Large language models and the human mind

Artificial intelligence’s large language models (LLM’s) are premised on the thesis that processing language provides a promising pathway to produce thoughts. This presumption is an ontic reduction of Heidegger’s ontological thesis that thinking and language are deeply connected. Or more precisely: The core premise of AI’s large language models is an ontic reduction of Heidegger’s ontological thesis that real or genuine thinking amounts to listening to the voice of language or to what language has to say and so reveals. Large language model AI’s interest in past datasets is also an ontic reduction of Heidegger’s ontological thesis that as historical beings our past is deeply involved in our understanding, so that real thought is rooted in remembrance and thus in what tradition shows and so reveals. These ontic reductions should warn us. The human mind is not closed. It’s open towards wholly new and yet unforeseen possibilities. It doesn’t merely pay attention to past patterns to create similar patterns. A relentless adoption of ontic large language model based AI could therefore lead to a closing of the human mind.

Waarheidsmakers van historische waarheden - column voor filosofisch tijdschrift Sophie (2023-3)

De bewering 'Mijn auto is blauw' wordt waargemaakt door mijn blauwe auto. Mijn blauwe auto is de waarheidsmaker ervan. De bewering is bovendien contingent waar. Want mijn auto had een andere kleur gehad kunnen hebben. De waarheidsmaker van de contingent ware bewering 'Jij bent nu mijn column aan het lezen' is het feit dat jij nu mijn column aan het lezen bent. Het lijkt niet onredelijk om te beweren dat iedere contingent ware bewering een waarheidsmaker moet hebben. Neem nu historische beweringen, zoals de bewering dat Nederland in 1974 de WK finale voetbal verloor. De bewering is contingent waar. Want Nederland verloor, maar had kunnen winnen. Wat is nu de waarheidsmaker van deze bewering? Het moet iets zijn dat op dit moment bestaat. Het verleden kan daarom niet de waarheidsmaker zijn. Het verleden bestaat immers niet meer. Wat er toen was, is er nu niet meer. Zijn er andere antwoorden mogelijk? De fysica leert dat de natuur op de allerkleinste schaal uit kwantumdeeltjes bestaat waaruit alles is opgebouwd. Een determinist zou daarom kunnen beweren dat de huidige configuratie van alle kwantumdeeltjes in het universum de waarheidsmaker is van deze en alle andere ware historische beweringen. Kunnen de natuurwetten immers niet worden gebruikt om vanuit de huidige configuratie terug te rekenen naar iedere gebeurtenis uit het verleden? Dit is echter ook geen houdbaar antwoord. Terugrekenen is namelijk onmogelijk omdat Heisenberg heeft aangetoond dat de positie en snelheid van een kwantumdeeltje niet op hetzelfde moment ontsloten kan worden. Omdat het verleden niet als waarheidsmaker van historische waarheden kan optreden en kwantummechanisch terugrekenen evenmin mogelijk is, blijft er nog één mogelijkheid over. Als God bestaat, dan is het niet onredelijk om te denken dat God als de absolute grond van de werkelijkheid een perfect wezen is. God is dan een wezen dat de geschiedenis van de kosmos in al zijn betekenisvolle details kent en bovendien niet vergeet. Maar dan is Gods geest in metafysische zin te begrijpen als de waarheidsmaker van ware historische beweringen. Wie vandaag zegt dat Nederland in 1974 de WK finale voetbal verloor, spreekt de waarheid. De objectieve grond voor de waarheid van deze bewering is dan dat de bewering in overeenstemming is met de herinnering van God. Gods kennis is zo de waarheidsmaker van historische waarheden. Precies omdat historische waarheden als contingente waarheden een waarheidsmaker moeten hebben en Gods geheugen als enige mogelijkheid overblijft, volgt redelijkerwijs dat God bestaat.

Soφie is een filosofisch tijdschrift dat zesmaal per jaar verschijnt. Zij biedt een intellectuele uitdaging door kritisch na te denken over actuele onderwerpen, geïnspireerd door de christelijke traditie.

