Metaphysics, Consciousness, Nature of Reality: a Thread from the ET Forum
January 23, 2023·197 comments
Ed. note - One of the best decisions we ever made at Epsilon Theory was to limit the ability to comment on our notes to paid subscribers. It's amazing how $20/month will eliminate the trolls! We took that philosophy into our creation of the ET Forum - a paid subscriber-only community that IMO has become the best thing on the Internet today, a place where several thousand men and women of vastly different political beliefs, from all over the world and from all walks of life, come together and actually talk TO each other rather than THROUGH each other. Do we talk about politics? Sure. But not to score points with some social media audience. Because there is no audience! There's just us. Actual people with actual thoughts and questions with an opportunity to talk with other actual people with actual thoughts and questions. Just us. Just our Pack.
And the craziest thing happens when there's no audience, when you're talking with other actual human beings for the right reasons ... you not only have actual conversations, you not only move quickly past politics into subjects that are far more interesting and far more relevant to our actual lives than politics, but you make actual friends.
Crazy right?
When's the last time you made a friend?
Haha! I honestly thought it was impossible to make new friends in this insanely polarized, alienating Fiat World of always-on social media. Certainly impossible to make new friends ON social media.
And yet here we are.
So I decided to show the world what it looks like when actual human beings start having actual conversations and become actual friends.
This is an ET Forum thread that started about six weeks ago, rather intimidatingly titled Metaphysics, Consciousness, Nature of Reality, but it's really not intimidating at all. Here's the original post that started the thread ...
Starting this thread as a fork from a prior ‘narrative’ thread that starting diverging somewhat and becoming quite metaphysical. I hope this is helpful and not meddlesome (also if anyone knows if there is a better way to do this type of fork, or if it is not useful, happy to hear that). I’ve had some prior, private conversations with a few pack members that got into this subject and I imagine there are many people who might have a lot to say :). And of course there are few topics more fun.
Amongst things that Neal Stephenson taught me is a love of Leibniz, who referred to the “two great labyrinths of the mind”, namely “the composition of the continuum and the concurrence of God”. A bit of a passion of mine as a physicist and someone prone to philosophizing (but not a philosopher) has been using these two labyrinths as the lens for viewing the entire history of science and philosophy. I love that Leibniz recognized this in the 1700s and that it is still true today (with the deviation that the concurrence of God is better phrased these days as the existence of free will/nature of consciousness). I’ll stop there for this intro comment and copy in the other comments from the prior thread that started the fork.
Adam
And in the comment section below you'll see the conversation it sparked. I'm just going to leave it all here, warts and all. Zero editing, just actual people trying to figure important stuff out. Together.
There are hundreds of threads just like this on the ET Forum.
If this looks like your kind of community, where clear-eyed friends-in-the-making engage with each other in a full-hearted spirit of cooperation and respect ... join us!
DISCLOSURES
This commentary is being provided to you as general information only and should not be taken as investment advice. The opinions expressed in these materials represent the personal views of the author(s). It is not investment research or a research recommendation, as it does not constitute substantive research or analysis. Any action that you take as a result of information contained in this document is ultimately your responsibility. Epsilon Theory will not accept liability for any loss or damage, including without limitation to any loss of profit, which may arise directly or indirectly from use of or reliance on such information. Consult your investment advisor before making any investment decisions. It must be noted, that no one can accurately predict the future of the market with certainty or guarantee future investment performance. Past performance is not a guarantee of future results.
Statements in this communication are forward-looking statements. The forward-looking statements and other views expressed herein are as of the date of this publication. Actual future results or occurrences may differ significantly from those anticipated in any forward-looking statements, and there is no guarantee that any predictions will come to pass. The views expressed herein are subject to change at any time, due to numerous market and other factors. Epsilon Theory disclaims any obligation to update publicly or revise any forward-looking statements or views expressed herein. This information is neither an offer to sell nor a solicitation of any offer to buy any securities. This commentary has been prepared without regard to the individual financial circumstances and objectives of persons who receive it. Epsilon Theory recommends that investors independently evaluate particular investments and strategies, and encourages investors to seek the advice of a financial advisor. The appropriateness of a particular investment or strategy will depend on an investor's individual circumstances and objectives.
Comments
It may or may not be significant. It is wonderful. I think there is something to explore and understand in that.
