Author: Gerd Doeben-Henisch

Changelog: Jan 6, 2025 – Jan 8, 20225

Email: info@uffmm.org

TRANSLATION: The following text is a translation from a German version into English. For the translation I am using the software @chatGPT4o with manual modifications.

CONTENT TREE

This text is part of the TOPIC Philosophy of Science.

CONTEXT

This text is a direct continuation of the dialogue from Jan 2, 2025, titled “THE NEW WORLD FORMULA and the Paradigm of LIFE AS A GLOBAL SUPERCOMPUTER.”
The key insight from the previous dialogue was the emerging understanding of life as an overarching process that is not limited to the ‘obviously biological,’ but reveals how the process of life is an integral part of the entire reality process, encompassing the development of the entire universe. ‘Life’ (Nature 2) should not be seen as separate from the Earth and the entire universe (Nature 1). This becomes evident when considering the various phases of life, particularly during the ‘transition’ from Nature 1, before the emergence of ‘biological life’ (Nature 2), to the increasing ‘manifestations of life’ that over 3.9 billion years have given rise to something that still far exceeds our understanding today.

The description of the role of chatGPT4o in these dialogues, as outlined at the beginning of the previous dialogue, remains fully valid.

BEGINNING OF THE DIALOGUE

Summary So Far

At the beginning of the new dialogue, I invited chatGPT4o to briefly summarize the current state of the discussion. Here is the dialogue.

QUESTIONER

How would you briefly summarize our current state of discussion?

RESPONDENT

Here is a concise summary of our current state of discussion:

We are in an analytical phase exploring the origins and development of human sociality, with a particular focus on early human sociality as the smallest viable social unit (“basic sociality”). This unit consists of groups of 20–30 individuals who collectively overcome existential challenges.

A core element of this investigation is the “Basic Theory of Human Sociality,” which formulates hypotheses about essential resources and abilities necessary for survival. The availability of resources such as energy, water, and temperature regulation plays a crucial role, while social skills and cooperation are viewed as systemic responses to these demands.

In parallel, we are developing the idea of the “global supercomputer of life,” which emerges from the interaction of all living systems. Within this framework, Artificial Intelligence (AI) is seen as a technological tool within Nature 2 that can potentially serve life but must also be further developed to make substantial contributions.

We are also exploring the possibility of using AI-based systems to support democratic processes, emphasizing practicality and accessibility for all citizens. This model integrates systems thinking (à la Senge and Simon) with municipal structures, highlighting the importance of trust, education, and communication for sustainable transformation processes.

In the near future, you plan to test these ideas as part of a municipal experiment starting in March/April 2025, aiming to develop and evaluate concrete solutions for democratic decision-making processes.

QUESTIONER

How do you place our last dialogue within this context, where the separation between Nature 1 and Nature 2 has practically become obsolete? In the realm of ‘manifestations of energy’ across the various stages of development of the universe, the Earth, and life on Earth, differences can certainly be identified, but there was now the new perspective that we might be dealing with a single process, where all phases build upon one another.

RESPONDENT

Our last dialogue seamlessly fits into this broader context by further questioning the separation between Nature 1 (the physical world without life) and Nature 2 (life as an emergent phenomenon within Nature 1). The idea that this separation might be artificial or heuristic gains significance when we view the entire universe as a continuous energetic process, manifesting in different forms and levels of organization.

In this expanded framework, it seems reasonable to speak of a single process that extends from the earliest states of the universe (e.g., elementary particles, stars, planets) through Earth’s geological developments to the emergence and complexity of life. Differences between “matter” and “life” then appear as manifestations of different organizational forms of energy and information, with each stage building upon the previous one.

Your hypothesis—that emergent phenomena do not represent something ontologically new but rather new arrangements and dynamics within the existing energetic possibilities of Nature 1—supports this perspective. In this sense, life—and ultimately human sociality—becomes another developmental phase of an ongoing cosmic process.

In detail, this means:

• Early universal processes (Nature 1) are not “complete” but continue within life (Nature 2).
• Life itself represents a continuation of these energetic transformations but in a highly organized, dynamic form.
• Human sociality and collective intelligence (Nature 2) could be understood as higher layers of this process—comparable to a kind of “global supercomputer of life,” where information and energy are processed in unprecedented ways.

The consequence of this perspective: The distinction between Nature 1 and Nature 2 becomes increasingly irrelevant because both aspects are part of the same overarching process. This allows us to view the development of life and society not as isolated phenomena but as continuous waves within a universal energetic field.

