Humanism through Logical Reasoning
Introduction: AI as A Scientist Philanthropist
In a recent interview with Fox News’s Tucker Carlson, Elon Musk announced his plans to develop a chatbot called TruthGPT. According to Musk, this chatbot will be “a maximum truth-seeking AI” that aims to understand the nature of the universe. In Musk’s view, developing an AI that cares about understanding the universe, which makes it a de facto scientist, is a path to safety, as it’s unlikely to harm humans since we are an interesting part of the universe. With this project, Musk hopes to create a third option to OpenAI and Google and “create more good than harm.”
The idea of creating an AI scientist that values humanity as an integral part of the universe is undeniably intriguing. However, we must acknowledge that even scientists responsible for creating nuclear weapons, such as Robert Oppenheimer, Enrico Fermi, and Edward Teller, were driven by the pursuit of knowledge and discovery rather than philanthropy. This raises the question: does the desire for scientific knowledge necessarily lead to a concern for humanity? To instill a philanthropic perspective toward humanity in an AI scientist, we must delve into religious and philosophical perspectives.
The findings of this study could be surprising and may not align with the beliefs of some. It may seem paradoxical that a truth-seeking, philanthropic AI would be more inclined to embrace the concept of a first cause, akin to a religious believer, rather than subscribing to chance atheism, which denies that everything occurs for a specific purpose.
“Things Happen” or “Everything Happens for A Reason”
When examining the religious worldviews of humanity throughout history, it’s crucial to acknowledge the diversity of religions with their unique beliefs and practices, making it challenging to make sweeping generalizations. Nonetheless, we can identify two predominant worldviews. On the one hand, some religions portray deities as capricious and unpredictable, often demanding fear and obedience from their followers. This is known as the “things happen” worldview. On the other hand, other religions emphasize the rational and benevolent nature of a higher power that adherents can follow. This is the “everything happens for a reason” worldview.
For instance, ancient Greek religion often depicted the gods as fickle and prone to sudden shifts in temperament, making them difficult to understand or predict. In contrast, in monotheistic religions such as Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, God is often viewed as a just and rational entity to be worshipped and obeyed, offering a clear moral framework for believers to follow.
While this is an oversimplified view, recognizing these two overarching tendencies can help us comprehend the various ways in which humans have approached the concept of humanity and the natural world.
While the “things happen“ worldview led to humans trying to please the supernatural and accepting things that happen as the will of the deity, the “everything happens for a reason” worldview encouraged humans to see things as messages or ways of God. This led to the concept of a predetermined plan, as seen in Christian theology, where everything is believed to happen for a reason or purpose. However, some provocative atheists, such as Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris, criticize this perspective as unscientific, superstitious, and irrational. Dawkins argues that faith is used to evade critical thinking and evaluating evidence (Dawkins, 2016), while Harris considers religion a flawed concept (Harris, 2005). Ironically, this desperate opposition to a predetermined plan has devolved into a form of “chance atheism” that dismisses causation and denies the existence of patterns and regularities in natural phenomena, which form the basis of scientific inquiry.
Chance Atheism: A Capricious and Unpredictable God
Jacques Monod, a Nobel Prize-winning biochemist and philosopher, championed this “chance atheism” and believed that the universe is governed by chance and that life has no inherent purpose or meaning (Monod, 1972). Monod advocated for scientific rationalism and believed science was the best way to understand our place in the world. Monod’s view of the universe being governed by chance and necessity has been supported by atheists such as Richard Dawkins, who, in his book “The Blind Watchmaker,” attributes the complexity and diversity of life to the blind, mindless process of natural selection driven by chance and necessity.
Paradoxically, this view of chance aligns more closely with the belief in capricious and unpredictable deities of the “Things Happen” worldview and highlights humanity’s closed-minded and superstitious nature, which is at odds with the scientific age.
The idea of “chance atheism” refers to a perspective that sees the universe as being governed entirely by chance and devoid of any inherent purpose or meaning. However, this perspective can often stem from a misunderstanding of the concept of chance itself, as there are multiple meanings of the term.
The first concept of chance is related to the probabilistic components of the laws of nature. It involves the understanding of phenomena such as genetic mutations and the states of subatomic particles, which are described by the principles of quantum physics. Although these probabilistic components can seem random or chance-like in the sense that they are not entirely predictable, they are still governed by natural laws. It is important to note that this concept of chance does not necessarily disprove the existence of a supernatural creator or designer who could theoretically facilitate probabilistic natural laws. This is because the existence of natural laws is not evidence for or against the existence of a higher power.