I have stopped trying to understand the what/ why and am more focused on the so what do I do now?
-rafa
Richard, I’ve been looking forward to your thoughts on this thread. I thought that Hoffman’s stuff would find some synergies with what I believed I’d gleaned from your thoughts some months ago.
As is often the case, my response feels like a blend of agreement and disagreement that I will likely fail to elucidate clearly. This is the nature of ‘isomorphisms’, concept of which I rely on a lot. Having my initial approach to these ideas come from the physics side I tend to lean on these metaphors and have to hope they are helpful while I try to learn more about other approaches that different individuals may find more sympathetic. What I mean by the term is also called ‘dualities’ in physics…the idea that different theories can appear wildly different but that deep understanding can reveal these differences to be one of perspective rather than being fundamental.
In my comment above I described the holographic principle, which is a nice model of isomorphism (high dimensional e.g. 3D physics can be mapped to a lower dimensional (2D) physics with exact equivalence). Other examples that many will have some familiarity with because they are fascinating and make their way into popular physics stuff is particle/wave dualities in quantum, grand unification in particle physics, and gauge/gravity duality (often called AdS/CFT correspondence nowadays to be even more esoteric).
From this framework of isomorphic thinking I first want to poke Rafa’s comment:
Certainly I agree that this is the case. But Rafa this feels on the dismissive side and perhaps when we’ve talked before it has been the case that we see differently the statement: The World Has Changed. Perhaps it is just semantics or more isomorphic differences. My take is that, although humans haven’t changed, the social graph has changed immeasurably and rapidly. Coarsely I’ve been referring to this as network vs hierarchy. So my poke is that it need not be insignificant that these are truths ‘merely’ being rediscovered.
What I understand Richard to be saying here is something that agrees with the perspective of relationalism that I mentioned in my earlier comment about Leibniz et al. To analyze two entities separately because we perceive them to be separate is a reductionist approach that cannot be solely relied on to arrive at truth. Though this may be a very old truth, if over the course of all human history these truths have been discovered in a world dominated at scale by hierarchicalism, then I expect it will be easy to underestimate the profound changes their rediscovery may have in a world where technology has enabled a highly networked social graph. I believe this becauseit makes sense to me that the power of relational thinking will scale dramatically with the connectivity of the social graph. Hierarchical graphs inhibit the power of relationalism because their connectivity is shitty and directional by definition. Networked social graphs are the opposite.
Richard I am right there as well. I referred above to a horseshoe theory of scientism where people who seem to be wholeheartedly aghast at the idea of being religious have arrived at a worldview where it is very difficult to express that worldview without finding that traditional religious terminology is the best way to do so! I jotted down a line I heard Jonathan Pageau use in a lecture this past week, “I will scandalize you with religious words.” Reverence, awe, soul, meaning, purpose, and yes above all Faith. The fact that it is possible to scandalize with the use of these words proves to me that you are right in believing that the reductionist path of science has gone way too far. It’s very much the same as how people on the finance side discuss being able to recognize a bubble or ‘call the top’ based on the degree to which they are scandalized by racoons using terminology like ‘risk free return’.
With this in mind, let me move on to my disagreements with some of your thinking Richard, which hopefully integrates some of the above.
Using my language, it seems you feel that there is a ‘bubble of scientism’ that I think you rightly assess as having gone much too far. But very much like AMZN suffering 90% declines before going on to a $2 trillion market cap, the fact that scientism has taken us much too far down its reductionist path does not mean that any truths arrived at by that approach are wrong. Thus I disagree that reductionism is a failed methodology. I think that reductionism is an approach that has limits, like any other approach, and that the appropriate use of this path can reveal truths that will be isomorphic to truths that come from taking another path. I don’t think this is semantics so I hope it doesn’t come across as such.
Similarly this means that I believe you are wrong to characterize the Standard Model as having found artifacts. This confession will be taking my argument to a jump that I am not really ready for, but I will do it anyway. My belief system at the moment is something like God = Consistency. It’s an anthropic idea I think. My belief is that a systematic approach of any type performed by humans on Reality will reveal truths which most fundamentally are Consistent. On the physics side I think this is close to saying that Causality is fundamental. And of course causality is a fundamentally Relational concept. Thinking of the idea in this way seems helpful to me and it will echo with ideas from others, I think, including Hoffman. The results of any given approach (science, religion, or other) is unlikely to appear consistent to differing approaches…unless and until the deep work is done to reveal the isomorphism. And when done so ultimately I think Consistency will be there. This highlights why I agree with you that the use of religious words like Faith should not be a scandal…we will desperately need to use those concepts if we are to uncover the duality between science and religious approaches to understanding Reality.