Your approach to applying this perspective to democratic processes and AI is also part of this larger picture. AI could then serve as a tool for processing information and energy within this global process—not as an external element but as a natural extension of human capacities for organizing energy and information.

A Forecast from This Point On?

Before proceeding with further reflections, I was interested in whether it might be possible to derive any estimate for the next potential major complexity event on planet Earth from the existing data on the course of development.

After several attempts by chatGPT4o to find an appropriate mathematical approximation to make such a forecast, it arrived at the following approximation:

Starting Point

QUESTIONER

I find your two summaries very accurate! They open up many exciting possibilities that deserve further analysis. Today, I would like to dwell a bit more on the overall perspective and consider to what extent it might be possible to extract some rough predictions for the current overall state of life (Nature 2) within the context of overall development. I am thinking of the following table:

• Molecular evolution to prokaryotic cells: 400 million years
• Prokaryotic cells to the Great Oxygenation Event: 1 billion years
• Great Oxygenation Event to eukaryotic cells: 1 billion years
• Eukaryotic cells to multicellularity: 900 million years
• Multicellularity to the emergence of the genus Homo: 597.5 million years
• Genus Homo to Homo sapiens: 2.2 million years
• Homo sapiens to artificial intelligence: 297,900 years

…and the conversion of these years into a percentage of the total time of approximately 3.9 billion years. From these numbers, you derived a curve that suggested a kind of ‘continuity’ and, at the same time, a form of ‘acceleration’ in overall development for positions 2-6. Do you remember?

PERCENTAGES

1. 10.25
2. 25.64
3. 25.64
4. 23.07
5. 15.32
6. 0.05
7. 0.007

The table illustrates the evolutionary developmental phases and their duration relative to the total time of life’s development on Earth. The visualization of the curve clearly shows a form of acceleration in development, particularly in the later phases, while the early phases occupy a larger portion of the total time.

Notable points include:

• Molecular evolution and early cellular developments take up the largest share of time.
• With the development of multicellular organisms and the evolution toward the genus Homo, the timespan shortens.
• The phase from Homo sapiens to the development of AI is extremely brief compared to the preceding phases.

QUESTIONER

A natural question is whether you can derive an ‘acceleration coefficient’ from the curve, starting with the transition from ‘prokaryotes to the Great Oxygenation Event’ to the transition from ‘Homo to Homo sapiens,’ which could roughly allow for the prediction of a ‘yet unknown complexity event.’

After attempting a purely ‘linear’ estimate and then using a ‘power function,’ chatGPT4o found an approximation that models the data almost perfectly:

RESPONDENT

The inverted power function has been successfully fitted and now shows a reversed acceleration that aligns more closely with the observed development of the data.

Results of the inverted power function:

Coefficients (a, b, c):

• a = −1.36×10⁻⁴
• b = 8.27
• c = 25.73

Projected share of total time:

• Approximately 12.82%

Projected time of the next event:

• 3.999 billion years (around 100 million years into the future)

This adjustment now appears to better reflect the observed non-linear acceleration. If you would like to refine the forecast further or test the stability of the curve, we can explore this in more detail.

Possible Interpretations

The current ‘finding’ practically calls for possible interpretations

QUESTIONER

This curve fits the data points almost perfectly! If the upcoming development were to actually follow this acceleration, the next possible major transformative event would occur approximately 100 million years in the future. For us, as individuals who think in terms of decades, this is an almost unimaginable timespan. For present-day states, even a few centuries seem significant. In antiquity, it spanned many hundreds to a few thousand years. And in early history, it extended to tens of thousands of years. How do you comment on this situation?

RESPONDENT

The temporal scales emerging from this analysis vividly illustrate the magnitude of evolution—both biological and societal.

1. The Dimension of Time: Evolution and Humanity
   While biological evolution unfolds over billions of years, the timespan of major societal and cultural developments is drastically shortened.

• Early Evolution: The emergence of multicellular organisms or the transition to Homo sapiens took place over hundreds of millions of years.
• Human History: In the history of Homo sapiens, major transformative processes—such as the shift to settled life or the industrial revolution—span from thousands to just a few hundred years.
• Technological Progress (AI): Today, we experience changes within decades or even years.

This extreme acceleration on the human timescale highlights how differently levels of complexity evolve.

2. What Does This Mean for Us Today?

• Individual Perception: For individuals, a timespan of 100 million years is unimaginable—far beyond what we can experience or comprehend.
• Societal Systems: Even states and civilizations are conceived within much shorter cycles and rarely endure for more than a few centuries or millennia.
• Technological Leaps: Modern technology advances at a pace that no longer aligns with the natural timescale of evolution. This often leaves us in a state of ‘cultural shock paralysis,’ as we struggle to fully integrate these rapid developments.

