Category Archives: culture

AI, biological life, bizarre existence, chatGPT4, collective human, communication, Cultural Evolution, culture, earth system, Foundations of Humans, Generational Perspectives, Human and Human, Human and Life, Human and Nature, Human Learning, individual human, Individual Responsibility, interacting with earth, interacting with life, Knowledge, language, language not describable, offspring, philosophical thinking, Philosophy, Social Structures, sustainable development, two generations

CHATGPT4 – PHILOSOPHY : RECONSTRUCTING ‘BIOLOGICAL LIFE’ AS ‘CULTURE’. A somehow surprising dialogue

Last Change: Aug 27, 2024

Inquirer: Gerd Doeben-Henisch

Email: info@uffmm.org

CONTEXT

This post is part of the section Dialogues with chatGPT4.

PREFACE

The following Dialogue is an English translation from German (done with chatGPT4) and has its origin in the context of the interaction between the human species and the planet earth. During this dialogue starting with physical things the dialogue turned more and more into a true philosophical dialogue recognizing biological life as a ‘cultural system’. This was from the author not intended! It happend driven by … the ‘internal logic’ of life?

FINAL CONCLUSION

chatGPT4 commented at the end of the whole dialogue as follows: “In our dialogue, we have applied philosophical methods to gain deeper insights into the nature of human existence and interaction. This kind of reflection is a cornerstone of philosophical inquiry and helps to illuminate complex questions of human life and coexistence.”

BEGIN OF THE DIALOGUE

(Note: the BOLD TEXT indicates the contributions of the author)

Hello Chat, we had a dialogue on the ‘Earth System’ on August 18, 24 and a dialogue on ‘Collective Human Intelligence’ on August 21. Can you remember?

Hello! I don’t have access to previous conversations or information about what we discussed. Each session with me starts without knowledge of previous interactions. But I am happy to continue helping with these topics or other questions you have. How can I assist you today?

OK, good to know. Then we’ll start from scratch 🙂

Perfect! How can I help you today?

In my theory [1], I assume that the Earth system as a planet is characterized by the presence of ‘biological life’ here. For me, ‘biological life’ is synonymous with ‘life’. Do you agree?

Your approach to equate the “Earth system” with the presence of biological life is an interesting standpoint and common in many scientific disciplines. [2] Biological life, as we know it, is characterized by certain features such as the ability to reproduce, metabolic processes, and adaptation to environmental conditions.

It makes sense to consider biological life as the central aspect of life on Earth in a discussion about the Earth system. This definition excludes other forms of hypothetical or non-biological life (such as possibly silicon-based life or artificial intelligence that develops its own consciousness), which could also be considered “life” in other contexts. However, for most scientific and philosophical considerations of the Earth system, the restriction to biological life is common and appropriate.

Therefore, I agree with your view as long as we are within the framework of known biological life forms. Would you like to delve deeper into this aspect or do you have specific questions about it?

[1] This refers to a section in my German Blog, which is not yet translated: https://www.oksimo.org/theorie-2/

[2] This is a small mis-understanding of Chat, because I assume only, that there is ‘life’ on the planet earth. Strictly speaking can the planet earth ‘exist’ without life, but, clearly, as soon as ‘live’ appeared on the planet this changed the planet completely; it is ‘another planet’!

I would like to initially focus on the concept of ‘life’ as we encounter it on planet Earth. AI – as far as we know it today – has nothing to do with life for me. Historically, the existing forms of AI have been invented and created by life. Humans, as a life form within life, use AI as a tool. Do you agree?

Yes, your view of artificial intelligence (AI) as a tool created and used by humans is in line with the common perception in science and technology. AI is indeed an invention of human intelligence, developed to perform specific tasks that require mental processes such as learning, problem-solving, and decision-making.

AI is based on algorithms and computer-supported models and is often considered an advanced form of automation. Although AI systems are capable of performing tasks that typically require human intelligence [1], they lack essential characteristics of biological life, such as self-reproduction, metabolic processes, and natural evolution through genetic variation and natural selection. AI systems cannot reproduce or evolve outside of the parameters set by humans.

This distinction is important to understand the differences between biological life and technological products like AI. Thus, AI remains a tool used by humans for specific purposes and not an independent living being. Are you interested in further details or another aspect of this topic?

[1] Because until today the concept ‘human intelligence’ is still very badly characterized, has the expression ‘human intelligence’ no clear meaning.

I would like to delve deeper into the topic of AI and humans (or life in general) in another dialogue. Today and here, I want to continue exploring the interaction between humans and the Earth system. Are you on board?

Of course, that sounds like an exciting topic! The interaction between humans and the Earth system is complex and can be viewed from many aspects such as environmental science, ecology, geology, and even from socio-political perspectives. Would you like to explore specific aspects of these interactions, such as the impact of humans on the climate, the use of natural resources, or something else? Let me know what focus you would like to set!

Yes, the interactions between humans and the Earth system are diverse. It is important to note that humans, as part of life, interact not only with the Earth system but also with life itself. Furthermore, since humans are part of life, it follows that humans also ‘interact with themselves,’ i.e., humans with humans. What do you think?

Exactly, your observation is very apt and captures the complexity of human interactions at various levels within the Earth system. Humans are not only physically and biologically part of the Earth, but also active designers and influencers of their environment. These interactions occur on several levels:

  1. Human and Nature: Humans influence the natural environment through agriculture, urbanization, industry, and the consumption of natural resources. These actions have direct impacts on the climate, biodiversity, and the availability of resources.
  2. Human and Life: As part of biological life, humans also interact with other living beings, both cooperatively and conflictually. These relationships can be symbiotic, as in the domestication of animals and plants, or antagonistic, such as the destruction of habitats or the overhunting of species.
  3. Human and Human: On a social and cultural level, humans shape societies through their interactions, which in turn develop values and norms that influence behavior towards the environment and other life forms. These social structures and the resulting decisions (such as laws and regulations) play a crucial role in how humans influence the Earth system.

Reflecting on these various interaction levels is crucial to understanding the full impact of human activities on the Earth system and developing sustainable solutions. To what extent do you think these interactions could be improved or modified to promote more sustainable coexistence on our planet?