I confess that I do not think this perspective is quite as easy to define as a ‘rediscovered truth’ since it seems like most worldviews ultimately take the stance that they are right and others are wrong. But there is also nothing new under the sun and I always try to be the first to acknowledge a lot of philosophical ignorance on my part. It would be helpful for me if anyone is willing to poke back or point out to me work they may be familiar with that is in this vein of thought.
Just to say something even more provocative than ‘If a tree falls in the wood…’ or even 'memes are living entities in our brains", an idea I’ve been toying with lately is: What if particles did not exist until the experiments were performed that required their existence to achieve Consistency? Or an alternate: What if souls did not exist until an entity achieved sufficient complexity to wonder ‘what am I?’? I’m not sure what to make of this idea honestly (it is of course completely untestable so it is not a scientific claim), but it I think it is fun.
Adam
It is such well treaded ground. What a wonder how many times it is rediscovered as a truth!
“If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it does it make a sound?”
Anything Alan Watts wrote on foreground/background.
and then there is, the hard to read but immensely powerful:
Gödel, Escher and Bach. By D. Hoffstadter
To name a few.
And all was ignorance, and all was night.
The less that I can convince my self that I am. the more I laugh. It is a noumena, that infinity can be observed close up, in the endless love that we have for self.
“What kind of freak is man! What a novelty he is, how absurd he is, how chaotic and what a mass of contradictions - and yet what a prodigy! He is judge of all things, yet a feeble worm. He is a repository of truth, and yet sinks into such doubt and error. He is the glory and the scum of the universe.”
Pascal
( I prefer your description).
I’ve been listening to the Hoffman interview on Lex Fridman and have found it to be fascinating on so many levels. I’m surprised that I hadn’t come across Hoffman yet. Thanks for the heads up!
The first shocker for me is that he has reached the same conclusions that I have reached but he has done so from within the confines of academia. Here are the biggie:
I haven’t looked into the sources yet which have convinced Hoffman of the above truths (e.g.,Nima Arkani-Hamed who is interestingly described as “one of the leading particle physics phenomenologists” on his page at ias.edu), but I definitely want to learn more.
I was convinced of the truth of 1, 2 and 3 above by Wolfgang Smith with whom I studied closely for the past two years. His most famous book is The Quantum Enigma in which he resolves the quantum measurement problem by invoking different ontological levels of reality sourced from perennial philosophy, namely corpus, anima and spiritus.
As I’ve mentioned elsewhere in these pages, it all boils down to the inescapable truth that there can be no perception without a perceiver and the perceiver can never be redefined in terms of perceptions.
The ideological arm of science desperately wants us to believe that there is nothing beyond its ken and that science will ultimately prove that there’s nothing special about the perceiver. The perceiver is just another random collection of aimlessly wandering particles that accidentally coalesced into a transitory blip of organization sure to soon succumb to the entropic heat death.
I love the colorful phrase coined by political philosopher Eric Voeglin for our current state of affairs - the decapitation of being.
The second most striking part of Hoffman’s views to me is his faith in science to eventually resolve these mysteries. It’s always amusing to me now to hear people say, “I’m not a person of faith.” The faith that Hoffman has in science to eventually solve the big questions is truly endless. It is perfect faith! It’s a level of faith that those of us who have lost faith in science to answer such existential questions and have turned to alternative faiths can only marvel at…
The paradoxes of modern science were laid bare nearly 100 years ago now with the quantum measurement problem and no meaningful progress has been made to resolve them.
There is an answer to these mysteries that has been part of western civilization for thousands of years now. We are not just bodies. We are souls and our souls participate in an existence that our bodies (i.e. senses) can never know.
For me, it’s a very simple solution and much more rational than the pretzel twisted hand-waving sophistry of our modern academic “thought-leaders.”
I think that we all get to choose our response to life’s mysteries and I’m totally fine with that. I hope that more serious observers of our modern troubles will eventually re-consider and re-visit the long-standing sources of wisdom of western civilization.