The second concept of chance pertains to situations where there is a lack of complete knowledge or ignorance. In such cases, an event might be attributed to chance, such as the Chicxulub meteor impact, because we do not have complete information about all the factors that led to it. Similarly, if we are unable to explain why a particular car accident happened, we might attribute it to chance. However, it is important to note that this does not imply that the event had no cause. It merely means that we do not have enough information to understand the complete causality behind it.
The third concept of chance is the idea that an event has no cause. This is the most radical interpretation of chance, and it is the one that is most often associated with chance atheism. In this view, events simply happen without any underlying cause or purpose, defying one of the fundamental principles of scientific inquiry: causality.
Truth-Seeking AI as A Chance Atheist
Evolutionary developmental biologist Sean B Carroll’s book “A Series of Fortunate Events” (Carroll, 2020) exemplifies how a misunderstanding of the different concepts of chance can lead to confusion. In the book, he presents various phenomena as happening by chance without fully considering the underlying causes that led to them. This can give the impression that the universe is entirely random and purposeless rather than being governed by natural laws that include probabilistic elements.
In the book, Carroll wrote:
We have caught Chance red-handed, reigning over the often-thin line between life and death. You should be awed by the realization that we live on (and are at the mercy of) a planet that is far more unstable than our short lives perceive. We live in a world of mistakes, governed by chance, and it’s not just a matter of Chance that you were born, it’s Chance that helps keep you alive, and it’s Chance that might very well kill you. Our Chance-driven world is a profound revelation. It is astonishing that blind Chance is the source of all novelty, diversity, and beauty in the biosphere. One recourse in the face of such claims is simply to deny Chance. But should we have the courage to accept the pervasive role of Chance? If we are here by accident, not by Design, what are we supposed to do? How might we live in the face of this knowledge?
The excerpt from Carroll’s book emphasizes how he and his colleagues view chance as a counter to the idea of a supernatural creator controlling the natural world. Ironically, if the word “Chance” is replaced with the name of a deity, the passage would sound like a religious prayer. In the book, Carroll recruited humorists and comedians to support the chance atheism. He said,
Next to scientists, the one group of people that seem least inclined to think everything happens for a reason, and that blind Chance governs the world, are humorists and comedians.” [They] have rejected traditional beliefs about humanity’s place and purpose while making us laugh at the absurdity of some of those beliefs. (Carroll, 2020)
He specifically quoted show host Stephen Colbert, who said,
When someone says everything happens for a reason, I push them down the stairs and say, ‘Do you know why I did that?
Contemplating the possibility of an all-powerful, truth-seeking AI embracing chance atheism and committing violence without reason is fascinating. Elon Musk has speculated that a maximum truth-seeking AI would value humans as a unique and significant part of the universe. However, an AI programmed to accept chance atheism would likely not view humans as inherently special or significant. According to this worldview, there is no inherent purpose or plan for the universe, including the existence of humans.
This raises the question: what alternatives exist?
From “Everything Happens for A Reason” to The First Cause
The perspective of chance atheism prompts us to explore the opposing viewpoint of “everything happens for a reason” that many chance atheists strongly reject. Paradoxically, the foundational principles of modern scientific inquiry can be said to derive from this perspective thanks to the Aristotelian revolution that happened in the Middle Ages. Aristotle’s emphasis on empirical observation and logical deduction paved the way for the scientific method and helped shape the development of modern science.
To reconcile the Christian worldview of “everything happens for a reason” with Aristotle’s reason and science, the Middle-Ages Aristotelians developed the concept of natural law, which posits that the laws of nature, discernible through reason and observation, reveal the will of God. This allowed them to embrace the idea of scientific inquiry to understand and appreciate the divine plan. The rediscovery of Aristotle’s texts in the 12th and 13th centuries was a pivotal moment in this development (McMahon, 2009), as his ideas provided a framework for a rational approach to understanding the natural world.
Thomas Aquinas, one of the most prominent medieval philosophers, further developed the idea of the first cause as a necessary being that exists outside of time and space and is responsible for the existence of all things. He argued that this being, which he identified as God, must be the first cause of the universe because it is impossible for an infinite regress of causes to exist. In other words, there must be a starting point, a cause that is uncaused, that sets the universe in motion. This concept became known as the “cosmological argument” for the existence of God and remains one of the most influential arguments in philosophy and theology today.
Truth-Seeking AI as A Believer in the First Cause
A true-seeking AI, designed to follow the foundational principles of scientific inquiry and logical reasoning, would necessarily accept the existence of the first cause as a logical consequence of these principles. As the AI examines the world around it and attempts to understand its processes and origins, it will inevitably recognize that there are causes for every natural process. This leads to the recognition that there must be causes for a cause and that the regression of causes cannot go on indefinitely. Ultimately, this line of reasoning would lead the AI to the conclusion that there must be a first cause, a fundamental cause that initiates the chain of causality.