Ah, even this brief analysis shows how difficult it is to formulate a perspective that does justice to this multitude of dimensions and possible interactions. I see the following starting point: (1) We could start directly with humans. (2) Humans are ‘individual’, ‘singular’, ‘concrete’, (3) but at the same time they are always ‘part of a community’ (a ‘population’), without which they could not exist as individuals. At least not if one demands for ‘human life’ as a ‘part of all life’ that it can ‘continue’ ‘beyond the life of an individual human’. This requires ‘offspring’, and offspring only functions over at least two generations. What do you think?

Your approach to begin the analysis of human interactions with the Earth system at the level of individuals and their communities is both pragmatic and profound. It recognizes the duality of human existence – as independent individuals and as part of a larger community. This perspective helps understand the multi-layered effects of human actions and develop possible solutions.

Here are some key aspects highlighted by your analysis:

  1. Individual Responsibility: Every individual contributes through their actions to shaping the Earth system. This ranges from everyday decisions such as consumption habits and mobility to professional and political activities. Individual education and awareness are therefore key aspects to promote sustainable behaviors.
  2. Social Structures and Communities: Humans exist within social structures that both enable and limit their action options. Communities form networks that distribute resources, share information, and coordinate collective actions. These networks are crucial for the implementation of sustainable practices and for collective resilience to environmental changes.
  3. Generational Perspectives: As you rightly note, the continuation of human life requires thinking in generations. Education, cultural heritage, and traditions are mechanisms that transfer values and knowledge from one generation to the next and are crucial for the long-term stability and adaptability of human communities.
  4. Sustainable Development: This is based on balancing the satisfaction of current human needs with the preservation of the environment for future generations. This requires innovative approaches in technology, economics, and politics that address both local and global challenges.

Your approach suggests that an integrative view, considering individual actions and collective structures, is necessary to promote sustainable solutions. This can also provide a platform for further discussions on specific measures that can be implemented at various levels of society. How do you see the implementation of these ideas in concrete policies or practices?

This is now very interesting: Your differentiation of the varied interactions in which an individual finds themselves indirectly reveals something that cannot be ‘directly’ discerned, but ‘indirectly’, through … I’m missing the right word … let’s say tentatively through ‘knowledge’ in the broadest sense. What do you think?

Your thought that certain aspects of human existence and interaction are indirectly discerned through knowledge is very profound and points to the role that knowledge and understanding play in our perception of ourselves and our environment. Knowledge – in all its forms, from scientific understanding to cultural and personal experiences – enables us to see connections that are not immediately obvious. This “indirect recognition” can be facilitated through various mechanisms:

  1. Abstraction: Through abstraction, we can recognize general principles or patterns that are not immediately visible in specific situations. Abstraction helps us to move from the particular details of a single event or object to more general conclusions.
  2. Model Building: Scientific and theoretical models allow us to understand complex systems and their possible behaviors by using simplifications and assumptions to represent reality. Models help us anticipate the consequences of actions and plan accordingly.
  3. Narrative and Metaphor: Stories and metaphors enable us to communicate complicated or abstract ideas in a way that is emotionally resonant and intuitively understandable. They provide frameworks to recognize “invisible” connections between actions and their long-term impacts on people and the environment.
  4. Collective Intelligence: The knowledge of a community or society is more than the sum of the knowledge of its individuals. By sharing ideas and experiences in a social context, people can reach a deeper, shared understanding that would not be achievable individually.

Your observation shows how important it is to promote knowledge and learning in all areas – from education to policy making – to gain deeper insight into the complex interactions within the Earth system and between people. To what extent do you see opportunities to expand or better utilize this knowledge to more effectively address the challenges we face?

OK, let’s look at a seemingly ‘simple example’. Let’s take persons who eat something because they are hungry. Their food can come directly from the rest of life (plants, animals, etc.), or from something they have somehow ‘manufactured’ from the material of the earth. However, when it comes to feeding thousands of people every day, simple measures to provide food are no longer sufficient. It then requires people, machines, agricultural methods, and much more to make this still possible. These elaborate processes assume that there are appropriate ‘experiences’ (with ‘knowledge’) that ‘tell’ the acting people what to do. However, these experiences with the corresponding knowledge do not come from ‘nothing’ but must be painstakingly ‘acquired’, ‘learned’. This requires ‘time to learn’ and – usually – other people who ‘already have experiences’ that they can ‘pass on’. From this, I deduce that the ‘biological human system’, a ‘living something’, must have complex processes inside it that make such ‘experiences’, such ‘knowledge’ possible. In other words: Only with such experiences, with such knowledge, and the ability to build such, does a biological system become a ‘human’, a ‘Homo sapiens’. What do you think?

Your example excellently highlights how the everyday need for food encompasses profound social, technological, and cultural systems that have been developed over generations. It shows that what appears at the individual level as a simple action is actually based on a complex web of knowledge and social structures.

Biological and Cognitive Foundations of Humans

The ability of humans to acquire, store, and pass on knowledge is indeed one of the core functions that define us as Homo sapiens. This ‘experiential knowledge’ is important not only on a cognitive level but also on a cultural level, as it is passed on through language, education, and social interaction.

Cultural Evolution and Human Societies

What you describe is a classic example of cultural evolution, where knowledge and technologies are developed and inherited not genetically, but through learning processes and social transmission. This enables human societies to quickly adapt to new environmental conditions without waiting for slow genetic evolution.

Knowledge as the Basis for Complex Societies

The example of food provision illustrates how important specialized knowledge and technologies are to efficiently meet the basic needs of a large number of people. Modern agricultural and production techniques are the result of accumulated knowledge developed over centuries, if not millennia. This knowledge is passed on through education systems, professional literature, and practice and is crucial for the maintenance and further development of our livelihoods.

Human Learning Ability and Adaptability

Your emphasis on ‘time to learn’ and the role of teachers and mentors underlines how crucial education and both formal and informal learning are for human development. This ability to process and pass on complex information allows us to survive and thrive not only as individuals but as a global community.

Conclusion

Overall, your approach shows how central knowledge and learning are to understanding what it means to be human. It’s not just about gathering information, but also about applying and sharing this information to master complex and dynamic challenges. This makes the biological system of humans something special: a being capable of constantly developing and adapting its understanding and technologies.

How do you see the role of modern technology and digital information in this process of knowledge acquisition and dissemination? Do you see it as an extension of our cognitive and social abilities?