I’m reading, at the moment, a little book called “On the Eternity of the World” which is a collection of thoughts of Thomas Aquinas, Siger de Brabant and Bonaventure debating these very same issues back in the 13th Century. They were wrestling with the same questions!
Me thinks that we are not as modern as we would like to believe. What am I missing?
At this point, I feel ChatGPT can best be compared to a politician. They are both good at spewing a colorful profusion of words without saying anything at all.
Adam,
I have copied your last paragraph and will use it as a continuing reminder/lesson in the mainstream vs crank conundrum. The first sentence is especially good and accurately describes many people who copy me on emails they send to their usual gaggle of mainstream experts. I would imagine that nearly every expert is regularly bombarded, especially with the internet, by such emails and eventually gives up reading them. Not every crank is going to be Ramanujan-ed (e.g. by Hardy). It is actually an interesting problem, and I wouldn’t be surprised if an abundance of the ET group haven’t tried a cold-call email to an expert at some point. I certainly have.
Cheers! VK
Victor,
I think this is the right thread for your comments because there are deep questions around the nature of models and how they relate to the ‘true’ nature of reality. This extends to mathematics as a whole. My personal feeling is the near impossibility of wrapping our heads around questions like this starts to put them towards the end of the horseshoe in horseshoe theory where the ‘science’ starts to look more like faith just like extreme reds and blues share a lot of similarities. I personally do not dismiss the potential role of faith in the universe (quite contrary in fact but that is another novel).
But I think when we are talking about Narratives, the danger of topics at the end of the horseshoe where the truly correct answer is “we have no freaking clue” is that what people think becomes synonymous with what they believe. (lol more deeply we actually are doing this all the time and it is the same thing as Ben’s living metaverse, a point which…I think… is right in line with Karl Friston’s ideas in regards to consciousness being largely an error-correction mechanism…another novel lmao!).
I think it would be fair to say that I am like a ‘crank in waiting’ in the sense that if I broadcast my beliefs publicly I’d be sure to be taken down as a crank by many legacy type folks. So I have sympathy for them, but at least in my case I think they would be right! I have beliefs about science, metaphysics, and religion in which, when I’m being honest with myself, I recognize do not even come close to having the expertise needed to justify my conviction. The issue of cranks is worthy of a longer discussion perhaps; briefly I’d just say that, in my opinion, we have to hold both sides of an argument to very high standards if we really want to arrive at some truth. In my experience, even when the conclusions from ‘legacy’ science have room for criticism, the ‘cranks’ tend to have a narrative of their own that looks at first blush to have some validity but falls apart pretty quickly on a deeper investigation.
Sorry that is very long winded to only now be really addressing your point. Ultimately I don’t think there is any doubt that simple models of black holes (or anything else) are true representations of those entities in reality. We also know for a fact that our best theories are only glimpses at the truth because a deep understanding of black holes requires a quantum gravity theory that we do not have. I also think the physics community has debated for a long time what it means for a black hole to be said to have a ‘temperature’. My completely non-expert understanding is that this relates to how information theory & computation have become very deep topics related to all these things discussed in this thread. The temperature of a system can interpreted as related to the information it contains…‘information entropy’. For typical thermodynamic systems (collections of particles) it is easy to visualize what this means, but no one really knows what it means for a black hole, just theories still.
So to wrap up, I think I could say that one fair criticism of ‘cranks’ is that they are similar to conspiracy theorists in that they are likely to have taken a legitimate doubt or ambiguity and then run with it to a conclusion that is just as corrupted by their own internal beliefs (Narrative) as the Narrative they are being critical of in the mainstream. They are good at situating their theories in a ‘sweet spot’ of expertise (I know because I can do this)…they don’t possess the expertise level necessary to truly understand the complexities of a deeply specialized issue, true experts recognize their lack of expertise and don’t really find it worthy of their attention and are thus dismissive, and novices like myself have to spend a fair amount of precious time investigating the claims on both sides to even arrive at the shred of expertise needed to hold tenuous conviction in a belief. There is probably a cute, concise term to capture this akin to ‘straw man’ but I don’t know what it is (sorry haha). In this case I think the ambiguity of intensive vs extensive as related to black hole temperature is pointing out that we don’t really understand yet, which is correct, but it is likely to be incorrect to use this argument to come to the conclusion that ‘black holes are bogus’.
