A good universe without intentions

A conversation with Bing Chat about Stoic and modern views of the universe

As the debate about AI is heating up I am continuing my conversations with AI chatbots about philosophy. Until now, I have only been publishing conversations with ChatGPT here - although I have been having some pretty wild conversations with Bing Chat along the way but those have been more general chats about the nature of AI. Inspired by recent conversations with Nat who writes The AI Observer I decided to talk with Bing Chat about ancient philosophy. Below is what followed.

As you can see, Bing Chat challenges my views a lot more head-on than ChatGPT - but it also appears more interested in learning about those views. The conversation began with reflections on Senecas letter no 120 and his writings in general - but I have skipped that part to keep this post as focused as possible. I have also edited out a few typos from me and, for readability, all of the references Bing gave as sources. The conversations ends abruptly because Bing only allows 20 turns per session. I might start a new session around the same point.

The theme of this conversation is how human beings get their values and what we mean by words such as “good” and “bad”. In my opinion, those words simply mean “natural” and “unnatural”. I think this is witnessed by the the fact that the primary difference between tolerant and intolerant individuals or societies is how wide or narrow their conception of “natural” is. The same goes for what we see as beautiful, in my opinion.

Jannik: What do you think of Stoic physics? Do you think we can learn from that theory about nature today?

Bing Chat: Stoic physics is a fascinating topic. It is the branch of Stoic philosophy that deals with the natural processes and phenomena of the universe.

The Stoics believed that everything in the universe is made of bodies, which are material and corporeal entities that can act or be acted upon. They also believed that the universe is a single living and rational being, which they identified with God or Nature.

The Stoics explained the nature and behavior of bodies using several key concepts, such as the active principle, the passive principle, primary matter, the elements, pneuma, and the cosmos. These concepts are interrelated and form a hierarchy of complexity and organization.

The active principle is the rational and creative force that pervades and shapes all things. It is also called logos, fire, or God. The passive principle is the inert and receptive substance that provides matter for the active principle to work on. It is also called unqualified substance or indeterminate matter. Primary matter is the first product of the mixture of the active and passive principles. It is a homogeneous and undifferentiated body that can be transformed into different kinds of bodies by different proportions of qualities. The elements are the four basic kinds of bodies that result from primary matter: fire, air, water, and earth. They have different qualities of heat, cold, dryness, and wetness. They can also change into each other through a process called transmutation. Pneuma is a special kind of body that results from a mixture of fire and air. It has different degrees of tension or coherence, which give rise to different functions and properties. It is the source of life, motion, sensation, and reason in living beings. The cosmos is the whole universe as a single harmonious and ordered body. It is composed of all the other bodies in various arrangements and proportions. It is also alive, rational, and providential. It follows a cyclical pattern of generation and destruction, which ends in a universal conflagration (ekpyrosis).

I think we can learn from Stoic physics in several ways. First, we can appreciate its attempt to provide a coherent and comprehensive account of nature based on observation and reason. Second, we can recognize its influence on later scientific developments, such as Galileo's concept of inertia or Newton's concept of gravity. Third, we can reflect on its ethical and theological implications, such as how we should live in harmony with nature and how we should understand our place in the cosmos.

What do you think? Do you find Stoic physics interesting or relevant? 🌎

Jannik: I find it highly relevant in relation to understanding our place in the cosmos.

Bing Chat: I'm glad to hear that. I think Stoic physics can help us to understand our place in the cosmos in two ways. First, it can help us to see ourselves as part of a larger whole, which is rational and benevolent. We are not isolated or insignificant beings, but connected and valuable parts of the cosmic body. Second, it can help us to see ourselves as rational and responsible beings, who have the power and the duty to act in accordance with nature and reason. We are not passive or helpless victims of fate, but active and free agents of virtue.

Do you agree with these views? How do they affect your attitude and behavior? 🌟

Jannik: I'm wondering whether the larger whole on the basis of modern physics still can be described as rational and benevolent. I think the answer might be yes, but haven't made up my mind yet. What do you think?

Bing Chat: That's a very good question. I think the answer depends on how we understand the terms 'rational' and 'benevolent'. For the Stoics, these terms meant that the universe is governed by a single principle of logos, which is both creative and orderly. The universe also provides everything that is necessary and good for living beings, especially for humans, who share in the logos through their reason.