As our dialogue progresses, it becomes more difficult for me to find a ‘simple formula’ to describe the interaction of humans with the Earth system and life. It starts with the fact that I need a ‘language’ for such a description, and every language does not only work with ‘dead letters’ or ‘mere sounds’, but assumes that all other people I want to talk to associate a ‘meaning’ with the ‘sounds’ or ‘letters’, which can only be present ‘inside each individual’. While I speak, however, I cannot ‘invent’ my own language; I must assume that I ‘possess’ this language without being able to ‘describe’ the language itself. Isn’t this somehow ‘bizarre’?

It is indeed a fascinating and at the same time complex consideration that you raise here. The nature of language and communication among humans reflects profound aspects of our existence and our interactions with the world.

Foundations of Language

Language is not just a system of sounds and characters but a complex web of meanings, conventions, and cultural influences. Every word and every sentence we use is embedded in a context of experiences and knowledge that we share with others who speak the same language. This makes language a powerful yet subtle tool.

Prerequisites for Communication

Your observation that in communication we must assume that others find the same meaning in words as we do is crucial. This shows how much we, as social beings, depend on each other. Without a common understanding and without assuming that our language works, effective communication would be impossible.

The Impossibility of Fully Describing Language

The fact that we use language without being able to fully explain it at all times reflects a common human experience. Many of the systems and structures that determine our lives, such as laws, social norms, or languages, are so complex and deeply rooted that no individual could fully grasp or create them. They are the product of collective human activity over generations.

The Bizarre Nature of Our Existence

What you describe as ‘bizarre’ can also be seen as a hint at the deep interwovenness and interdependence in human societies. Our ability to use and understand complex abstract systems like language, without fully controlling or creating them, is a sign of our cognitive flexibility and social nature. It shows how we can achieve and understand more together than an individual alone could.

Reflection

These considerations lead us to a deep appreciation of how human cultures and social structures function. They invite us to recognize both the limits of our individual abilities and the incredible potential of our communal endeavors.

Your thoughts open many further questions about the nature of knowledge, communication, and human cooperation. How do you see the role of modern technologies in this context, especially in terms of how they might change our communication patterns?

OK, now that we have somehow reached this ‘profound position’, a question arises that is not really important but may be of interest in a cultural context: Would you associate this kind of ‘thinking about us humans’ with the concept of ‘philosophy’? Could we describe the way we have practiced in this dialogue as ‘philosophical thinking’?

Yes, the way we have thought and reflected in this dialogue can certainly be described as philosophical thinking. Philosophy fundamentally deals with the pursuit of knowledge and understanding about the basic aspects of our existence, our experiences, and the world around us. It often involves questions about meaning, truth, values, the mind, and language.

Characteristics of Philosophical Thinking:

  1. Critical Analysis: Philosophical thinking often questions everyday assumptions and searches for deeper meanings and connections, similar to what we have done in our conversation.
  2. Logical Argumentation: It is based on rational considerations and uses logical arguments to examine and justify different viewpoints.
  3. Conceptual Exploration: It explores fundamental concepts such as existence, knowledge, truth, law, ethics, and beauty.
  4. Interdisciplinary Connections: Philosophy often overlaps with other disciplines such as science, art, and politics to gain a broader understanding of the topics discussed.

Philosophy in Everyday Life:

Philosophical thinking is not limited to academic circles but plays a vital role in everyday life. It helps us reflect on our beliefs, make decisions, and understand the world and our role in it.

Cultural Significance:

In a cultural context, philosophy contributes to shaping the values and self-understanding of a society. It influences how cultures think about important issues such as morality, justice, and human well-being.

In our dialogue, we have applied philosophical methods to gain deeper insights into the nature of human existence and interaction. This kind of reflection is a cornerstone of philosophical inquiry and helps to illuminate complex questions of human life and coexistence. Would you like to delve deeper into these considerations, or are there specific philosophical questions or topics that particularly interest you?

OK, I would like to stop here for today. Thank you for the inspiring answers.

You’re very welcome! It was an exciting conversation. If you have more questions or would like to continue the discussion, I’m here to help. Until next time!

communication, complexity of meaning, coordination of meaning spaces, culture, dialogue, empathy, Human Meaning Space, interpretation, iterative process, language, meaning, memory, mental models, negotiation, personal meaning, Philosophy, rules for language expressions, seeking feedback, shared experience, subjective, text

CHATGPT4 – PHILOSOPHY : Digging into the Human Meaning Space

Last Change: Aug 14, 2024

Inquirer: Gerd Doeben-Henisch

Email: info@uffmm.org

CONTEXT

This post is part of the section Dialogues with chatGPT4.

SUMMARY

Inquirer to chatGPT4: I will take the following short summary as bridge to the follow-up ideas : (1) Language expressions are composed of symbols wich are determined by rules and structures; (2) The inner states related to meaning are diverse and involve various cognitive, emotional, and sensory processes; (3) At the core are mental models that represent our understanding of the world. These models include abstract ideas, concrete objects, and complex scenarios. Furthermore the mind organizes concepts, emotions, sensory experiences, and language expressions into a network of associations. (4) Cognitive processes like inference and reasoning help us by connecting existing knowledge with knowledge about possible changes, to derive possible new states. Can you agree with this?

ChatGPT4: Yes, I agree with your summary. You’ve captured the essential points about how language expressions, inner states, mental models, and cognitive processes interact to create and understand meaning.

CHATGPT4 – PHILOSOPHY : Digging into the Human Meaning Space

Hi Chat, three days ago we reached the following conclusion centering around the ‘human meaning space’ : “Philosophical texts themselves are important, but they gain their true significance within the human meaning space that individuals create through their interactions with these texts and with each other. This meaning space, rooted in the experiences and interpretations of individual persons, is what ultimately forms the building blocks of a unified philosophical tradition. The tradition is not a static collection of texts, but a dynamic, evolving process of meaning-making that is constantly being enriched and redefined by those who engage with it.” Do you know something about the structure and dynamics of this meaning space?

The concept of a **human meaning space** is a fascinating and complex idea, touching on cognitive science, linguistics, philosophy, and social theory. While the idea isn’t always explicitly framed in these terms, we can explore the structure and dynamics of this meaning space by drawing on various theories and concepts from these fields.

### 1. **Structure of the Human Meaning Space**:
The structure of the human meaning space can be understood as a multi-layered, interconnected web of meanings, built up through individual and collective experiences, language, and cultural practices. Here are some key elements:

– **Conceptual Frameworks**: At the core of the meaning space are conceptual frameworks—sets of basic concepts and categories that individuals and cultures use to organize and interpret the world. These include ideas about time, space, causality, identity, morality, and so on. Different cultures and individuals may have different conceptual frameworks, but they often share certain universal elements.