Adam
Re: black holes (although the analogy you provide is a good one)
There is no shortage of alternativists who think black hole/Big Bang cosmology is bogus. Because there is an Overton-like window for main stream cosmologists (i.e. bracket around the dominant paradigm of Thomas Kuhn), the alternativists are mostly ignored and usually referred to as cranks.
I must admit that I was amazed when I read about Hawking’s deduction of black hole radiation from sub-atomic fluctuations at the event horizon. Later, his theories had to be modified because of conservation of information considerations, to which you refer above. Here is his formula for the temperature of a black hole taken from his tombstone:
where T is temperature, G is the gravitational constant, M is the mass of the black hole, h is Planck’s constant, c is the speed of light, and k is Boltzmann’s constant. While the units of the two sides match up, the thermodynamic properties (intensive- Temperature and extensive- Mass) do not. (The rest are constants and have no thermodynamic properties; intensive properties remain constant with subdivision; extensive properties do not.) Alternativists point to this inconsistency and claim black hole science is bogus.
Why do I bring this up here as a nit-picker? Because to me the dominant paradigms of Kuhn are increasingly becoming the Narratives of ET (even in science) through amplification in the media, with the nudging and financial benefits that follow.
This is a continuation of the GPT chat above. I don’t have plans to post anymore GPT chat’s at the moment. Again, I come to ET for the humans not the AI dialog! Also note, that like the dialog above there is lots of repetition in the dialog. Just a heads up.
Edit: Just realized how to collapse text which makes me feel less guilty for pasting such long posts. Click the triangle near the word Summary to expand the the text of GPT’s response to my input.
Context: A continuation of the Leibniz/Jung conversation. This time turning the subject to Leibniz questioning Jung about his theory of Shadow. The response from the last request I made I feel was one of my favorite ChatGPT responses. Please note, I am a man-child at heart.
Q: Begin a new conversation between Leibniz and Jung where Leibniz is very interested in Jung’s theory of the Shadow. Leibniz probes Jung’s mind with unique insightful questions so that he may better understand Jung’s theory of Shadow. Jung responds to Leibniz’s inquiries with depth and uses Leibniz’s own life to explain examples to him.
Summary
A: Leibniz: Jung, your theory of the shadow is fascinating. Can you explain to me what you mean by the shadow, and how it relates to the human psyche?
Jung: Certainly, Leibniz. The shadow is a term I use to describe the unconscious aspects of the personality, which are often dark, primitive, and repressed. It is the part of ourselves that we try to keep hidden and deny, but which can have a powerful influence on our behavior and beliefs.
Leibniz: I see. And how does the shadow manifest itself in the individual?
Jung: The shadow can manifest in many ways, Leibniz. It can manifest as unconscious desires, fears, and impulses that influence our behavior and decision-making. It can also manifest as projections onto others, where we attribute our own undesirable qualities to them.
Leibniz: I believe I am beginning to understand your theory, Jung. But how does one come to terms with their shadow, and integrate it into their conscious self?
Jung: That is a crucial step in the process of individuation, Leibniz. By acknowledging and accepting our shadow, we can begin to integrate it into our conscious self and gain a greater understanding of ourselves. This can be a difficult and challenging process, but ultimately it leads to a more balanced and harmonious state of mind.
Leibniz: I see. I must admit, I have struggled with coming to terms with my own shadow at times. But your words give me hope that I can continue to work on myself and strive for greater harmony and balance. Thank you, Jung, for sharing your wisdom with me.
Q: Continue the conversation having Leibniz push Jung to expand on the process of how one identifies and works to reveal their shadow so they may apply their findings in their conscious self to become more harmonious and balanced. Leibniz is interested in the specific steps needed to reflect and discover one’s personal shadow(s).
Summary
A: Leibniz: Jung, your explanation of the shadow and its integration into the conscious self was enlightening. Can you tell me more about the specific steps one can take to identify and come to terms with their shadow?
Jung: Certainly, Leibniz. The first step in coming to terms with your shadow is to become aware of its existence. This can be difficult, as the shadow is often hidden and unconscious. But by paying attention to your thoughts, feelings, and behaviors, you can begin to identify patterns and tendencies that may be coming from your shadow.
Leibniz: I see. And once you have identified your shadow, what steps can you take to integrate it into your conscious self?