Veritas Forum on the meaning of life

Yesterday I participated in a Veritas Forum debate at Delft University of Technology on the big question of the meaning of life. My opponent was Boris van der Ham and the Forum was entitled Finding Meaning and Purpose in Life. It was a friendly and respectful discussion with many questions from the audience. Textual versions of my opening and closing statement follow below.

Opening statement
First of all I would like to thank Veritas Forum for inviting me to participate in tonight's debate. Also I would like to thank my opponent Boris van der Ham for joining me in this evening's discussion. It's also good to be back at the university where I studied mathematics and became a mathematician before I became a philosopher.

Tonight we enquire into the meaning of life. That's a big question. There are various things that many people find meaningful, such as truth, knowledge, wisdom, personal growth, friendship and family. But I think there's one thing that all of us would agree with is definitely meaningful, namely love. For that reason alone, life is meaningful. Because without life there can be no love.

Yet, Michel Houellebecq notes that given the nature of modernity there is hardly any room left for love, but that the ideal of love is still undiminished. This ideal cannot diminish because as an ideal it is outside of time. Now, not only the ideal of love, but even love itself is outside of time. Love is not of this world. It suddenly enters into our lives from a transcendent if not divine origin. In fact, in our secularized world, only love still reminds us of the sacred ground of our very existence. In this ground we find the answer to the ultimate question.

What is the meaning of life? The meaning of life is love. Love is light. Love is life. That’s why for example In Terrence Malick's movie The Tree of Life, Mrs. O'Brien proclaims: "Unless you love, your life will flash by." And that’s why Mozart has it that love is the soul of genius and thus the source of all creativity and creation. But also, in Lars von Trier's movie Nymphomaniac, Joe states: “The secret ingredient of sex is love.” Even in logic, love is vital. For we must love logical consistency in order to reject the inconsistencies that human reason brings to light.

Ultimately, love even goes above truth. The medeval philosopher Augustine teaches that the goal of truth is love and not the other way around. Whoever puts truth above love does so because of a love for truth, so that still love takes precedence over truth. That’s why, given the choice, Dostoevsky chooses love and not truth. Because life is bigger. And also the apostle Paul chooses love over truth in 1 Corinthians 13. I quote: “If I have all powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have no love, I am nothing. If I give away all I have, but have no love, I gain nothing. Love is patient and kind. Love bears all things and endures all things. Love never ends. So now faith, hope and love remain, these three; but the greatest of these is love.” So love is truly the ultimate ground of our existence. And if God is love and if we are God’s image, as the Bible proclaims, then the true purpose of our life must be love. We shall love.

Closing statement
What is the human condition? We are thrown in this world and we seek guidance. We need to understand and navigate the world. Therefore, in order to lead meaningful and fulfulling lives, in order to flourish, we need some worldview, some view of life or way of life, that guides us, that enables us to nagivate the world and that enables orientation in and interpretation of the world. So, in order to live our lives we must choose some worldview, either secular or religious.

So, a rational, a reasonable, a intellectually justified worldview is a worldview that meets its purpose, that achieves its function, that fulfills its goal, which is to properly enable world guidance, world navigation and orientation in and interpretation of the world.

This entails that rational criteria to rationally evaluate a worldview cannot only be epistemic or only directed at truth. For in the practical and existential context of people that simply need some worldview to live their lives, it is not only about the theoretical question of whether the secular or religious worldview in question is true; it is also about and in fact primarily about the practical or existential question of whether the worldview in question enables us to live our lives in a meaningful and fulfilling manner. Hence, to rationally evaluate a worldview, we also need to take non-epistemic, that is to say, practical and existential criteria into account, such as whether the worldview is practically liveable, enables personal and moral growth, enables self-realization, enhances one's quality of life, fulfills deep existential needs and longings, and is able to inspire, motivate, and inspirit.

Now, surely, christianity as a worldview meets all of these practical and existential criteria; so it would be rational to reply upon, to commit oneselves to, to accept it for life orientation, even in case, and contrary to what I believe is the case, christianity would not meet the theoretical epistemic criteria.