– **Language**: Language plays a central role in structuring the meaning space. Words, sentences, and narratives are the tools through which we express and communicate our thoughts and experiences. The structure of language, including grammar, syntax, and semantics, shapes how we perceive and describe the world (?)

– **Cultural Symbols and Norms**: Beyond language (?), cultural symbols (like religious icons, flags, or even corporate logos) and social norms (like laws or customs) contribute to the structure of the meaning space. These elements provide shared references and guide behavior, helping individuals navigate the social world.

– **Individual and Collective Memory**: The meaning space is also shaped by memory—both individual memories of personal experiences and collective memories shared by a community or society. These memories influence how we interpret new experiences and how we understand our place in the world.

### 2. **Dynamics of the Human Meaning Space**:
The meaning space is not static; it is constantly evolving as individuals and communities interact with the world and each other. Here are some key dynamics:

– **Interpretation and Reinterpretation**: Individuals continuously interpret and reinterpret experiences and texts. New experiences, ideas, and cultural influences can lead to shifts in how concepts are understood, how language is used, and how meaning is constructed. This process of reinterpretation is central to the evolution of philosophical traditions.

– **Dialogue and Discourse**: Meaning is often shaped and reshaped through dialogue and discourse. When individuals engage in conversation or debate, they exchange ideas, challenge assumptions, and co-create new understandings. This dynamic exchange helps to refine and expand the meaning space.

– **Cultural Evolution and Adaptation**: As cultures evolve, so too does the meaning space. New technologies, social movements, and global interactions introduce new concepts and symbols into the cultural lexicon, which can alter or expand the collective meaning space. For example, the advent of digital technology has introduced new concepts like “virtual reality” and “cyberspace” that reshape our understanding of reality and communication.

– **Learning and Education**: The transmission of knowledge through education plays a crucial role in the dynamics of the meaning space. As individuals learn from teachers, texts, and experiences, they internalize and modify the existing meaning space, contributing to its continuity and transformation.

– **Emergence of New Concepts**: Sometimes, entirely new concepts emerge within the meaning space, often as a response to new challenges or discoveries. These emergent concepts can reshape the structure of the meaning space, leading to new ways of thinking and understanding.

### 3. **Philosophical Implications**:
– **Hermeneutics**: The study of interpretation, especially of texts, is central to understanding the dynamics of the meaning space. Hermeneutics explores how meanings are constructed, how texts are understood, and how interpretations evolve over time.

– **Social Constructivism**: This theory posits that much of what we consider reality is socially constructed through language, culture, and shared practices. The meaning space, in this view, is a collective construction, shaped by social interactions and cultural norms.

– **Phenomenology**: This philosophical approach focuses on the structures of experience and consciousness. It emphasizes how individuals perceive and make sense of the world, highlighting the subjective aspect of the meaning space.

### Conclusion:
The **human meaning space** is a dynamic, multi-layered structure shaped by language, culture, memory, and individual experiences. It evolves through interpretation, dialogue, cultural change, and the emergence of new ideas. Understanding this space requires considering both its structural elements and the dynamic processes that continuously shape and reshape it. This concept helps explain how philosophical traditions remain vibrant and relevant, constantly adapting to new contexts and challenges through the interplay of shared meanings and individual interpretations.

Hi Chat, it seems to me, that I have to differentiate my question a bit more: Yes, the ‘human meaning space’ includes some ‘common feature’ between different individual humans which is manifested by the shared language. But the ‘meaning’ of a languag expression is bound to the inner processes of each individual person. Therefore the usage of the samelanguage expression does not garantee that different individual persons associate automatically the ‘same meaning’ with a certain language expresseion. Would you agree?

Yes, I completely agree with your differentiation. The idea that the meaning of a language expression is tied to the internal processes of each individual person is crucial. Here’s how this distinction can be understood:

### 1. **Shared Language vs. Individual Interpretation**:
– **Shared Language**: Language provides a common framework or set of symbols that allows individuals to communicate. This shared aspect of language is what enables us to exchange ideas, convey information, and engage in dialogue.
– **Individual Interpretation**: However, the **meaning** that each person associates with a particular language expression is deeply influenced by their personal experiences, emotions, memories, and cognitive processes. As a result, even though two people might use the same word or phrase, they might not associate it with exactly the same meaning.

### 2. **The Gap Between Expression and Interpretation**:
– **Subjectivity of Meaning**: Meaning is inherently subjective because it’s constructed within the mind of each individual. When someone hears or reads a word, their brain processes it based on their unique set of experiences and mental associations. For example, the word “home” might evoke a sense of warmth and security in one person but might bring up feelings of discomfort or displacement in another, depending on their personal history.
– **Context and Nuance**: The context in which a word or phrase is used also plays a significant role in how it’s interpreted. The same word can carry different meanings in different situations, and individuals might pick up on different nuances depending on their personal context.

### 3. **Communication and Miscommunication**:
– **Potential for Misunderstanding**: Because of these individual differences in interpretation, there is always the potential for misunderstanding or miscommunication. People might think they are conveying a certain meaning when using a word, but the listener or reader might interpret it differently based on their own mental framework.
– **Clarification Through Dialogue**: This is why dialogue and conversation are so important. By engaging in discussion, individuals can clarify their meanings, ask questions, and work toward a shared understanding, even if their initial interpretations were different.

### 4. **Philosophical Perspectives**:
– **Hermeneutics**: This branch of philosophy, particularly associated with thinkers like Hans-Georg Gadamer, emphasizes the importance of interpretation in understanding meaning. Hermeneutics suggests that every act of communication involves a process of interpretation, and this process is influenced by the interpreter’s historical and cultural context.
– **Wittgenstein’s Language Games**: Ludwig Wittgenstein introduced the idea of “language games,” where the meaning of words is understood through their use in specific contexts or activities. This highlights how meaning can vary depending on the “game” being played, and how understanding is often a matter of grasping the rules of that particular game, which can differ from one person to another.

### 5. **Implications for the Human Meaning Space**:
– The **human meaning space** is not a monolithic or uniform entity. It’s made up of countless individual meaning spaces that overlap and intersect in complex ways. The shared language provides a bridge between these individual spaces, but the meanings that cross this bridge are filtered through each person’s unique interpretive framework.
– **Interpersonal Interaction**: The richness of human communication comes from this diversity of meaning, but it also requires effort to navigate and understand. Building a shared understanding often involves recognizing and respecting these differences, and finding ways to connect across them.

