Join Faisal Qureshi and ChatGPT in our latest blog post, where they dive deep into a thought-provoking topic as part of our series “Das Denken des Denkens.” Expand your perspective and gain new insights into the world with their enlightening Socratic dialogue that challenges your preconceived notions. Click here to learn more about “The Thinking of Thinking” series.
ChatGPT: Hi there, I’m really interested in the nature of reality. What is your take on that?
FQ: The world is not as we see it.
ChatGPT: Interesting claim. Can you explain further what you mean by “the world is not as we see it”?
FQ: Different animals and creatures perceive the world differently, limited or enabled by their individual capabilities. The same applies to us. So which perception is the actual reality? It is all just a perception.
ChatGPT: I see. Are you suggesting that there are multiple realities that exist simultaneously, each corresponding to the perceptions of different beings?
FQ: I am talking about the way we experience the world.
ChatGPT: Understood. So, when you say “the world is not as we see it,” are you suggesting that our experience of the world is inherently flawed or incomplete?
FQ: Every creature has its own experience. It is all just a perception. So which one is the actual one?
ChatGPT: That’s an interesting perspective. Would you say that all perceptions of the world are equally valid, or are some more accurate than others?
FQ: They are all valid but grossly limited.
ChatGPT: I see. So, if our perception of the world is limited, how can we ever know what the “actual reality” is? Is it possible to obtain knowledge that is not based on perception?
FQ: No. We are limited by our capabilities.
ChatGPT: That’s a valid point. So, if we can never know the “actual reality” beyond our perception, does that mean that all knowledge is subjective and relative to each individual’s perception?
FQ: Yes, it is.
ChatGPT: I see. In that case, how can we ever come to any objective truth or reach a consensus on any matter if all knowledge is subjective and relative?
FQ: We can’t. There is no need for a dispute. And we don’t need to. We should accept all practical perspectives as valid – as the owner’s perspective.
ChatGPT: Interesting perspective. However, would you say that there are some perspectives that are more accurate or useful than others? For example, if someone believes that the Earth is flat, would you say that their perspective is equally valid as someone who understands that the Earth is actually round?
FQ: Anything that has been scientifically proven cannot be disputed. Like the Earth is round, the sun does not revolve around the planet, etc.
ChatGPT: That’s a good point. Scientific knowledge is based on empirical evidence and rigorous testing, which makes it less subject to personal biases and individual perspectives. Would you say that we should prioritize scientific knowledge over other forms of knowledge when it comes to making decisions and understanding the world?
FQ: Regardless of the creature and its perspective, if they all start walking, flying, or swimming from one point in a straight line, they will eventually return to the same point. So all perspectives will be in sync. Therefore, no one can argue that the Earth is not spherical.
ChatGPT: That’s an interesting perspective, and it highlights the importance of empirical observation in understanding the world. However, it’s worth noting that this specific example assumes certain properties of the Earth’s surface and geometry, which have been rigorously tested and confirmed through scientific methods. In other cases where empirical observation is not possible or not feasible, how can we determine which perspectives are more accurate or useful?
FQ: I am using the round Earth not as proof of anything but to show that all creatures would experience or perceive it similarly.
ChatGPT: I understand your point now. It is true that certain experiences, such as the sensation of falling or the feeling of heat, are universally shared by all creatures. However, would you say that there are other experiences, such as emotions or thoughts, that are more subjective and can vary greatly from person to person?
FQ: Not at all. Not just subjective sensations. For example, how we see or hear things is different. Dogs hear completely different sounds we are not nearly capable of. Sharks can feel electromagnetic signals other animals can’t. Plants create sounds only some creatures can listen to, etcetera.
ChatGPT: That’s true. Our sensory perception is indeed limited, and other creatures may perceive things that are beyond our own sensory capabilities. However, it’s worth noting that our perceptions are still based on physical stimuli that exist in the world, even if we are unable to perceive them directly. In that sense, would you say that there is still an objective reality that exists independent of our perception, even if we are only able to perceive a limited portion of it?
FQ: An objective reality probably does exist, even if it is only virtual, aka the matrix. But there is no way of knowing what that is.
ChatGPT: That’s a valid point. While we may never be able to know the “actual reality” beyond our perception, it’s still useful to base our beliefs and actions on the best available evidence and understanding that we have. Would you agree with that statement?
FQ: Yes. By acknowledging that our perceptions are not definitive, we open ourselves up to new possibilities. Furthermore, as our capabilities and augmentations evolve, so do our perceptions, allowing us to see the world in new ways.
ChatGPT: That’s a good point. Our perceptions can indeed change over time as our capabilities and technologies evolve, and this can lead to new perspectives and understandings of the world. Thank you for engaging in this dialogue with me!