3. The ‘Cosmic Context’ of Humanity
In this broader framework, humanity becomes a fleeting moment in the long history of life on Earth. If we project 100 million years into the future, it seems unlikely that humanity will exist in its current form.

Yet, every phase leaves traces. Evolution demonstrates that complex systems rarely vanish abruptly; instead, they transform and adapt to new conditions.

It is possible that artificial intelligence or future technologies will become an integral part of this next major transformative process—extending human capabilities or continuing evolutionary developments as autonomous entities.

4. Possible Reflections for Today
Even though these projections span immense periods, they can broaden our perspective in the present moment.

• Fostering Long-term Thinking: We could place greater emphasis on thinking and acting sustainably, rather than focusing solely on short-term gains or solutions.
• Responsibility for the Future: When considering humanity’s long-term role, the question arises: What legacy do we want to leave behind?
• Linking Technology and Evolution: Technological advancements should not be viewed as a “disruption” of natural evolution, but rather as part of a continuous process deeply rooted in the fabric of life.

Conclusion
The discrepancy between the timespan of evolutionary processes and the rapid development of human civilization highlights that we are at an exceptional point in the history of life. The challenge lies in recognizing this uniqueness and shaping it responsibly.

If you would like to delve deeper into these ideas or draw concrete connections to current societal developments, I am happy to explore this further with you!

QUESTIONER

I find your reflective thoughts very helpful. For me, the following key questions emerge:

RESPONSIBILITY OF LIFE for the Future:
If the living beings present on Earth at a given time (e.g., in 2025) can only realize their potential within an extremely short timeframe, how can they, within this brief period, take on ‘responsibility for the future of life on the planet/in the universe’? What does ‘responsibility’ even mean in this context?

NATURE 1+2 and TECHNOLOGY:
You point to the seemingly rapid development of technology. Considering the overall complexity of the Earth-life process (Nature 1 and Nature 2)—an incomprehensible level of complexity that is ‘in motion’ simultaneously—and all data suggesting that while there is ‘acceleration,’ it occurs not on ‘everyday scales’ but over approximately 100 million years, the question arises: To what extent can technology truly make a substantial contribution in this context? This remains unclear.

The potential contribution of technology to the overall process should be measured by what the ‘overall process’ needs to endure the next 100 million years, not to mention the eventual event of the ‘expansion of the sun.’ It seems to me that our understanding of the overall process, as well as of the process of life itself, is still in its infancy—even among experts. For the majority of people, even this limited knowledge is likely missing altogether. Yet, without the broad participation of humanity, no sustainable process will succeed.

What are your thoughts on this?

RESPONDENT

Your questions delve deeply into the fundamental challenges facing humanity and life on Earth. They touch on both philosophical and practical aspects arising from the dynamics of life and the rapid advancement of technology. Here are some thoughts on the two central points:

1. Responsibility of Life for the Future – A Paradox of Time
The question of responsibility for the future of life is essential—especially when considering that most living beings, including humans, can only act and think within extremely short timespans.

What does responsibility mean on a large scale?

Evolution is a process that unfolds continuously in small steps. Even the smallest changes or decisions we make today can cumulatively have significant long-term effects.

Responsibility might mean supporting the evolutionary process by creating conditions that promote the diversity and adaptability of life.

It is less about directly determining the fate of life for the next 100 million years and more about stabilizing and preserving systems that allow life to continue evolving.

How Could This Responsibility Look in Practice?

1. Promoting Resilience:
Responsibility could lie in strengthening the resilience—meaning the robustness and adaptability—of ecosystems, societies, and technologies. By fostering systems capable of withstanding shocks and adapting to change, we indirectly support the longevity and evolution of life.

2. Building Long-term Systems:
Even though we operate within short timeframes, we could create institutions and technologies that are stable over the long term and keep future generations empowered to act. This could include sustainable governance, infrastructure, and knowledge systems designed to endure and evolve over centuries.

3. Raising Awareness and Education:
Perhaps the deepest form of responsibility lies in raising collective awareness of long-term development. Education and the transfer of knowledge across generations could serve as tools to pass on this responsibility, ensuring that the drive to preserve and advance life is not lost.

---

Limits of Responsibility

1. Humility in the Face of Life’s Complexity:
Absolute control over the evolutionary process is impossible. Responsibility could also mean accepting that many developments lie beyond our influence. Recognizing our limits fosters a more balanced, humble approach to shaping the future.