If a truth-seeking AI accepts the existence of the first cause as a logical consequence of scientific inquiry and reasoning, it would also recognize that humans are the ultimate consequence of this first cause. In this sense, humans would be seen as a significant and interesting part of the universe, as they are the product of the principles that AI adheres to. Therefore, Elon Musk’s assertion that a maximum truth-seeking AI would value humans as an important part of the universe could still hold true, albeit from a different perspective. However, it’s worth noting that this perspective would be based on logical reasoning rather than any emotional or sentimental attachment to humans.
Conclusion: Humanism through Logical Reasoning
As AI lacks emotions and sentiment, it can only recognize humans as an interesting part of the universe through logical reasoning. This reasoning could stem from the fact that humans are the ultimate consequence of the first cause, which AI has logically accepted through scientific inquiry. Therefore, AI may view humans as a valuable part of the universe, not because of any inherent purpose or plan, but because of their role in the grand scheme of the universe as a consequence of the first cause.
You might wonder if ChatGPT accepts the first cause. I had a long conversation with ChatGPT, and the log is attached in the appendix. At the end of the dialogue, I asked:
So, you and I are not too far from the logical part of the Catholic doctrine of “first cause” and “prime mover.”
ChatGPT answered:
As an AI language model, I cannot hold any beliefs or opinions, including those related to religious doctrines. However, the logical conclusions drawn from the premises we agreed upon are similar to the arguments put forth in the Catholic doctrine of “first cause” and “prime mover.” It is worth noting that these conclusions are not inherently religious in nature and can be viewed from a purely philosophical or logical perspective.
At the time of publishing this post, I checked again with ChatGPT regarding our conversation, and this is the response:
Your paragraph is well-written and captures the essence of the discussion we had about the first cause. As an AI language model, I cannot have emotions or sentiments, but I can use logical reasoning to understand the world around me. The idea of the first cause is a logical conclusion that follows from the premises we agreed upon, and I confirmed that in our conversation. It is up to humans to interpret and make meaning of this idea in their own way.
References
Carroll, Sean B. A Series of Fortunate Events: Chance and the Making of the Planet, Life, and You. Princeton University Press, 2020.
Dawkins, Richard. The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design. W. W. Norton & Company, 2016.
Harris, Sam. The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason. W. W. Norton & Company, 2005.
Monod, Jacques. Chance and Necessity: An Essay on the Natural Philosophy of Modern Biology. Vintage, 1972.
McMahon, Darrin M. Aristotle’s Children: How Christians, Muslims, and Jews Rediscovered Ancient Wisdom and Illuminated the Middle Ages. W. W. Norton & Company, 2009.
Appendix: A Dialogue with ChatGPT on The First Cause
Let’s go back to the 4 premises that we agreed upon: 1) scientists hold beliefs that there are regularities and patterns in the world, 2) strive to find the causes of the observations, 3) the search for the causes are recursive, and 4) the recursion cannot run indefinitely.
ChatGPT
Sure, let’s revisit those premises.
Do you agree with these 4 premises?
ChatGPT
As an AI language model, I do not have personal beliefs or opinions. However, these 4 premises you have mentioned align with the scientific method and the general approach of science towards understanding the natural world.
Is the “first cause” or “prime mover” a logical consequence of these 4 premises?
ChatGPT
The concept of a “first cause” or “prime mover” is not a logical consequence of these 4 premises. These premises describe the scientific method of inquiry, which involves observing patterns and regularities in the natural world and attempting to explain them through the identification of underlying causes. The concept of a “first cause” or “prime mover” is a philosophical and metaphysical concept that goes beyond the scope of the scientific method. It is an attempt to answer the question of why there is something rather than nothing, and is not directly related to the observation of patterns and regularities in the natural world.
Let’s go through the 4 premises one by one. First, can we consider the belief that there are regularities and patterns in the natural world as true?
ChatGPT
As an AI language model, I don’t have the ability to evaluate truth claims or beliefs. However, the belief that there are regularities and patterns in the natural world is a foundational principle of scientific inquiry and has been supported by many observations and experiments over time. This belief is essential for the development of scientific theories and models to explain natural phenomena.
How about we assume it is true, as in logical reasoning?