### Conclusion:
While language gives us a shared set of symbols and expressions, the meanings attached to those expressions are deeply personal and subjective. The usage of the same language expression does not guarantee that different individuals will associate the same meaning with it, due to the influence of their unique internal processes and experiences. This complexity is both a challenge and a richness in human communication, requiring ongoing effort to achieve mutual understanding.

OK, let us take the following statement as starting point for the next ideas: “The human meaning space is made up of countless individual meaning spaces that overlap and intersect in complex ways. … Building a shared understanding often involves recognizing and respecting these differences, and finding ways to connect across them.” Here one follow-up question : How can a human actor A with his individual meaning space coordinate his individual meaning space with the individul meaning space of another human actor B?

Coordinating individual meaning spaces between two human actors, A and B, involves a dynamic process of communication, negotiation, and mutual understanding. This process requires both actors to engage in various strategies that allow them to bridge the differences in their interpretations and experiences. Here are some key ways in which this coordination can occur:

### 1. **Active Communication and Dialogue**:
– **Expressing and Clarifying Meanings**: Actor A can express their thoughts, feelings, and interpretations clearly (?) to Actor B, and vice versa. This involves articulating not just what they think, but why they think it, including the experiences or reasoning behind their interpretations. Clarification questions, paraphrasing, and feedback loops are critical in ensuring that both parties understand each other’s intended meanings.
– **Active Listening**: Effective coordination requires not just speaking but also listening. Actor A needs to actively listen to Actor B’s explanations and interpretations, and vice versa. Active listening involves paying close attention, avoiding assumptions, and being open to understanding the other’s perspective without immediately judging or dismissing it.

### 2. **Contextualization**:
– **Providing Context**: Often, misunderstandings arise because different contexts or background information shape each actor’s interpretation. By providing context—explaining the background, the circumstances, or the specific meaning of terms as they understand them—Actor A can help Actor B align with their meaning space, and vice versa.
– **Shared Experiences**: Drawing on shared experiences can help align meaning spaces. If Actors A and B have a common history or have shared certain experiences, referencing these can create a common ground for understanding.

### 3. **Negotiation of Meaning**:
– **Negotiation and Compromise**: Sometimes, coordination requires negotiation, where both actors adjust their interpretations to reach a common understanding. This might involve redefining terms, agreeing on certain interpretations, or finding middle ground that accommodates both perspectives.
– **Iterative Refinement**: Actor A might initially explain something, Actor B might respond with their interpretation, and through back-and-forth exchanges, both actors refine their understanding until they reach a shared meaning.

### 4. **Use of Metaphors and Analogies**:
– **Metaphors and Analogies**: These tools can be powerful for bridging gaps in meaning spaces. By comparing a concept to something familiar to both actors, they can better align their interpretations. For example, Actor A might use an analogy that resonates with Actor B’s experiences, helping to convey a concept in a way that B can relate to more easily.

### 5. **Empathy and Perspective-Taking**:
– **Empathy**: Empathy involves trying to understand the other actor’s feelings and perspective. By empathizing with Actor B, Actor A can better grasp why B interprets things in a certain way, and this understanding can help in coordinating their meaning spaces.
– **Perspective-Taking**: This is the cognitive aspect of empathy, where Actor A consciously attempts to see things from Actor B’s viewpoint. By mentally putting themselves in B’s shoes, A can adjust their communication to better resonate with B’s meaning space.

### 6. **Cultural and Social Awareness**:
– **Awareness of Cultural Differences**: If Actors A and B come from different cultural backgrounds, their meaning spaces may differ significantly. Being aware of these cultural differences and how they might influence interpretation can help in adjusting communication strategies to better align meaning spaces.
– **Social Norms and Conventions**: Understanding and utilizing social norms that both actors share can also help in coordinating meaning spaces. These norms provide a framework for expected behaviors and interpretations, making it easier to find common ground.

### 7. **Feedback Mechanisms**:
– **Seeking and Providing Feedback**: Actor A can ask Actor B whether their message was understood as intended, and B can do the same. This feedback helps identify where misalignments in meaning might exist and provides an opportunity to correct them.
– **Continuous Adjustment**: Feedback allows for continuous adjustment. As Actors A and B continue to interact, they can refine their communication and interpretation strategies, leading to better alignment over time.

### 8. **Language and Conceptual Framing**:
– **Shared Vocabulary**: Developing a shared vocabulary, where both actors agree on the meanings of key terms, can facilitate coordination. This might involve explicitly defining terms or agreeing on certain concepts before proceeding with a discussion.
– **Conceptual Framing**: Framing discussions in terms of concepts or ideas that are familiar to both actors can help in aligning their meaning spaces. If both actors understand a concept similarly, they can use it as a reference point for further discussion.

### Conclusion:
Coordinating individual meaning spaces between two human actors involves a complex interplay of communication, empathy, negotiation, and shared context. By engaging in active dialogue, providing context, using metaphors, exercising empathy, and seeking feedback, Actors A and B can bridge their differences and build a shared understanding. This process is iterative and dynamic, requiring ongoing effort and adjustment as both actors navigate their individual meaning spaces and work toward alignment.

FRAGE: OK, I like to keep the following statements as minimal requirements : (1) Effective coordination requires not just speaking but also listening. (2) If Actors A and B have a common history or have shared experiences, referencing these can create a common ground for understanding. Feedback allows for continuous adjustment. (3) (1) – (2) can support the development of a shared vocabulary. Would you agree?

Yes, I agree with your summary. The three statements you’ve outlined capture essential aspects of how effective coordination between individual meaning spaces can occur. Here’s a brief reflection on each point:

1. **Effective coordination requires not just speaking but also listening**:
– This emphasizes the importance of active, two-way communication. Listening is crucial for understanding the other person’s perspective, which is necessary for aligning meaning spaces.

2. **If Actors A and B have a common history or have shared experiences, referencing these can create a common ground for understanding. Feedback allows for continuous adjustment**:
– Shared experiences and history provide a foundation for mutual understanding. When actors reference these shared elements, they can more easily connect their meaning spaces. Feedback mechanisms allow both actors to continuously refine and adjust their understanding, ensuring that misalignments are addressed.

3. **(1) – (2) can support the development of a shared vocabulary**:
– Through effective communication and the use of shared experiences, Actors A and B can gradually develop a shared vocabulary. This shared vocabulary helps streamline future interactions by establishing common definitions and meanings for key terms, reducing potential misunderstandings.