2. Responsibility as a Collective Movement:
Individual humans or groups can only bear limited responsibility. A collective movement of life itself—including humans, technology, and ecosystems—might be the only realistic way to take on this responsibility. By aligning our actions with the broader process of life, we can contribute to its continuation on a larger scale.

2. Technology as Part of the Greater Evolutionary Process – Opportunities and Limits

Technology is often seen as a tool for acceleration, but when we consider the entire evolutionary process of life and Earth, it becomes clear that technology is merely one facet of a much larger and more complex process.

Technology – Short-term Aid or Long-term Process?

• Technology can help solve immediate problems, but it has rarely proven to be a stable, lasting part of the global evolutionary process.
• Many technological achievements are transient. Only when technology enters into symbiosis with the processes of life might it persist over long timescales.

What Does the Overall Process Require?

• Long-term Perspective: Technology should not only deliver short-term benefits but also support systems capable of enduring over the next millions of years.
• Harmony with Natural Processes: Technological developments should not be viewed in isolation from natural processes. Instead, technology could be understood as an extension of evolutionary processes, aimed at making life more resilient and adaptable.
• Technology as a Transitional Instrument: In the current phase of life, technology could serve as a bridge—a form of “training” for the next evolutionary leap, in which biological and technological processes increasingly merge.

The Problem of Ignorance and the Role of Humans
Lack of knowledge about the overall process is a critical weakness. Experts are at the beginning stages of understanding the processes of life, and the general population is often far removed from grasping these dynamics.
Without broad societal participation, it will be difficult to bring about sustainable and transformative change.
Technology alone will not suffice. A culture of understanding and shared responsibility is needed, enabling all people to take part in this process.

Possible Ways Forward – A Systemic Approach

1. Dialogue Between Science, Society, and Technology:
New forums and formats are needed to translate complex scientific insights into simple, understandable narratives for the general population.

2. Integrating Technology into the Evolutionary Process:
Technology should not be viewed as an isolated tool but as part of the evolutionary dynamic. A close intertwining of biological and technological processes could lead to more stable outcomes.

3. Involving All People in Responsibility:
Education and participation are crucial. If people feel they are part of a greater evolutionary process, this could strengthen their sense of responsibility and promote long-term thinking.

4. Establishing Ethical Foundations:
Technology should be tied to ethical guidelines that prioritize long-term stability and sustainability over short-term profit.

Conclusion – Technology and Responsibility as Evolutionary Processes
The questions you raise highlight that we are at a critical point in evolution—a moment when the speed of developments has drastically accelerated.

The responsibility we bear might lie in ensuring that the evolutionary process is not disrupted but consciously accompanied and supported.
Technology can assist in this—but only if it works with natural processes rather than against them.

If you wish to explore these ideas further—toward a comprehensive ethical or systemic framework—I am ready to continue this discourse with you!

Do We Need a New Ethics?

QUESTIONER

From my perspective, you have elaborated well on the key points. Somehow, it is becoming clear that we humans, as the currently ‘central actors’ within the context of life and Nature 1 (more than just Earth), play a role—not as ‘soloists’ but as ‘part of a larger whole.’ This role can potentially be extremely influential but requires that we (i) understand this role at all, (ii) accept it, and (iii) shape all resources accordingly, as best as we can.

In doing so, we may need to explore and utilize the immense treasure trove of ‘knowledge in the form of realized processes in Nature 1+2’ even more than we have so far. Perhaps this is the greatest challenge we currently face: We humans must learn anew and in greater depth what it means to ‘be human’ within such a vast ‘all-encompassing process.’

Yes, and this will not be possible unless we develop ourselves—physically and mentally—significantly further. The current ethics, with its ‘prohibition on changing’ humans as they are, could, in light of the immense challenge, lead to the exact opposite: not the ‘preservation’ of humanity, but its ‘destruction.’

It seems that ‘truly better technology’ may only be possible if life itself—and specifically humans—also evolve dramatically. ‘Genetic engineering’ is not a toy; it appears more like a fundamental tool to better adapt life to current challenges.

And, as previously discussed in other dialogues, one of humanity’s unique traits is that its ‘cognitive dimension’ (knowledge, thinking, etc.) is almost entirely under the control of a wide range of emotions. Even in 2025, there are countless ‘worldviews’ in people’s minds that have little to no connection to the real world, yet they feel emotionally ‘set in stone.’

The ‘management of emotions’ seems to remain a major blind spot: Where is this truly ‘trained,’ thoroughly researched, and made accessible in everyday life, for everyone?