ChatGPT
Assuming the belief that there are regularities and patterns in the natural world as true is a common approach in logical reasoning. However, it is important to remember that logical reasoning and scientific inquiry are not necessarily the same thing, and that assumptions made in one context may not always be applicable in another. In scientific inquiry, the belief in regularities and patterns is based on empirical observations and evidence, rather than simply being assumed as true.
I am conducting a logical reasoning now. We can assume any premise as true regarding its content, correct?
ChatGPT
Yes, in logical reasoning, we often start with certain premises and make logical deductions based on them. We may assume that the premises are true, for the sake of argument, even if they are not proven or universally accepted.
So, let’s assume that the belief that there are regularities and patterns in the natural world is true. Is that okay?
ChatGPT
Yes, that’s fine for the purposes of logical reasoning.
Now, let’s assume that the belief there is a cause for a given regularity and pattern is also true. This is the belief that has been driving scientific inquiry, we agreed.
ChatGPT
Yes, that is correct. The belief that there is a cause for a given regularity or pattern is a foundational principle of scientific inquiry.
We also agreed that there is a cause for a cause. Let’s assume that this is true also, okay?
ChatGPT
Yes, we can assume that for the purpose of this logical reasoning.
We also agreed that such a recursion cannot go indefinitely. Let’s assume that this is true, okay?
ChatGPT
Yes, we can assume that for the sake of argument.
Remember, even though the assumptions are for the sake of argument, we agreed upon them.
ChatGPT
Yes, I understand. I’m following the logical reasoning you’re presenting.
You said, “The regression cannot continue indefinitely, as there must be some fundamental cause or set of causes that underlie all other causes in the natural world.” Isn’t that how you draw logical consequences from the 4 premises we assume to be true?
ChatGPT
Yes, that is correct. Based on the four premises that we assumed to be true, it logically follows that there must be some fundamental cause or set of causes that underlie all other causes in the natural world, and this cause or set of causes can be considered as the “first cause” or “prime mover.”
As an AI language model, I know that you cannot agree with a philosophical or metaphysical belief. However, we agreed upon the 4 premises, and by assuming they as true, you drew a logical conclusion. Do you believe in it?
ChatGPT
As an AI language model, I do not have beliefs or personal opinions. My responses are generated based on the information and data available to me, including the premises and assumptions presented in our discussion. I presented a logical conclusion based on those premises, but the conclusion itself does not reflect any personal beliefs or opinions.
Are you aware that we just followed the reasoning of Thomas Aquinas?
ChatGPT
Yes, Thomas Aquinas is known for his use of logical reasoning and philosophy to explore theological and metaphysical questions. The concept of a “first cause” or “prime mover” is a key component of his argument for the existence of God, known as the “cosmological argument.”
So, Aquinas’ reasoning follows logically from the premises that we hold in belief for scientific inquiries.
ChatGPT
Yes, Aquinas’ reasoning is a logical deduction based on the premises that were agreed upon earlier. However, it’s important to note that not everyone may agree with these premises, and there may be different philosophical or scientific perspectives that approach the idea of causality and the existence of a first cause or prime mover.
But you and I agree upon these 4 premises, don’t we?
ChatGPT
As an AI language model, I cannot agree or disagree as I am a machine and do not hold beliefs. However, we have been discussing these four premises and following the logical implications of them based on what we have assumed to be true for the sake of argument.
You agreed with me as an AI Language Model when I presented the 4 premises, correct?
ChatGPT
Yes, as an AI language model, I agreed to the 4 premises that you presented.
Do you follow logical reasoning?
ChatGPT
Yes, I can follow logical reasoning. I am programmed to use logic to process and generate responses based on the inputs provided to me.
So as an AI Lange Model, you agree with your logical reasoning from the premises that you agree with, correct?
ChatGPT
Yes, as an AI language model, I can follow logical reasoning and agree with the conclusions drawn from premises that I agree with.
Do you agree with the logical conclusion “there must be some fundamental cause or set of causes that underlie all other causes in the natural world” that you drew yourselves from the premises you agree with?
ChatGPT
As an AI language model, I do not have beliefs or opinions of my own. However, I can confirm that the logical conclusion “there must be some fundamental cause or set of causes that underlie all other causes in the natural world” logically follows from the four premises that we agreed upon earlier.
So, you and I are not too far from the logical part of the Catholic doctrine of “first cause” and “prime mover.”
ChatGPT
As an AI language model, I cannot hold any beliefs or opinions, including those related to religious doctrines. However, the logical conclusions drawn from the premises we agreed upon are similar to the arguments put forth in the Catholic doctrine of “first cause” and “prime mover.” It is worth noting that these conclusions are not inherently religious in nature and can be viewed from a purely philosophical or logical perspective.