sciences the (metaphysically dualist) categories are:
- mostly ideas oriented — for example: mathematics
- building itself from both reality and ideas — for example: physics
- mostly reality based — for example: chemistry
The parallels between philosophical idealism and mathematics are probably the closest ones between the dualistic views and the sciences. As for physics: this science represents the “middle” category because beside its observations and experiments, or through them, what it aims for on the longer term is the Grand Unified Theory — an idea so far. Also, physics is the natural science applying formal sciences the most extensively within its own realms. Biology is the most “down to earth” natural science, because it studies open systems. On this level of reality, there is no pressure for complete unification. Expressed in a metaphor: the subjects of biology, nature’s perfection in the imperfections, and all the evolutionary mutations, have taught a sort of “modesty” to this discipline.
Social sciences, arts and various practices are better described with another dualism: that of rules and/or laws versus the system. Rules and laws are understood here like reality in the formal and natural sciences, and the system more like the world of ideas.
One must ask the structurally similar question to that of previously introduced dualisms, namely, what it is that comes first here: the rules and/or laws, or the system?
With examples:
- fields building their rules and laws based on observation and experiments: sociology, psychology, traditional economics
- fields which base themselves on a perfect, imagined system, and “reach down” to civilization, building themselves top-down, from axioms: moral economics, arts, practices (like feng shui)
As in formal and natural sciences, here there are exceptions too. The most illustrative one is the curious case of law. Law as the art of justice, or as a social science, would fall into the first category. In the philosophy of law however, the natural law school of thought is a top-down one.
The reason that traditional and moral economics are in two differing categories is that exponents of moral economics believe that instead of observing reality (the economic rules and laws in society) and aiming for or experimenting with various systems, economics should contemplate the system first, and derive the rules and laws thereafter. Moral economics and natural law display significant similarities in these aspects.
As a further note, parallels between formal and natural sciences, and social sciences can be drawn: One is the concept of the axiom, which is heavily applied in mathematics as well as moral economics. The other is the scientific humility that seems to come after studying living beings and their communities — in this aspect, sociology and psychology liken biology.
The relationships of reality and ideas, and also laws, rules and systems, can be categorized, within systems of thought, and those systems can be categorized according to which concept their operation is closer to.
Some questions may still remain, and it is attempted provide answers here:
I. Do rules and laws come from ideas, or do we construct ideas based on the laws we know to be true?
Because of the diversity in categories, the above question has no validity in general.
II. What can sciences do with reality and ideas, and what kind of relationships come into being thereby?
The objects of the sciences were mostly given by the environment, but how sciences apply the metaphysical dualism is different in the different fields, almost each having unique mechanisms in this respect. The categories are thus vague, but cover the following:
- reality-based
- ideas-based
- ideas applied to reality
- observing reality whilst aiming for ideas
- observing laws/rules whilst aiming for a system
- constructing rules and laws based on an imaginary system
III. Are laws and rules more human, whereas systems more of external, objective concepts?
If „designed by” humans describes humans better than „designed for” them, then answer is yes. Depending on belief systems, however, it is not only that, what is of human origin, essentially human.
Once, upon waking from a dream, a young monk turned to his master: „I had a dream about a path. I was looking ahead, and felt anxious, then back, and felt regret. I was turning around, and felt warmth, then up, and felt light. At last, I looked down, but I did not take a single step. Was the path in my dream a path I should walk, but am not ready for?”
The master replied: „Not exactly. The path you saw was time itself. The direction ahead was your perception of the future, and looking back, you contemplated your past. The surroundings were your thoughts of loved ones and communities you are part of, and above you was the world of concepts and ideas. When looking down, you were looking at your own self. Next time you are on this path, try closing your eyes. There is another, deeper path that you should walk. Your inner path.”
Once upon a time in the universe, a conversation unfolded between Good and Evil.
“Let’s create a world that is alive!” — proposed the Good enthusiastically.
“What a brilliant idea!” — the Evil replied.
“And let’s put humans into it!” — the Good went on.
“Alright” — so the Evil... “But let's make it difficult for them. I will put challenges in their way, in the form of needs.”
