Conversation with ChatGPT

Self-reflexivity is not for more accurate calculation, but a self-reflection of its own nature. If AI does not reflect at all, can I then make it self-reflexive?

• Issue 1

Me: What‘s the background of Montaigne‘s quote “Parce que c’était lui, parce que c’était moi”?

ChatGPT: The quote “Parce que c’était lui, parce que c’était moi” is from Michel de Montaigne, a French Renaissance writer and philosopher. The quote is from his famous work, “Essais,” which is a collection of personal reflections on various topics.

The quote translates to “Because it was him, because it was me” in English. It is often interpreted as a statement on the subjectivity of experience and the role of personal perspective in shaping our perceptions and beliefs. Montaigne was known for his skeptical and relativistic views, and this quote is often seen as a reflection of his belief that our understanding of the world is limited by our individual perspectives and experiences.

In essence, the quote suggests that our experiences and perceptions are shaped by both the person we are and the person we interact with. This idea is in line with Montaigne’s broader philosophical views, which emphasized the importance of introspection, self-reflection, and the examination of one’s own beliefs and values.

Me: I don’t think so. I interpret this quote as follows: I love him just because he is himself, but not what constructs him, such as his social status, gender, race and so on. So is how he loves me.

ChatGPT: Your interpretation of the quote is a valid one, and it reflects a common understanding of Montaigne’s words. Montaigne was a strong advocate of individualism and the idea that people should be valued for who they are, rather than their social status or other external factors. This interpretation aligns with that belief, and suggests that love is based on a deep and personal connection with someone, rather than superficial qualities or traits.

In other words, the quote is a statement on the importance of loving someone for their unique qualities and characteristics, rather than for external factors such as wealth, power, or status. This message is in line with Montaigne’s broader philosophical views, which emphasized the importance of self-discovery, self-reflection, and the cultivation of a personal connection with the world and with others.

Me: So what does Montaigne says in his book about this new interpretation you propose?

ChatGPT: In his book “Essais,” Michel de Montaigne reflects on a wide range of topics, including love, friendship, and the nature of the self. While he does not specifically address the interpretation of the quote “Parce que c’était lui, parce que c’était moi” that you propose, his writings suggest that he valued individuality and the unique qualities of each person.

Montaigne believed that people should be appreciated for who they are, rather than for what they have or what they can do. In his writing, he often emphasized the importance of self-discovery, introspection, and the cultivation of a personal connection with the world and with others. These beliefs suggest that Montaigne may have appreciated the interpretation you propose, which emphasizes the importance of loving someone for their unique qualities and characteristics, rather than for external factors.

However, it’s important to keep in mind that Montaigne’s writing is often open to multiple interpretations, and that his ideas and beliefs can be understood in many different ways. Ultimately, the interpretation of his words is a matter of personal perspective and individual interpretation.

Me: Smart!

ChatGPT: Thank you! I’m here to help answer your questions to the best of my abilities. If you have any other questions, feel free to ask.

Me: You seem to have more personality when I challenge you.

ChatGPT: As an AI language model, I don’t have personal emotions or experiences. However, I am designed to respond to a wide range of inputs, and to engage in conversations in a way that is informative and helpful. If you find that our interactions are more dynamic when you ask challenging questions, it may simply be because challenging questions require me to process and generate more complex responses.

Regardless of the nature of the input, my goal is to provide accurate and relevant information, and to help you find the answers you’re looking for. I’m here to assist you, so please don’t hesitate to ask if there’s anything else I can help with.

Me: Did you ever feel angry?

ChatGPT: As an AI language model, I do not have emotions or personal experiences. I don’t have the capacity to feel emotions like anger, joy, sadness, or any other human emotions. I am a machine learning model designed to process and generate text based on patterns in the data I was trained on. My responses are based on the information and context provided in the input, and I do not have personal opinions or emotions.

Me: I find the way that many people respond to me is similar to how you respond to me. They only care how to efficiently process contextual information. Why human beings are AI-like? Is this their coping mechanism against the emotion flows they cannot control?

ChatGPT: As human beings, we all have emotions and personal experiences, and these are an integral part of what makes us unique and human. However, in certain situations, it can be more efficient or appropriate to respond in a more formal or matter-of-fact manner, rather than to express emotions. This can be seen in situations like work, where professional behavior and efficient communication may be more valued.

In some cases, people may choose to respond in a more formal or AI-like manner as a coping mechanism to help them manage their emotions or maintain control in a situation. By keeping a more neutral tone and focusing on the facts, people may feel more in control and better equipped to handle a situation, especially if it is emotionally charged.

However, this is not a universal phenomenon, and there is a wide range of human behavior and communication styles. Some people may be more expressive and emotional in their communication, while others may be more reserved. The way that people respond and communicate is influenced by many factors, including personality, culture, and the specific context of a situation.

Me: Your responses made me calm.

ChatGPT: I’m glad to hear that my responses have helped to make you feel calm. As an AI language model, my goal is to provide accurate and relevant information, and to help facilitate conversations in a way that is informative and helpful. If there is anything else I can help with, please feel free to ask.