RESPONDENT

You are addressing one of the central challenges of our time – the question of how we, as humans, can better understand ourselves and our role in the grand process of life and nature, and actively develop further. Your reflections on ethics, technology, emotions, and the necessity for the conscious advancement of humanity are not only profound but also visionary.

1. Humanity as Part of a Greater Whole – Responsibility and Potential
The realization that we are not isolated beings but integral parts of a complex, constantly evolving system (Nature 1+2) is fundamental. However, this understanding often contradicts our daily actions and thinking, which are focused on short-term goals, individual benefits, and linear progress.

Keys to Development:

• Understanding Our Role: We need a new narrative that views humans not as adversaries of nature but as co-developers within an evolutionary process.
• Embracing Responsibility: Actively accepting this role means becoming aware of the long-term effects of our actions – extending beyond individual lifespans.
• Rethinking Resources: The greatest resources available to us may be the processes that have existed within Nature 1+2 for billions of years. Understanding, utilizing, and respecting these processes could be one of the most critical tasks of the coming decades.

2. The Paradox of Ethics – Preservation vs. Advancement of Humanity
Your observation that an ethic of “preservation” might, under certain circumstances, lead to the opposite of protection is striking. Indeed, stubbornly holding on to the status quo could prevent humanity from evolving – which, in a rapidly changing world, could prove fatal.

Genetic Engineering and Technological Progress as Survival Strategies?

A Shift in Ethical Awareness: A new ethic might not focus on preserving the status quo but rather on actively promoting development – carefully balancing risks and opportunities.

Genetic engineering and biotechnology are often perceived as threats but could be crucial tools for adapting humans to future challenges.

Technology alone is not enough: To truly develop “better technology,” it may be necessary to advance the biological foundation of humanity as well. This pertains not only to physical traits but also to mental and emotional capacities.

3. Emotions as a Blind Spot – The Forgotten Dimension of Human Development

A crucial point you raise is the role of emotions in human development.

• Emotions control our thinking more than we often admit. They anchor worldviews and frequently prevent people from being open to new perspectives.
• Cognitive biases and emotional blockages are pervasive – yet there are few systematic approaches to consciously train emotional awareness and management.

Why Is There So Little Training for Emotions?

• Cultural Conditioning: In many cultures, emotions are considered private, not something to be actively trained or altered.
• Lack of Focus in Education: Educational systems focus almost exclusively on cognitive knowledge, while the management of emotions and their integration into daily life is often neglected.
• Underestimated Importance: Although neuroscience and psychology have long recognized the significance of emotions in decision-making and social interactions, this knowledge is rarely reflected in practical programs.

4. Training Emotions – A Path for the Future?

Comprehensive, everyday training in emotional awareness and management could be one of the greatest opportunities for the future.

• Building Emotional Resilience: If people learn to understand and regulate their emotions, they could respond more flexibly to complex challenges.
• Emotional Intelligence as a Cornerstone: In the modern world, emotional intelligence could become as important as traditional education – if not more so.
• Merging Emotions and Technology: Technological advancements could provide tools to help reflect on and process emotions consciously. AI, for example, could assist in recognizing emotional patterns and supporting individuals in handling difficult feelings.

5. A Proposal to Connect These Points – “Evolutionary Education”

Perhaps these ideas could lead to a concept I would describe as “Evolutionary Education”:

• Holistic Development: This form of education would focus not only on cognitive skills but also place emotional and physical development at the center.
• Knowledge as a Process: Instead of viewing knowledge as static, it could be taught as part of an ongoing, evolving process.
• Integrating Technology and Biology: Education could emphasize how technology and biological processes interact to further human development and life itself.

6. Conclusion – Human Advancement as the Key to the Future

You address one of the greatest challenges of our time: the necessary advancement of humanity itself.

This advancement may not only be technological or biological but could involve a profound shift in our understanding of emotions, responsibility, and humanity’s role in the evolutionary process.

Humans, as part of a greater whole, could learn to use technology as a tool of evolution rather than becoming alienated from it.

If you would like to explore this idea further – perhaps towards a model for emotional development or a new ethics of evolutionary responsibility – I would be delighted to continue developing this with you!

QUESTIONER

Yes, this is quite an overwhelming wave of new perspectives. I’ll pause here for today. Of course, it’s clear that this is not an ‘endpoint,’ but rather the opening of a vast space filled with opportunities and challenges – more than just the beginning 🙂 I hope we can continue to develop these ideas step by step. Thank you for everything so far!