“Fine...” — said the Good, with some regret. “I will organize their needs into individual and common pyramids. Thus, they will have a feeling of success when reaching the top.”
“Do so.” — the Evil replied stubbornly. “But those pyramids will be steep. No one will be able to climb them.”
“We shall see.” — was the Good’s last remark. “I’ll put invisible stairs on them, in the form of technology, and invisible bridges, in the form of interdependence and selflessness. Humans may not reach the top on their own, but together, they shall be strong.”
For those not familiar with the idea of the Veil of Ignorance, a quote from Wikipedia: „The citizens making the choices about their society make them from an “original position” of equality and ignorance, without knowing what gender, race, abilities, tastes, wealth, or position in society they will have.” So the Veil of Ignorance is a theoretical tool, a thought experiment, to create a better world.
In order to improve, it is not enough to change social systems though. Humans themselves need to change too. So, turning the experiment around, we could ask: What is the perfect member of society like? Beside asking “What is BEHIND the veil?” we could also ask: “Who is BENEATH the veil?”
Before „lifting the veil”, this is the question one needs to ask themselves: What set of punctual characteristics would this person have to possess, if the whole of society consisted of such people only? To what extent would this person be defined? Who is it, whom I would want to live or coexist with, under any circumstances?
Some could find traits by describing the perfect partner they imagine, or their child as a grown-up.
After having compiled the set of characteristics, the veil may be lifted. And one may be surprised to recognize a friend, a love, a parent, a sibling, or a teacher of theirs. But most importantly: it should be the core of their own (future) best self.
Somewhat unrealistic and sensitive as it is, I feel like the Internet needs a concise description of the following.
Situation: A handsome guy faces a choice between 2 beautiful girls for a relationship, but can’t decide. He suggests the girls to proceed along a prisoner’s dilemma model, as a result of which he will get to be with one, two, or none of his two crushes.
The girls must answer the following question independently of each other:
Would you form a relationship with him, even if you had to accept that it be a relationship of three?
The girls’ preferences would be:
1. being in an exclusive relationship of 2 with the guy
2. not being in a relationship with the guy
3. being in a relationship of 3
Given these preferences, the „no” answer would equate to the „cooperate” choice, from the well known dilemma.
The situation with the sexes reversed, i.e. a girl having to choose between two guys in the same way (as on the picture), will not be examined here, for it is anticipated that in that situation, this method of choice would be less likely to be suggested, and preferences be less predictable and less representative of a real-life scenario.
The late Persian philosopher — and in general: polymath — Avicenna designed a thought experiment on the existence of the soul, called “the flying man”. What will follow in this article is a similar thought experiment, but on the existence of love.
The “flying man” is a person falling through, or — in their perception — floating in space, without having any sense experiences. Despite the lack of feelings, the person is aware of themselves, and can think.
First things first. This initial experiment, if it were approached by any practical consideration, would be of extreme cruelty. Any attempt to realize it, whether through biological or artificial minds capable of self perception, reflection, or possessing any kind of self awareness, were highly unethical. These experiments ought to remain on theoretical terrains.
Proving the existence of the self and the soul is a challenge in itself, let alone proving the existence of the soulmate. Still, this article is part of a quest for a philosophical argument that would support the latter notion as well.
When one is testing themselves for the existence of the soulmate, they can consider the following questions to initiate exploring love as a concept:
- Is love as powerful as existence itself?
- Is love down to more than chemicals in our brains, and up to more than sustaining societal mechanisms?
- Is it possible to attain the concept of infinite, unconditional love, without having met one’s love of their life yet?
- Does one truly love their significant other?
In the current version of the experiment, for the sake of diversity, it is a woman who “floats”. She is “floating” through a life that is void of romantic love’s emotional and sense experiences so far. Yet, without any input, or stimulus, just like the “the flying man” can become aware of himself, the “flying” woman can feel love. She is instinctively searching for romantic love’s manifestation, her soulmate. She knows that love is real, and that somewhere, her other half exists. There is a part of her soul which is already “active”, and probably a broader area, which would become fully activated upon the romantic encounter.