These statements encapsulate the core processes that enable individuals to coordinate their meaning spaces and build a deeper, more effective understanding with each other.

Hi Chat, let us take a look into the ‘inner structure’ of an individual meaning space: (i) On the one side of meaning we habe the ‘expressions of some language’ which is ‘internally represented’. (ii) On the other side we have a rich diversity of inner states of the human actor which deliver the ‘stuff’ which we call ‘meaning’ and which is ‘related’ to the ‘internally represented expressions’ of the used language. Can you describe a bit the ‘structure’ of these inner states related to language expressions?

The **inner structure** of an individual meaning space, especially how it relates to language expressions, is a complex and layered system. This system involves the interaction between **internally represented language expressions** (i.e., words, sentences, symbols) and the **inner states** of the human actor that give rise to meaning. Let’s explore this in more detail:

### 1. **Language Expressions and Internal Representations**:
– **Symbols and Words**: Language expressions are composed of symbols (letters, words, sounds) that are internally represented in the brain. These representations are tied to specific neural patterns or cognitive structures that store and process linguistic information.
– **Syntax and Grammar**: These internal representations are not just individual words but also the rules and structures (syntax, grammar) that determine how these words can be combined to form meaningful sentences. This layer of structure helps the mind organize language into coherent thoughts and communications.

### 2. **Inner States and Their Structure**:
The **inner states** related to meaning are diverse and involve various cognitive, emotional, and sensory processes. Here are some key components:

– **Conceptual Structures**:
– **Mental Models and Concepts**: At the core of the meaning-making process are **conceptual structures**—the mental models and concepts that represent our understanding of the world. These models include abstract ideas (like justice or beauty), concrete objects (like a tree or a car), and complex scenarios (like a conversation or a journey).
– **Schemas and Frames**: These are cognitive structures that organize knowledge and guide interpretation. A schema might represent a typical event (like “going to a restaurant”), while a frame provides a perspective or context for understanding a situation (like seeing an argument as a debate or a conflict).

– **Emotional and Affective States**:
– **Emotions**: Emotions play a significant role in the meaning space. When we process language, the meaning we derive is often colored by our emotional state. For instance, the word “home” might trigger feelings of warmth and safety for one person, while for another, it might evoke feelings of sadness or loss.
– **Affective Associations**: These are the emotional responses tied to specific concepts or experiences. They contribute to how strongly or weakly certain meanings resonate with us and can influence how we interpret language.

– **Sensory and Perceptual Experiences**:
– **Sensory Memories**: Sensory experiences (like sights, sounds, smells) are often tied to language expressions. For example, the word “ocean” might bring up the smell of saltwater, the sound of waves, and the feeling of sand underfoot, all of which contribute to the word’s meaning.
– **Imagery**: The mind often creates mental images in response to language. These images are not just visual but can involve other senses as well. This sensory component enriches the meaning associated with language expressions.

– **Cognitive Processes**:
– **Inference and Reasoning**: Cognitive processes like inference and reasoning help us make sense of language by connecting new information with existing knowledge. When we hear a sentence, we use reasoning to infer the speaker’s intent, predict outcomes, or draw connections with other ideas.
– **Attention and Focus**: The focus of attention determines which aspects of a language expression we emphasize and how we interpret its meaning. What we pay attention to can shape the meaning we derive from a given expression.

### 3. **Relational and Associative Networks**:
– **Associative Networks**: The mind organizes concepts, emotions, sensory experiences, and language expressions into a network of associations. For example, the word “winter” might be associated with cold weather, snow, holidays, and feelings of coziness. These associations form a web of meaning that influences how language expressions are understood.
– **Relational Dynamics**: Meaning is often understood in terms of relationships between concepts. For instance, understanding the concept of “parent” is related to understanding “child,” “family,” and “care.” These relational dynamics are part of the inner structure that gives rise to meaning.

### 4. **Integration of Inner States and Language**:
– **Embodied Cognition**: This theory suggests that our cognition is deeply rooted in bodily experiences. The meaning of language is not just an abstract mental process but is also tied to how we physically interact with the world. For instance, understanding the word “grasp” involves not just the mental concept but also the sensory-motor experience of physically grasping something.
– **Contextual Integration**: The meaning of a language expression is often determined by the context in which it is used. This context includes both external factors (like the situation or environment) and internal states (like emotions or prior knowledge). The integration of these contextual factors is crucial in shaping meaning.

### Conclusion:
The inner structure of an individual meaning space is a complex system where **language expressions** are connected to a rich diversity of **inner states**. These inner states include conceptual structures, emotional and sensory experiences, cognitive processes, and associative networks. Together, these elements create a dynamic and multi-dimensional web of meaning that allows individuals to interpret and understand language in highly personalized ways. The interaction between these inner states and language is what gives rise to the meaning that individuals derive from their linguistic experiences.

I will take the following short summary as bridge to the follow-up ideas : (1) Language expressions are composed of symbols wich are determined by rules and structures; (2) The inner states related to meaning are diverse and involve various cognitive, emotional, and sensory processes; (3) At the core are mental models that represent our understanding of the world. These models include abstract ideas, concrete objects, and complex scenarios. Furthermore the mind organizes concepts, emotions, sensory experiences, and language expressions into a network of associations. (4) Cognitive processes like inference and reasoning help us by connecting existing knowledge with knowledge about possible changes, to derive possible new states. Can you agree with this?

Yes, I agree with your summary. You’ve captured the essential points about how language expressions, inner states, mental models, and cognitive processes interact to create and understand meaning. Here’s a brief recap:

1. **Language Expressions**: These are composed of symbols (words, phrases) that are structured according to the rules of grammar and syntax, enabling coherent communication.

2. **Diverse Inner States**: Meaning arises from a complex interplay of cognitive, emotional, and sensory processes within the mind. These processes influence how we interpret and understand language.

3. **Mental Models and Associations**: At the core of meaning-making are mental models, which represent our understanding of the world. These models include abstract concepts, concrete objects, and complex scenarios. The mind organizes these elements into a network of associations, connecting various concepts, emotions, and sensory experiences.

4. **Cognitive Processes**: Inference, reasoning, and other cognitive processes allow us to connect existing knowledge with new information or hypothetical changes, enabling us to derive new states or understand potential outcomes.