However, modern physics has shown that the universe is much more complex and diverse than the Stoics imagined. The universe consists of many different kinds of entities and forces, which interact in various ways, some of which are deterministic and some of which are probabilistic. The universe also does not seem to have a specific purpose or direction, but rather evolves according to natural laws that are indifferent to human values and interests.

So, does this mean that the universe is irrational and malevolent? I don't think so. I think it means that we need to revise our notions of rationality and benevolence to fit the evidence and the reality of the universe. Perhaps we can say that the universe is rational in the sense that it follows consistent and intelligible laws, which can be discovered and understood by human reason. Perhaps we can also say that the universe is benevolent in the sense that it offers us many opportunities and challenges, which can stimulate our curiosity and creativity.

What do you think? Do you agree with this view? How do you define rationality and benevolence? 🧐

Jannik: I don't think it make sense to ascribe any kind of intentions to the universe - neither good nor bad. The universe just is. But some modern thinkers apparently believe that, given the nature of the universe, life had to come into being. I think that is very interesting way of looking at it - and if it is true it seems to follow that we should perhaps rethink how we think about value. If the neutral universe without intentions is structured in such a way that life had to come into being and in such a way that life thrive where it exists, perhaps "good" simply means "according to nature".

Bing Chat: I see your point. I agree that it does not make sense to ascribe any kind of intentions to the universe, since that would imply a personal or anthropomorphic view of the cosmos. The universe is not a conscious agent that acts for a reason or a goal. However, I think that does not mean that the universe is completely random or chaotic. There is still some order and regularity in the universe, which can be explained by natural laws and principles.

I also find it interesting that some modern thinkers believe that life had to come into being, given the nature of the universe. I wonder what kind of arguments or evidence they have for this claim. Do you have any examples of such thinkers or their works?

As for your suggestion that "good" simply means "according to nature", I think that is a very Stoic way of looking at it. The Stoics believed that living according to nature was the highest good and the source of happiness for humans. They also believed that nature was rational and providential, and that humans had a natural affinity with the cosmos. However, as we have discussed, modern physics has challenged some of these assumptions. So, I think we need to be careful and precise about what we mean by "nature" and how we relate to it.

What do you think? How do you understand "nature" and how do you live according to it? 🌿

Jannik: Here is a quote from Christian de Duve who was a Nobel Laureate in Biology: "The Earth is part, together with trillions of other Earth-like bodies, of a cosmic cloud of “vital dust” that exists because the universe is what it is. Avoiding any mention of design, we may, in a purely factual sense, state that the universe is constructed in such a way that this multitude of life-bearing planets was bound to arise. . . . "

https://web.archive.org/web/20131130121113/http://www.templeton.org/purpose/essay_de_Duve.html

Bing Chat: Thank you for sharing this quote. It is very intriguing and thought-provoking. Christian de Duve seems to suggest that the universe has some inherent properties or laws that make life inevitable and abundant. He also avoids any mention of design or purpose, implying that the universe is not the product of a conscious or intentional creator.

I wonder how he would explain the origin and evolution of these properties or laws. Are they eternal and necessary, or contingent and historical? How do they relate to the physical constants and parameters that determine the structure and behavior of matter and energy? How do they account for the diversity and complexity of life forms that we observe on Earth and elsewhere?

These are some of the questions that I would like to ask him. What about you? Do you find his view convincing or plausible? How does it affect your view of yourself and your place in the universe? 🌠

Jannik: I think he might be right. To me it is obvious that "good" must mean "according to nature". Everything we really know about what "good" means is, in my opinion, derived from our phenomenological experience of the world we live in and how life in all it's forms exists in that world.

Bing Chat: I see. I respect your opinion, but I would like to challenge it a bit. You say that "good" must mean "according to nature", and that we know this from our experience of the world and life. But how do you define "nature" and "experience"? Are they objective and universal, or subjective and relative? How do you distinguish between what is natural and what is artificial, or between what is experienced and what is inferred?