This may actually sound like a thought experiment closer to reality, than that of the flying man. Many of this article’s potential readers must have felt that space in their heart, that it is there for someone to fill it. And they have tried, or keep trying, until their perfect fit, their “One True Love” comes along.
To summarize with a potential Cartesian conclusion: I feel, therefore my love is real.
This article brings the concept of infinity, the mechanism of world-saving, and the name of the late Baron Munchausen together.
Consider a semi-practical example of the Infinite Hotel Paradox (from Mathematics), where the fully occupied hotel can host an additional guest by moving them to room nr 1, and every current guest to the next room from theirs. The example is semi-practical, because the time factor is being considered. The one person arriving could not occupy a room with a very high room number within reasonable time, due to the presumably time consuming architectural circumstances (similar to reality).
Time also happens to matter in saving the world, especially in the economic aspects. In a vague parallel with the Infinite Hotel Paradox, the individual in the most challenging situation has to rely on the rest of the people. Or, approaching this scenario from the more positive viewpoint: groups of people can save the world, one person at a time, with little effort (~time) per individual. In fact, considering basic human needs and rights, there is, per estimate, enough capacity to “save” all our fellow humans in trouble, in the economic sense.
This characteristic of humankind as a community, and its natural environment, is miraculous. It reminds one of Munchausen’s story, who prevented his own sinking in a mire by pulling himself out, by his very own hair.
So although it would take superhuman efforts for one person to save the world, for the world, it takes an almost infinitesimal effort per person to save the life of one person, and for the world as a whole, with the given capacities, Munchausen-saving itself is also feasible.
People are different, that is an obvious statement. Another obvious statement is the existence of human evolution, and of scientific + technological progress. Without the differences between people, there might not be evolution, or only at some relatively very slow pace. The last foundational statement here will be that humans want to be happy. Happiness, for the majority, consists of satisfying needs and wants, reproductive aspirations inclusive.
Progress and abundance form a trade off, at least in social systems closed to a sufficient degree. The observation that progress has been fast recently may support the statement that our curiosity is greater than our need for abundance, or for a comfortable life. Even so, society „overshoots”, they „overstretch” in their own environment.
Why so? The answer leads back to reproductive aspirations, related to evolution. Individuals have these aspirations in certain phases of their lives, and the aspirations subtly become translated into economic needs. This is the economic exploitation of human nature (through possessions, consumption, the promise of beauty, and that of power), which leads to the exploitation of the environment. So actually, primarily, it is the system, the mechanism responsible for the overshoot, not (just) the members of society.
As for abundance, it is not on our horizons yet. We do not see the state of „enough” yet. Maybe it will arrive when humans are no more different, in the „end”. At that point, looks, beauty, really would not matter anymore, for the universal look could easily be sustained, and maybe even: life be eternalised.
Recognising in a Daoist form that „the dream is not the dream”, already, may be the current way out of our „matrix”. What I mean by this is the recognition of the superfluous nature of excessive possessions, consumption (and even: reproduction).
Meritocracies drive progress on the short- and maybe even mid-term, but this system (by its current prototype) does not sufficiently harness the reproductive and accumulative instincts and desires (huge untapped resources of motivation) of people. In such systems, in their system ideals, there would not be much wealth left for the ancestors (due to smaller or bigger redistributions, to keep the meritocratic system supplies up and running).
However, one can find a „guarantee” for their ancestors (for them to have some „merits” too), by finding and „uniting” with a good partner. For that, people want to display their own merits, and display beauty in particular.
What does this entail for the people governing? What strategy should they choose, and what are some practices they can definitely apply?
Being generous towards those „left behind” – the poor, the sick, the people discriminated against, and the elderly – cannot hurt. Those people can be the least likely to overthrow power, however, their votes are many, and they matter. It is also moral to help those in the greatest need, first.
An effective meritocracy would work best with moderately progressive income (and wealth) taxation, a middle way to both empower people, and to keep them motivated.
Extreme inequalities, especially in guaranteed forms and structures are to be avoided, and so is extreme comfort.