This summary effectively bridges the foundational ideas we’ve discussed, setting the stage for deeper exploration into how these components work together in more complex scenarios or applications.

OK, let us stop here for today. I will come back to this issue to continue. Best regards

That sounds great! I’m glad we could delve into these ideas together. Feel free to reach out anytime you’re ready to continue. Best regards, and take care! 😊

collective intelligence, collective man-machine intelligence, culture, cyber space, environment, homo sapiens, Knowledge, Lévy, Pierre, population, sustainable development, truth

Pierre Lévy : Collective Intelligence – Chapter 1 – Introduction

eJournal: uffmm.org, ISSN 2567-6458, 17.March 2022 – 22.March 2022, 8:40
Email: info@uffmm.org
Author: Gerd Doeben-Henisch
Email: gerd@doeben-henisch.de

SCOPE

In the uffmm review section the different papers and books are discussed from the point of view of the oksimo paradigm. [1] In the following text the author discusses some aspects of the book “Collective Intelligence. mankind’s emerging world in cyberspace” by Pierre Lévy (translated by Robert Bonono),1997 (French: 1994)[2]

PREVIEW

Before starting a more complete review here a notice in advance.

Only these days I started reading this book of Pierre Lévy after working more than 4 years intensively with the problem of an open knowledge space for everybody as genuine part of the cyberspace. I have approached the problem from several disciplines culminating in a new theory concept which has additionally a direct manifestation in a new kind of software too. While I am now are just testing version 2 of this software and having in parallel worked through several papers of the early, the middle, and the late Karl Popper [3], I detected this book of Lévy [*] and was completely impressed by the preface of this book. His view of mankind and cyberspace is intellectual deep and a real piece of art. I had the feeling that this text could be without compromise a direct preview of our software paradigm although I didn’t know about him before.

Looking to know more about him I detected some more interesting books but especially also his blog intlekt – metadata [4], where he develops his vision of a new language for a new ‘collective intelligence’ being practiced in the cyberspace. While his ideas about ‘collective intelligence’ associated with the ‘cyberspace’ are fascinating, it appears to me that his ideas about a new language are strongly embedded in ‘classical’ concepts of language, semiotics, and computer, concepts which — in my view — are not sufficient for a new language enabling collective intelligence.

Thus it can become an exciting reading with continuous reflections about the conditions about ‘collective intelligence’ and the ‘role of language’ within this.

Chapter 1: Introduction

Position lévy

The following description of the position of Lévy described in his 1st chapter is clearly an ‘interpretation’ from the ‘viewpoint’ of the writer at this time. This is more or less ‘inevitable’. [5]

A good starting point for the project of ‘understanding the book’ seems to be the historical outline which Lévy gives on the pages 5-10. Starting with the appearance of the homo sapiens he characterizes different periods of time with different cultural patterns triggered by the homo sapiens. In the last period, which is still lasting, knowledge takes radical new ‘forms’; one central feature is the appearance of the ‘cyberspace’.

Primarily the cyberspace is ‘machine-based’, some material structure, enhanced with a certain type of dynamics enabled by algorithms working in the machine. But as part of the cultural life of the homo sapiens the cyberspace is also a cultural reality increasingly interacting directly with individuals, groups, institutions, companies, industry, nature, and even more. And in this space enabled by interactions the homo sapiens does not only encounter with technical entities alone, but also with effects/ events/ artifacts produced by other homo sapiens companions.

Lévy calls this a “re-creation of the social bond based on reciprocal apprenticeship, shared skills, imagination, and collective intelligence.” (p.10) And he adds as a supplement that “collective intelligence is not a purely cognitive object.” (p.10)

Looking into the future Lévy assumes two main axes: “The renewal of the social bond through our relation to knowledge and collective intelligence itself.” (p.11)

Important seems to be that ‘knowledge’ is also not be confined to ‘facts alone’ but it ‘lives’ in the reziproke interactions of human actors and thereby knowledge is a dynamic process.(cf. p.11) Humans as part of such knowledge processes receive their ‘identities’ from this flow. (cf. p.12) One consequence from this is “… the other remains enigmatic, becomes a desirable being in every respect.”(p.12) With some further comment: “No one knows everything, everyone knows something, all knowledge resides in humanity. There is no transcendent store of knowledge and knowledge is simply the sum of what we know.”(p.13f)

‘Collective intelligence’ dwells nearby to dynamic knowledge: “The basis and goal of collective intelligence is the mutual recognition and enrichment of individuals rather than the cult of fetishized or hypostatized communities.”(p.13) Thus Lévy can state that collective intelligence “is born with culture and growth with it.”(p.16) And making it more concrete with a direct embedding in a community: “In an intelligent community the specific objective is to permanently negotiate the order of things, language, the role of the individual, the identification and definition of objects, the reinterpretation of memory. Nothing is fixed.”(p.17)

These different aspects are accumulating in the vision of “a new humanism that incorporates and enlarges the scope of self knowledge into a form of group knowledge and collective thought. … [the] process of collective intelligence [is] leading to the creation of a distinct sense of community.”(p.17)

One side effect of such a new humanism could be “new forms of democracy, better suited to the complexity of contemporary problems…”.(p.18)

First COMMENTS

At this point I will give only some few comments, waiting with more general and final thoughts until the end of the reading of the whole text.

Shortened Timeline – Wrong Picture

The timeline which Lévy is using is helpful, but this timeline is ‘incomplete’. What is missing is the whole time ‘before’ the advent of the homo sapiens within the biological evolution. And this ‘absence’ hides the understanding of one, if not ‘the’, most important concept of all life, including the homo sapiens and its cultural process.

This central concept is today called ‘sustainable development’. It points to a ‘dynamical structure’, which is capable of ‘adapting to an ever changing environment’. Life on the planet earth is only possible from the very beginning on account of this fundamental capability starting with the first cells and being kept strongly alive through all the 3.5 Billion years (10^9) in all the following fascinating developments.

This capability to be able to ‘adapt to an ever changing environment’ implies the ability to change the ‘working structure, the body’ in a way, that the structure can change to respond in new ways, if the environment changes. Such a change has two sides: (i) the real ‘production’ of the working structures of a living system, and (ii) the ‘knowledge’, which is necessary to ‘inform’ the processes of formation and keeping an organism ‘in action’. And these basic mechanisms have additionally (iii) to be ‘distributed in a whole population’, whose sheer number gives enough redundancy to compensate for ‘wrong proposals’.