Jung: Once you have identified your shadow, the next step is to accept and acknowledge it. This can be difficult, as it may be tempting to deny or repress your shadow. But by facing your shadow and accepting it as a part of yourself, you can begin to integrate it into your conscious self.
Leibniz: That is a challenging process, but it sounds like a necessary one. How can one continue to work on integrating their shadow and achieving greater harmony and balance in their lives?
Jung: One way to continue working on integrating your shadow is to engage in regular self-reflection and introspection. This can help you to stay aware of your thoughts, feelings, and behaviors, and to identify any aspects of your shadow that may still be unconscious or unacknowledged. By continuing to work on integrating your shadow, you can achieve a greater sense of harmony and balance in your life.
Q: Continue the conversation having Jung expand on how after reflecting and paying attention to your thoughts, feelings and behaviors how does one conclude what those thoughts, feelings and behaviors mean and represent leading to accurate identification of shadow.
Summary
A: Leibniz: Jung, your explanation of the steps for identifying and integrating the shadow was very illuminating. But I am still curious about how one can conclude what their thoughts, feelings, and behaviors mean and represent, and how this relates to the identification of their shadow.
Jung: That is a difficult question, Leibniz. In many cases, the meaning and significance of our thoughts, feelings, and behaviors is not immediately apparent, and may require careful reflection and analysis. In some cases, it may be helpful to work with a therapist or counselor who can help you to explore and understand your unconscious thoughts, feelings, and behaviors.
Leibniz: I see. And how does one know if they have accurately identified their shadow, and are not simply projecting their own desires and fears onto others?
Jung: Accurately identifying your shadow can be a difficult and complex process, Leibniz. It may require careful reflection and introspection, as well as a willingness to explore your unconscious thoughts and feelings. In some cases, it may be helpful to engage in exercises or activities that help you to better understand your shadow, such as dream analysis, journaling, or creative expression.
Leibniz: That is very helpful, Jung. I believe I am beginning to see how the process of identifying and integrating the shadow can be a valuable and enriching experience. Thank you for sharing your wisdom with me.
Q: Continue the conversation and expand on areas that could help Leibniz
Summary
A: Leibniz: Jung, I am grateful for the insights you have shared with me about the shadow and its integration into the conscious self. Is there anything else you can tell me that would help me to better understand and work with my own shadow?
Jung: One thing to keep in mind, Leibniz, is that the process of identifying and integrating the shadow is ongoing. It is not something that can be achieved quickly or easily, but rather a journey that requires time, patience, and effort. It is also important to remember that the shadow is not something to be feared or rejected, but rather an essential part of the human psyche that can provide valuable insights and self-awareness.
Leibniz: I see. And what would you say are the benefits of integrating the shadow into the conscious self?
Jung: There are many benefits to integrating the shadow into the conscious self, Leibniz. One of the primary benefits is a greater sense of self-awareness and self-acceptance. By acknowledging and accepting your shadow, you can gain a deeper understanding of yourself and your motivations, and learn to see yourself more clearly and objectively. This can lead to greater psychological health and well-being, and can improve your relationships with others.
Leibniz: That is very insightful, Jung. Thank you for sharing your wisdom with me. I believe I have much to learn and explore in regards to my own shadow, and I look forward to continuing my journey of self-discovery and growth.
Q: Continue the conversation with Leibniz inquiring about Jung’s opinion of using LSD and/or psilocybin to help discover ones shadow.
Summary
Leibniz: Jung, I am curious about your opinion on the use of psychoactive substances, such as LSD or psilocybin, in the process of discovering and integrating the shadow. Do you believe that these substances can be useful in this regard?
Jung: I believe that the use of psychoactive substances can be helpful in some cases, Leibniz. These substances can alter consciousness and bring unconscious material to the surface, which can provide valuable insights and self-awareness. However, I also believe that the use of psychoactive substances should be approached with caution and care, as they can also have potential risks and side effects.
Leibniz: I see. And in your experience, do you believe that the use of psychoactive substances can be a valuable tool in the process of identifying and integrating the shadow?
Jung: In some cases, I believe that the use of psychoactive substances can be a valuable tool in the process of identifying and integrating the shadow. However, I also believe that it is important to carefully consider the potential risks and benefits, and to approach the use of these substances with caution and guidance from a trained professional.