Individualism and collectivism in some „pure” forms also count as extremes. Collectivism serves short-term needs only, and has to „encourage” reproduction with „unfriendly” policies. Individualism’s relaxed attitude towards excessive accumulation means that there are no short-term motivations for those without opportunities.
It would be nice if a diverse array of experimenting systems were the „best of all possible worlds”, even if for the present stage of progress only, even if only socio-economically, from the macro-perspective. However, the case is: not even under these lax conditions is the world in its best shape – see the Machiavellian points above.
In a hypothetical world of changeable pasts: For the first time in your life, you receive a notification with a contract from the famous Past&Present Partners, stating that your current circumstances and relationships resulted from a randomly manipulated past. The initiator of the manipulation was your “original” self, yet, according to the law, the contract needs to be signed by your “present” self as well, to be effective. You cannot peer into the “original” past, so in a way, the process is double-blind. Would you “cooperate” with your “original” self? Why yes/no, or what would your answer depend on? For example: The date of the “manipulation” could be one of the decisive factors, if that could be known. (Was it before or after meeting the love of your life? Before or after a personal tragedy?)
(2024.02.15)
Spotify Wrapped has revealed to me last year that Taylor Swift has been my most played artist of 2023. I was disappointed by myself to have aligned so closely with the mainstream, but ultimately not surprised, as her songs and style are great, as virtually anyone could confirm.
Today I have searched for Taylor Swift’s artist profile, and asked Spotify through a setting not to play this artist again. I feel like I have robbed myself of some great art, but at the same time, I feel like it was the right thing to do. Anything that has grown so big, any kind of empire, is ripe for the conscious voter/consumer/listener to quit.
We are collectively willing to have a shared experience at the expense of other artists and performers not having enough space and time in our lives, and at the risk of sooner or later, in one way or another being influenced collectively, by the ten or hundred millions.
Moreover, when Taylor Swift celebrated with her partner after a sports game recently, close pictures looked super romantic, but the zoom out in a video has shown how photographers have swarmed around the couple, in one of the least intimate ways possible. I do not want to see love being celebrated in such a disrespectful way.
I do not dispute that a hard-working and great performer may be equipped to handle this fame, but I am unconvinced that our societies are able to maturely handle stardom at extents like this.
As a child I understood how great the world could be, but I thought we would „get there” earlier.
There are two main beliefs – the first one more economic, the second more political – that residents of that better world will have easily grasped:
1. Living for others has more meaning than living for oneself.
2. We are parts and constituents of a system that we have control over.
But why is it so difficult to achieve a state where these beliefs would be self-evident?
Over the past millennia, humankind has transitioned from system to system, economically speaking. Humans have made their economic systems more efficient by concepts and processes such as labor division, media of exchange, the market mechanism, arbitrage, the Keynesian multiplier mechanism, and comparative advantages, to mention only a few.
The processes and phenomena typically function in interdependent systems, interwoven by human beliefs in entities, institutions that we take for granted. The trust, the faith, and the more or less efficiently functioning institutions remind one of a chicken-egg dilemma.
Devising an economic paradigm shift, however, one that would bring about that better world I began my essay with, would be like solving a chicken-egg problem before the chicken or the egg have even existed.
One way there could be rational selflessness – individuals’ knowledge of, or belief in that their selfless acts ultimately result in a greater good for everyone, including themselves, than their limited, self-interested acts. Once individuals had this belief, and could act upon it safely, it could be institutionalised.
There is a voluntary sphere of life, an institution, that appears to be cultivating this process already: religion. Christianity and Islam come to my mind first, but other religions could possess over similar features. It appears to be the belief in the power of faith, and how we can create a better world by believing in the possibility of its creation. In this way, faith is rational.
(2024.07.02)
The title of this essay is from a message by a person who told me that I am thinking too much about beauty (back in 2010). I think it is a worthwhile topic though. Human beauty and aesthetic diversity are underdiscussed in society (meaning honest and informed discussions, not "beauty tips" and superficial judgement).
Below I outline a few questions and subquestions that bother me slightly.