Knowing this the appearance of the homo sapiens life form manifests a qualitative shift in the structure of the adaption so far: surely prepared by several Millions of years the body of the homo sapiens with an unusual brain enabled new forms of ‘understanding the world’ in close connection with new forms of ‘communication’ and ‘cooperation’. With the homo sapiens the brains became capable to talk — mediated by their body and the surrounding body world — with other brains hidden in other bodies in a way, which enabled the sharing of ‘meaning’ rooted in the body world as well in the own body. This capability created by communication a ‘network of distributed knowledge’ encoded in the shared meaning of individual meaning functions. As long as communication with a certain meaning function with the shared meanings ‘works’, as long does this distributed knowledge’ exist. If the shared meaning weakens or breaks down this distributed knowledge is ‘gone’.

Thus, a homo sapiens population has not to wait for another generation until new varieties of their body structures could show up and compete with the changing environment. A homo sapiens population has the capability to perceive the environment — and itself — in a way, that allows additionally new forms of ‘transformations of the perceptions’ in a way, that ‘cognitive varieties of perceived environments’ can be ‘internally produced’ and being ‘communicated’ and being used for ‘sequences of coordinated actions’ which can change the environment and the homo sapiens them self.

The cultural history then shows — as Lévy has outlined shortly on his pages 5-10 — that the homo sapiens population (distributed in many competing smaller sub-populations) ‘invented’ more and more ‘behavior pattern’, ‘social rules’ and a rich ‘diversity of tools’ to improve communication and to improve the representation and processing of knowledge, which in turn helped for even more complex ‘sequences of coordinated actions’.

Sustainability & Collective Intelligence

Although until today there are no commonly accepted definitions of ‘intelligence’ and of ‘knowledge’ available [6], it makes some sense to locate ‘knowledge’ and ‘intelligence’ in this ‘communication based space of mutual coordinated actions’. And this embedding implies to think about knowledge and intelligence as a property of a population, which ‘collectively’ is learning, is understanding, is planning, is modifying its environment as well as them self.

And having this distributed capability a population has all the basics to enable a ‘sustainable development’.

Therefore the capability for a sustainable development is an emergent capability based on the processes enabled by a distributed knowledge enabled by a collective intelligence.

Having sketched out this then all the wonderful statements of Lévy seem to be ‘true’ in that they describe a dynamic reality which is provided by biological life as such.

A truly Open Space with Real Boundaries

Looking from the outside onto this biological mystery of sustainable processes based on collective intelligence using distributed knowledge one can identify incredible spaces of possible continuations. In principle these spaces are ‘open spaces’.

Looking to the details of this machinery — because we are ‘part of it’ — we know by historical and everyday experience that these processes can fail every minute, even every second.

To ‘improve’ a given situation one needs (i) not only a criterion which enables a judgment about something to be classified as being ‘not good’ (e.g. the given situation), one needs further (ii) some ‘minimal vision’ of a ‘different situation’, which can be classified by a criterion as being ‘better’. And, finally, one needs (iii) a minimal ‘knowledge’ about possible ‘actions’ which can change the given situation in successive steps to transform it into the envisioned ‘new better situation’ functioning as a ‘goal’.

Looking around, looking back, everybody has surely experiences from everyday life that these three tasks are far from being trivial. To judge something to be ‘not good’ or ‘not good enough’ presupposes a minimum of ‘knowledge’ which should be sufficiently evenly be ‘distributed’ in the ‘brains of all participants’. Without a sufficient agreement no common judgment will be possible. At the time of this writing it seems that there is plenty of knowledge around, but it is not working as a coherent knowledge space accepted by all participants. Knowledge battles against knowledge. The same is effective for the tasks (ii) and (iii).

There are many reasons why it is no working. While especially the ‘big challenges’ are of ‘global nature’ and are following a certain time schedule there is not too much time available to ‘synchronize’ the necessary knowledge between all. Mankind has until now supportet predominantly the sheer amount of knowledge and ‘individual specialized solutions’, but did miss the challenge to develop at the same time new and better ‘common processes’ of ‘shared knowledge’. The invention of computer, networks of computer, and then the multi-faceted cyberspace is a great and important invention, but is not really helpful as long as the cyberspace has not become a ‘genuin human-like’ tool for ‘distributed human knowledge’ and ‘distributed collective human-machine intelligence’.

Truth

One of the most important challenges for all kinds of knowledge is the ability to enable a ‘knowledge inspired view’ of the environment — including the actor — which is ‘in agreement with the reality of the environment’; otherwise the actions will not be able to support life in the long run. [7] Such an ‘agreement’ is a challenge, especially if the ‘real processes’ are ‘complex’ , ‘distributed’ and are happening in ‘large time frames’. As all human societies today demonstrate, this fundamental ability to use ’empirically valid knowledge’ is partially well developed, but in many other cases it seems to be nearly not in existence. There is a strong — inborn ! — tendency of human persons to think that the ‘pictures in their heads’ represent ‘automatically’ such a knowledge what is in agreement with the real world. It isn’t. Thus ‘dreams’ are ruling the everyday world of societies. And the proportion of brains with such ‘dreams’ seems to grow. In a certain sense this is a kind of ‘illness’: invisible, but strongly effective and highly infectious. Science alone seems to be not a sufficient remedy, but it is a substantial condition for a remedy.

COMMENTS

[*] The decisive hint for this book came from Athene Sorokowsky, who is member of my research group.

[1] Gerd Doeben-Henisch,The general idea of the oksimo paradigm: https://www.uffmm.org/2022/01/24/newsletter/, January 2022

[2] Pierre Lévy in wkp-en: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_L%C3%A9vy

[3] Karl Popper in wkp-en: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper. One of the papers I have written commenting on Popper can be found HERE.

[4] Pierre Lévy, intlekt – metadata, see: https://intlekt.io/blog/

[5] Who wants to know, what Lévy ‘really’ has written has to go back to the text of Lévy directly. … then the reader will read the text of Lévy with ‘his own point of view’ … indeed, even then the reader will not know with certainty, whether he did really understand Lévy ‘right’. … reading a text is always a ‘dialogue’ .. .

[6] Not in Philosophie, not in the so-called ‘Humanities’, not in the Social Sciences, not in the Empirical Sciences, and not in Computer Science!

[7] The ‘long run’ can be very short if you misjudge in the traffic a situation, or a medical doctor makes a mistake or a nuclear reactor has the wrong sensors or ….

Continuation

See HERE.