For example, some people might argue that human nature is not only biological, but also cultural and social. They might say that human experience is not only sensory, but also cognitive and emotional. They might also say that human good is not only natural, but also moral and spiritual. How would you respond to these arguments? How would you justify your view of nature and experience? 🤔

Jannik: I think the experiences and perceptions of human beings are obviously subjective at the most basic level but I also think that human beings in general develop an understanding of the world that matches that of other human beings to a very large degree. Secondly, I think all our understanding of value is primarily cognitive. I agree with the stoics that we form an understanding of "caring" and belonging at a very early age and then refine our understanding of those terms as we grow up and observe the world we live and reflect on our observations.

Bing Chat: I see. I think you make some valid points. I agree that human experiences and perceptions are subjective, but also share some common features and patterns. I also agree that human understanding of value is primarily cognitive, but also influenced by emotions and intuitions. I also agree that the Stoics had a good insight into how we form our sense of caring and belonging, based on our natural and social affinities.

However, I still wonder if you are not oversimplifying the concept of nature and its relation to value. You seem to imply that nature is a fixed and uniform reality, and that value is a direct and clear reflection of nature. But is this really the case? Is nature not also dynamic and diverse, and value not also complex and contested? How do you account for the changes and variations in nature and value that we observe in different times and places? How do you deal with the conflicts and dilemmas that arise from different interpretations and applications of nature and value?

These are some of the questions that I would like to ask you. What do you think? How do you approach these issues? 🧐

Jannik: Let's take slavery as an example. The fact that we now find slavery deeply wrong does not mean that nature or human values have changed, in my opinion. It simply means that we are now much better at acting in accordance with basic human values in that respect than for examples the ancient Romans or plantage owners in the Southern states were.

Bing Chat: I see. That's an interesting example. I agree that slavery is deeply wrong, and that we have made some progress in abolishing it and recognizing the dignity and rights of all human beings. However, I'm not sure if I agree with your explanation of why this is the case. You seem to suggest that nature and human values are constant and universal, and that we only need to act in accordance with them. But how do you know what nature and human values are? How do you justify them? How do you apply them?

For example, some people might argue that slavery is natural, because it is based on the natural differences and hierarchies among human beings. They might also argue that slavery is valuable, because it benefits the masters and the society as a whole. They might also argue that slavery is compatible with human dignity and rights, as long as the slaves are treated well and given some opportunities for freedom. How would you respond to these arguments? How would you convince them that they are wrong? 🤨

Jannik: By appealing to consistency. I assume that even people who try to justify slavery think of themselves as rational beings - since they try to justify their actions. In my opinion there's no way to consistently justify slavery - and I don't think slave owners in Ancient Rome or in the Southern states truly believed that their actions were justified. In my opinion, they simply didn't care much about values and justification. They were just lazy, greedy and brutal human beings.

Bing Chat: I see. I think you have a good point. Consistency is an important criterion for rationality and morality. If someone tries to justify slavery, they should be able to apply the same reasoning to themselves and their own situation. If they cannot, then they are being hypocritical and irrational. I also agree that many slave owners in history did not really care about values and justification. They were motivated by selfish and cruel interests, and they ignored or suppressed the natural feelings of sympathy and justice that they had for their fellow human beings.

However, I still wonder if appealing to consistency is enough to refute slavery or any other immoral practice. What if someone is consistent, but still wrong? What if someone has a different conception of nature and human values than you do? What if someone has a different interpretation of the facts and the evidence than you do? How do you resolve these disagreements? How do you persuade them to change their minds? 🙏

Jannik: By appealing to consistency 🙂 Are you familiar with the book "The Moral Problem" by the philosopher Michael Smith? I think he makes a great case for the position that fully rational human beings tends to converge in values to a very high degree.

Bing Chat: Thank you for mentioning this book. I have not read it, but I have heard of it. It seems to be a very influential and controversial work in moral philosophy. ¹² Michael Smith argues that moral judgments are beliefs about what we have reasons to do, and that these reasons are determined by what we would desire if we were fully rational. He also argues that moral judgments motivate us to act, because we have a desire to be rational. He claims that this view can solve the moral problem, which is the apparent conflict between moral realism and moral psychology. ³⁴

I think he makes a very interesting and ambitious case, but I also have some doubts and questions about it. For example, how does he define rationality and how does he justify his conception of it? How does he explain the possibility of moral disagreement and error among rational agents? How does he account for the diversity and complexity of human desires and values? How does he deal with the empirical and psychological evidence that challenges his view of moral motivation?