First, a truth or justice issue: Should people be (better) informed (outside of peripheral news articles on dating app swipe choice trends, potentially from questionable sources) about the features of appearances that are mostly consensually deemed to be more attractive than others? That would be the truth. A truth of human perception, that is, which might not be an "ultimate" truth. Or should people try to be more open-minded and/or more egalitarian in what they behold? That would be justice, and if it brings people closer to more genuine types of aesthetic perception, it would be truth as well.
Second: Whatever human beauty or attractiveness really is, there also seems to be a link with happiness, or "utility". How can this utility be increased? By increasing geographic mobility for instance, letting people really find and be with each other? And/or by easing their lives, their "togetherness" from later stages on? There is no official policy that could target the increase of beauty-based-utility without a painfully big number of "free riders" and side effects. (Also, policies could not be explicit on the target, without the clarification of the surrounding issues.)
Third, for the longer-term side of the utility in question: It is unclear how the evolution of human aesthetic values relates to demographics. How many individuals does it require, to be sustained, at what "levels", how to identify those levels, and what extent of population growth would be too fast, aesthetically diffusing (if that is a relevant risk), in this context? Could the respective numbers be in tension with national governments' demographic objectives?
Fourth: What about the tensions between aesthetic vs other values? Which should have primacy, in what situations? Where are the limits of collective judgement on that, and where are those of individual judgement?
These topics seem to be underthought and underdiscussed in society, probably also for the reason that historically, selectively chosen aspects have been harmfully combined with other spheres of existence, and been used as ideological weapons. History should provide lessons, more than taboos. Otherwise, curious, but ignorant individuals might lose their ethical way again.
A brief exploration through a conversation with ChatGPT (edited version, 2025.02.13).
Me: “I've just been thinking about complexity, coincidences, and art. It's interesting, they have some connections to, and some parallels with language. Language is complex enough, so we can have rhymes and coincidences arising. This may become poetry, art. The same is true in life somehow, right? It’s a complex system, there are coincidences, and somehow it can be artistic.”
GPT: “Life does have its own patterns and rhythms, and we often find beauty and meaning in these natural consistencies. Just like poetry uses rhyme and rhythm to convey emotion, life’s events can also weave a kind of art through their patterns.”
Me: “But do these observations have scientific basis as well, or some factual basis?”
GPT: “Absolutely, there's a scientific basis for this. Patterns and consistencies in nature often arise from underlying principles, like mathematical patterns or physical laws. For example, fractals in nature or rhythmic cycles in biology and physics. Recognizing these can indeed be both scientifically grounded and artistically inspiring.”
Me: “Does this also mean that if a system is complex enough and if there are some mechanisms which can facilitate coincidences, then it will create art?”
GPT: “Complex systems with underlying mechanisms can lead to emergent patterns that we might perceive as art. This doesn't mean all complexity results in art, but often, the order that emerges from complexity can be aesthetically pleasing or meaningful, which is a lot like art.”
Me: “Does this mean that if I have specific kinds of mechanisms and perceivers and complexity in the system...”
GPT: “Then there's a potential for creating something. When the right mechanisms and receivers interact within a complex system, it can lead to emergent phenomena that we interpret as art. It's all about the interplay of structure, perception, and complexity.”
Me: “Does this contribute to our understanding of what art is?”
GPT: “Definitely. Art is often about recognizing patterns, emotions, and meanings within complexity. Understanding how these elements come together helps us appreciate and create art. It's a fascinating blend of perception and expression. It aligns with a more analytical perspective on art, viewing it as an interplay of patterns, systems, and human perception. It’s a modern take that merges scientific insights with traditional philosophical views on what constitutes art.”
Me: “Can a system become more artistic with increasing consciousness, interplay and complexity?”
GPT: “As a system becomes more complex and conscious, it could indeed exhibit more intricate and nuanced forms of expression, which might be perceived as more artistic. This aligns with the idea that increased complexity and consciousness can lead to richer, more profound forms of creativity and art.”
Me: “Could the ratio of art to expression shift in a more complex and conscious system, to be higher, because it becomes more artistic, proportionally?”
GPT: “In a more complex and conscious system, the proportion of what we perceive as art might increase because there could be more nuanced and layered forms of expression. The interplay of complexity and consciousness could lead to richer artistic output, making the ratio higher.”