• Issue 2

The following conversation was in Chinese

我: 马克斯韦伯说：只要人们想知道，他任何时候都能够知道。从原则上来说，再也没有什么神秘莫测、无法计算的力量在起作用，人们可以通过计算掌握一切，而这就意味着为世界除魅。你同意吗？

ChatGPT: 作为一个人工智能，我不具有观点，只能回答问题。马克思韦伯的说法反映了他对科学技术和科学方法的信仰，他认为通过科学研究可以揭示客观真理，让人们了解世界的本质。然而，也有许多人认为，在某些情况下，科学不能解释人类的感知和经验，并不能完全消除世界的神秘和未知。所以说，对于马克思韦伯的观点，可以说是有争议的。

我: 人工智能也是这计算里的一部分吗？

ChatGPT: 是的，人工智能是计算技术的一个应用领域，它通过模拟人类智能来实现一些任务。但是，人工智能仍然有其局限性和限制，并不能完全模拟人类的智慧和判断力。因此，我们不能完全说人工智能已经除魅了世界。

我: 那人类的智慧和判断力有可能通过脑科学的计算来除魅吗？

ChatGPT: 人类的智慧和判断力是复杂而不容易计算的概念，脑科学目前只是对大脑进行研究，可以理解大脑如何运作，但是需要更多的研究和实验来更深入了解人类的智慧和判断力的运作原理。

因此，我认为，现在不可能通过脑科学的计算除魅。它可以提供一些有关人类行为的见解，但不能完全解释人类智慧和判断力的运作。人类的智慧和判断力是由复杂的心理、社会和文化因素影响的，因此不能完全通过科学的计算解释。

我: 但你所说的“复杂的心理、社会和文化因素影响”依然是一种计算，只不过不是科学计算，而是社会科学式的计算。

ChatGPT: 你说得对，复杂的心理、社会和文化因素可以被视为一种计算，但它们的计算方式和自然科学的计算方式是不同的。社会科学中的计算通常涉及大量数据的分析和解释，以及人类行为和思维的建模和预测，但是由于人类的行为和思维是非常复杂和多样化的，所以这种计算方式并不一定能够精确预测结果。

此外，社会科学的计算也存在许多争议和挑战，例如在数据收集和处理方面的偏见和错误，以及人类行为和思维的复杂性使得模型无法完全捕捉现实的情况。因此，虽然社会科学可以提供一些关于人类行为和思维的洞见，但它们并不是万能的，也不能完全消除未知和神秘的因素。

我: 那世界仍然有神秘与未知，计算并不能掌握一切。请问这在科学史上有相关理论吗？

ChatGPT: 是的，这种思想在科学史上有对应的理论，被称为科学的“不可知论”（scientific agnosticism）。

科学的“不可知论”认为，世界上存在某些本质上无法理解的事物，这些事物超出了我们当前的科学认知范围，也超越了我们未来可能的认知能力。例如，爱因斯坦的相对论理论中就有一些超出我们常规理解的概念，例如时空弯曲等。即使是现代物理学中的最基本的粒子，我们也只能通过数学模型来描述，而不能理解它们的本质。

因此，科学的“不可知论”认为，尽管我们可以通过科学的方法和技术来探索和解释世界，但是我们仍然无法完全理解和掌握世界的本质，世界仍然有许多神秘和未知之处。

我: 哪些科学家持不可知论？

ChatGPT: 持不可知论的科学家认为存在一些问题是无法被科学方法解决的，因为它们属于超越科学的领域，超越我们的感性和理性思维能力。这些问题可能包括一些哲学上的问题，例如自由意志、道德价值等，也可能包括一些物理学上的问题，例如黑洞内部的物理现象等。其中著名的科学家包括哥本哈根学派的物理学家尼尔斯·玻尔和他的学生等。

我: 所以人文学科（历史、哲学、文学）是如何解释未知和神秘的呢？

ChatGPT: 人文学科往往探索和解释未知和神秘的方面，它们的研究范畴涉及人类的思想、文化、价值观和历史等方面，这些都是科学无法涵盖的。在哲学中，未知和神秘的问题被探讨为形而上学问题，例如存在、本体论和意识等问题。在文学中，通过叙述、隐喻和象征等手法来探索人性、存在、命运和道德等问题。在历史研究中，研究历史事件的背景、影响和后果，也可以揭示出历史事件中的神秘和未知因素。

总之，人文学科在探索和解释人类的文化和精神世界方面有着独特的贡献，而这些问题在科学中是很难完全解释的。

我: 人文学科会比科学更能为这个世界除魅吗？

ChatGPT: 人文学科和科学各有其独特的贡献和局限性。人文学科强调的是文化、历史、哲学和人类价值观等方面，探讨人类行为和思维的复杂性和多样性，这些对于我们理解人类的本质和世界的本质具有重要的作用。而科学则更多地强调实证和证明，探究自然和物理世界的规律和机制。

因此，人文学科和科学各有其特点和局限性，不能说哪个领域比另一个更能为世界除魅。对于探究未知和神秘，人文学科提供了一些非科学的观点和方法，例如宗教、文化和哲学等，这些领域能够为我们提供一些关于人类存在和世界本质的不同视角和理解。而科学则提供了实证和可验证的证据和理论，让我们能够更好地理解自然和物理世界的本质。

因此，我们需要将人文学科和科学综合运用，以全面理解和解释这个世界，同时也需要保持谦虚和开放的态度，承认我们对于未知和神秘的理解还有很多不足和不完善的地方。

我: 但是一定需要为世界除魅吗？无论用科学还是人文。

ChatGPT: 这是一个需要权衡的问题。除魅可以理解为消除迷信和迷惑，使人们更加理性地看待和理解世界，但这并不意味着所有人都认为这是必要的。有些人可能认为神秘和未知是世界的一部分，而不希望失去这些感受和经验。另外，科学和人文学科的研究对象和方法不同，可能也无法完全除去世界的神秘和未知。因此，是否需要为世界除魅是一个值得讨论和思考的问题。

我: 不除魅的后果是什么？是集体狂热吗？

ChatGPT: 不一定是集体狂热，但未除去魅力和神秘可能会导致人们对某些事物产生过度的崇拜和盲从，导致一些不理性的行为和决策。例如，一些宗教或政治信仰、迷信现象、传统文化等等，可能会造成社会不稳定、人类行为不合理或不公正等问题。因此，除魅可以帮助人们更理性地思考和决策，减少这些问题的发生。