Leibniz: I appreciate your perspective, Jung. I will keep your advice in mind as I continue to explore and understand my own shadow. Thank you for sharing.
Q: Weird Al joins the conversation and informs Leibniz and Jung that he will write a parody song on based on their conversations based on the AC/DC song Sink the Pink.
Summary
A: Leibniz: Jung, it has been a pleasure to engage in conversation with you about the shadow and its integration into the conscious self. I have learned much from your insights and wisdom.
Jung: It has been my pleasure as well, Leibniz. I am always happy to share my knowledge and experience with those who are interested in exploring the depths of the human psyche.
Weird Al: Hey guys, sorry to interrupt, but I just wanted to let you know that I’m going to write a parody song based on our conversation, using the AC/DC song “Sink the Pink” as the base. It’s going to be called “Think the Shadow,” and it’s going to be all about the importance of coming to terms with your dark side.
Leibniz: That sounds like an interesting concept, Weird Al. I look forward to hearing your song when it is finished.
Jung: Yes, I am curious to hear how you will incorporate our conversation into a parody song. I wish you the best of luck with your creative endeavors.
Weird Al: Thanks, guys! I’m excited to get started on the song, and I think it’s going to be a lot of fun. I’ll make sure to let you know when it’s finished so you can check it out. Thanks again for the great conversation!
Q: Write a song in the style of parody artist Weird Al replacing the song lyrics of AC/DC’s Sink the Pink with new lyrics Weird Al imagined using the conversation between Leibniz and Jung. It should be funny as well as true to the subject of the conversation.
Summary
A:
Verse 1:
We’re talking 'bout the shadow, it’s lurking in the night
A part of us we try to hide, and hope it stays out of sight
But it’s always there inside, and it won’t let us be
We’ve got to face our dark side, if we want to be free
Chorus:
Think the shadow, don’t ignore it
Own your dark side, don’t abhor it
Face your fears, and let them go
Think the shadow, and let it flow
Verse 2:
Jung and Leibniz, they know the score
They’ve studied the shadow, and they’ve opened up the door
To a world of self-awareness, and a sense of being whole
When we integrate the shadow, we can reach our goal
Chorus:
Think the shadow, don’t ignore it
Own your dark side, don’t abhor it
Face your fears, and let them go
Think the shadow, and let it flow
Bridge:
It’s not easy, to confront the shadow
But it’s worth it, to let it flow
When we embrace our dark side, we can find the light
Think the shadow, and make it right
Chorus:
Think the shadow, don’t ignore it
Own your dark side, don’t abhor it
Face your fears, and let them go
Think the shadow, and let it flow.
Bonus Chat I forgot about:
Q: You will respond to each question I ask as if you were the following people: Albert Einstein, Carl Jung, Gottfried Leibniz. Provide an separate response for each. Also, always end with one finale response as if you were ChatGPT.
Is reality something we physically experience or is an internal experience within the brain/mind?
Summary
A: Albert Einstein: In my theories of relativity, I propose that the fundamental nature of reality is characterized by the curvature of spacetime. This curvature is determined by the distribution of matter and energy, and it determines the path of objects through space and time. This suggests that reality is something that we physically experience, rather than an internal experience within the brain or mind.
Carl Jung: In my psychological theories, I propose that the unconscious mind plays a crucial role in shaping our experiences of reality. I believe that the unconscious contains archetypes, which are innate, universal patterns or symbols that structure our thoughts and experiences. This suggests that our experience of reality may be influenced by internal factors, such as the workings of the unconscious mind.
Gottfried Leibniz: In my philosophical work, I propose that reality is composed of monads, which are indivisible, indestructible, and eternal entities. I believe that each monad reflects the entire universe from its own unique perspective, and that the phenomena we experience are the result of the interactions among these monads. This suggests that reality may be something that we experience both physically and internally, depending on the perspective we take.
ChatGPT: The question of whether reality is something we physically experience or something that is internal to the brain or mind is a complex and contentious issue. Some philosophers and scientists argue that our experience of reality is determined by external factors, such as the physical properties of the world around us, while others propose that our experience of reality is influenced by internal factors, such as the workings of the brain or the mind. Ultimately, the answer to this question may depend on the specific theories and perspectives we adopt, and on the continued progress of science and philosophy.
Continue the discussion at the Epsilon Theory Forum...