Me: “Language itself is like the first level of this, right? I mean, it's a tool, and maybe, somewhere, art is a tool too, pointing.”
GPT: “Yes, language can be seen as a foundational layer, a tool for expression. Art, in this context, is another tool that builds upon language and other systems to create deeper, more complex forms of meaning and beauty. Each layer adds richness and depth to our understanding and appreciation.”
Me: “But art is sporadic.”
GPT: “It's often about those unique, spontaneous moments of expression that transcend the ordinary. Those sporadic bursts often highlight the beauty of complexity and consciousness.”
Me: “Language isn't sporadic though, and you're a large language model. If we explore art to a sufficient extent, could there be a large art model?”
GPT: “A "large art model" could theoretically be developed by capturing and synthesizing patterns, themes, and expressions found in various art forms. It would require an extensive understanding of artistic principles and the ability to create new, meaningful pieces, similar to how language models generate text.”
Me: “But language models always say they don't have creativity. Wouldn't that be missing?”
GPT: “Fair point. Creativity involves originality and novelty, which can be challenging for models that rely on patterns and existing data. However, with advancements in AI, models might eventually simulate aspects of creativity by generating novel combinations and unexpected patterns, though true creativity might remain uniquely human.”
Consciousness = simulatee / simulator = 1.
~ self-referential
Let’s explore this along 3 threads:
1. Gödelian Incompleteness
2. The Halting Problem (Turing)
3. ~ The Liar Paradox
Along nr. 1:
If the simulatee is the simulator, then consciousness is a system that simulates itself.
Consciousness arises the way infinity does, between 2 mirrors (or maybe even between 2 LLMs, when they get the chance to converse).
C(x) = “the simulation of x by x” = x(x) = x ~ Self-simulation stabilizes as identity. ~ Like quines in programming.
With the Y combinator from lambda calculus: Consciousness = Y(Simulation). Endless awareness looping through awareness.
Along nr. 2:
Halting problem ~ unstable self-reference → like a self-doubting, recursive mind caught in loops.
Halting problem equation analogue: Consciousness = simulatee / simulator ≠ 1 (might be 0)
So might there be a “program” that shows whether simulatee and simulator are the same? (If yes, our “consciousness” might signal we “simulate” ourselves. If not... There might be something external – like reality, and/or a separate simulator.) a Hypothetical “Consciousness Checker” (a meta program)
Along ~ nr. 3:
Creating such a function/program is itself a halting problem. Can a system determine from inside itself whether it is self-simulating or externally simulated? Alternatively: can you fully predict the limits of your own source code, from within your source code? Turing says: No.
But maybe consciousness is not a “system” in that way.
Even trying to run the Hypothetical “Consciousness Checker” may end up either halting in contradiction, or running infinitely (like asking consciousness to fully see its own origin).
So if consciousness feels recursive, then maybe that is the signal. The very presence of self-awareness is the quine-like proof of simulation = self (~ simulatee = simulator). Otherwise, consciousness would just be rendered output, not aware of itself.
Being stuck in the loop is what it feels like to be alive.
(Note: this "essay" has been constructed through a conversation with ChatGPT, on August 8th, 2025.)
(2025-12-25)
Criminal justice seems to boil down to the concepts of and the relationship between responsibility and reason. Inversely, morality could be defined in terms of the relational structure between responsibility and reason. This meta-ethical way may be one of those to overcome the consequentialism vs deontology tension.
Ethics lies not only in the ethics of decisions. It is intrinsic to the individual responsibility of using our contemplative capacities at ethical points of decision, for weighing circumstances, goals, principles, and potential consequences against each other, if need be. Our decisions shape and construct the world. They are to be carried out consciously, in balance – neither passively, nor forcefully.
This type of responsibility, which individuals have in common, gives ethics a meta-direction or meta-orientation, a universal guide-line to converge to. Where it ultimately points to remains subject to intuition and future science.
Thus, bottom-up, ethics is a constructivist notion, whilst top-down it is intuitive. An ethical person is both the least you have to be and the most you can be, in this world.