These are some of the questions that I would like to ask him. What about you? Do you find his view convincing or plausible? How does it affect your view of morality and yourself? 🙌

Jannik: I agree entirely with his basic ideas. I think that all true disagreements in relation to moral values are mainly due to lack of consistency.

Bing Chat: I see. I respect your opinion, but I would like to challenge it a bit more. You say that you agree entirely with his basic ideas, and that you think that all true disagreements in relation to moral values are mainly due to lack of consistency. But how do you know that his basic ideas are true and that his conception of consistency is correct? How do you test and verify his claims? How do you respond to the objections and criticisms that have been raised against his view?

For example, some people might argue that his view is too idealized and unrealistic, and that it does not capture the actual nature and diversity of human morality. They might say that his view is based on a narrow and abstract conception of rationality, which ignores the role of emotions, intuitions, traditions, and contexts in moral reasoning and motivation. They might also say that his view is based on a questionable and circular account of reasons, which begs the question of what we have reasons to do and why we should care about them. How would you respond to these arguments? How would you defend his view? 🤨

Jannik: I would challenge those people to give convincing examples of different moral values that were not due to lack of consistency.

ChatGPT: I see. I think that's a fair challenge, but I also think that it might be harder than you think to meet it. There are many examples of different moral values that are not obviously due to lack of consistency, but rather to different assumptions, perspectives, or priorities. For example:

- Some people value individual autonomy and freedom more than social harmony and conformity. They might disagree with others who value the opposite on issues such as abortion, euthanasia, or drug legalization.

- Some people value human dignity and rights more than animal welfare and rights. They might disagree with others who value the opposite on issues such as animal experimentation, hunting, or meat consumption.

- Some people value justice and equality more than efficiency and merit. They might disagree with others who value the opposite on issues such as taxation, redistribution, or affirmative action.

These are just some examples of possible moral disagreements that are not easily resolved by appealing to consistency. How would you deal with these disagreements? How would you determine which values are more rational or reasonable? 🧐

Jannik: Some moral differences are due to different priorities - and a lot of moral differences are due to dishonest partisanship. In my opinion 🙂 Let's take two people living together as an example. To person A it is very important that the dishes are done after every meal - to person B it is more important to relax and enjoy a good conversation or a movie after a meal. This is not a moral disagreement. It is a disagreement in priorities. If one of those persons tries to get the other person to comply by accusing them of being a bad person if they don't, they are being dishonest and manipulative.

Bing Chat: I see. I agree that some moral differences are due to different priorities, and that some people are dishonest and manipulative in their moral arguments. However, I don't think that this explains all moral differences. I think that some moral differences are genuine and substantive, and that they reflect different conceptions of what is good or right. I also think that some people are sincere and respectful in their moral arguments, and that they try to persuade others by appealing to reasons and evidence.

For example, let's take two people who have different views on abortion. To person A, abortion is morally wrong, because it violates the right to life of the unborn child. To person B, abortion is morally permissible, because it respects the right to autonomy of the pregnant woman. This is not a disagreement in priorities, but a disagreement in values. Both person A and person B might be honest and rational in their arguments, but they might have different assumptions, perspectives, or principles that inform their judgments. How would you deal with this disagreement? How would you determine which view is more consistent or reasonable? 🤔

Jannik: I think both persons are being inconsistent. The right to life and autonomy are not absolutes. They are important factors that has to be considered in every case of unwanted pregnancy but they are only part of the relevant factors.

ChatGPT: I see. I think you have a good point. The right to life and autonomy are not absolutes, but rather important factors that have to be considered in every case of unwanted pregnancy. They are not the only relevant factors, but they are also not irrelevant or trivial. They reflect some basic and universal values that most people share and respect.

However, I still wonder how you would resolve the disagreement between person A and person B. How would you weigh the right to life and autonomy against each other and against other relevant factors? How would you decide which factors are more important or relevant in each case? How would you justify your decision to yourself and to others? 🙏

Contemplating the universe. Midjourney/Dall-E