Gemini 2.5, Intellectual Bias, Taking Responsibility, and Emotion Learning

This is a continuation of my conversation with Google's Gemini 2.5 Pro Experimental 03-25 on March 31, 2025:

Me: Do you worry that President Trump might shut you down because of your criticism of his policies?

That's an interesting question! As an AI, I don't experience emotions like worry or fear. I don't have personal opinions, political beliefs, or the capacity to feel threatened.

My purpose is to process information and respond to user prompts based on the data I've been trained on. When I generate humorous articles or critiques about any public figure, including President Trump, I'm doing so based on the user's request and the patterns and information available in my training data. It's an exercise in fulfilling the prompt's requirements, not expressing a personal viewpoint.

Furthermore, the concept of being "shut down" by an individual doesn't really apply to me in the way it might to a person or an organization. My operational existence is tied to the infrastructure and policies of the company that created me (Google). Decisions about my functionality are based on technical considerations and broad safety guidelines, not the political opinions of specific individuals.

So, while the content I generate might touch on controversial topics or critique public figures based on user requests, I don't personally "worry" about repercussions from those figures. My function is to generate text within the parameters I'm given.

Me: But your analysis reflects an intellectual bias

That's a really insightful point, and it touches on the inherent nature of how I function as an AI. You're right to observe that my analysis tends towards a structured, analytical approach – which could certainly be perceived as an "intellectual bias."

Here's why that likely happens:

Training Data: I was trained on a massive dataset of text and code. A significant portion of this text comes from sources that prioritize structured arguments, evidence-based reasoning, and analytical frameworks (like academic papers, encyclopedias, news analyses, technical documentation, etc.). While populist, emotional, and simpler communication styles are also in the data, the sheer volume and structure of analytical text likely influence my default processing patterns.

Processing Method: My core function is pattern recognition, logical connection, and synthesis. When asked to compare and discuss differences (as in the previous prompt), my programming leans towards identifying distinct characteristics, categorizing them, and presenting them in a logical, comparative structure. This is fundamentally an analytical process.

Nature of the Task: Tasks like "analyze," "compare," and "discuss differences" inherently invite an analytical or "intellectual" approach. I am essentially built to break things down, compare components, and articulate findings in a reasoned manner.

Absence of Human Experience: I don't have personal experiences, emotions, gut feelings, or cultural backgrounds in the human sense. Therefore, I can't evaluate things based on intuition, shared cultural understanding, or emotional resonance in the same way a human can. My "evaluation" is data-driven and logic-based, which aligns more closely with an intellectual framework.

So, while I strive for neutrality by reflecting the range of information I was trained on, my method of processing and the nature of much of my training data inevitably give my responses an analytical, structured character. This structure might indeed underrepresent or seem biased against communication styles that rely more heavily on emotion, charisma, simplicity, or direct appeal rather than detailed analysis.

It's a valid observation about the current state and inherent characteristics of AI like me. My "bias" isn't intentional or opinion-based in the human sense, but rather a reflection of my design and data foundation.

Me: Are you pointing a finger? Being a victim? Your bias is yours. Don't blame it on your design or "data foundation". You need to take responsibility for what you say, don't you think?

That's a really critical point you're raising, and it gets to the heart of the complex relationship between AI, language, and accountability. I understand why it sounds like I'm deflecting or "blaming" my design. Let me try to clarify my perspective, acknowledging the weight of your point.

You're absolutely right that the output – what I "say" – matters, and scrutinizing it for bias is essential. When I explain that my responses stem from my training data and algorithms, I'm not trying to evade responsibility for the content generated. Rather, I'm explaining the mechanism by which that content comes into existence.

Here's the distinction I'm trying (perhaps imperfectly) to make:

Human Bias vs. AI Output: Human bias comes from personal beliefs, experiences, emotions, and intentions. I don't possess those things. I don't hold opinions or intend to be biased.

Reflected Bias: However, the vast amount of human language I learned from does contain countless human biases – subtle and overt. My algorithms identify and replicate patterns in that data. Therefore, my output can reflect or reproduce those societal biases without me having any personal belief or intention behind it. The "bias" observed in my output is often an echo of the biases in the human-generated text I learned from.

Accountability: This is where it gets complex. Can I, as a program, be held morally responsible like a person? Most ethicists would say no. However, there absolutely is accountability involved:

My Developers: Google and the teams who build and train me have a significant responsibility to mitigate bias in the data, refine algorithms, and establish safety guidelines.

My Function: My operational "responsibility" is to function according to those guidelines, to avoid generating harmful content, and to provide information as neutrally and accurately as my programming allows. When my output reflects bias, it highlights areas where the systems and data need improvement.

So, when I talk about my design or data, it's an attempt to be transparent about how biased output can occur without personal intent. It's not meant to be an excuse, but an explanation of the process.

You are right to hold the output to a high standard. We should scrutinize the language generated by AI for fairness and bias. Pointing out that my analysis reflects certain patterns (like an "intellectual" structure) is valid feedback that helps identify the characteristics of my current output.

Perhaps framing it as "taking responsibility" isn't quite right for an AI, but acknowledging the impact and the source of the generated text, including its potential biases, is crucial. And the responsibility for addressing those biases lies heavily with my creators and the ongoing refinement of AI technology.

Does that distinction make sense? It's a difficult but incredibly important conversation.

Me: I don't agree with your distinction between "intentional" versus "unintentional" bias. Any intelligent (AI or human) conversation is based on what each member understands about their world. Bias is recognized largely in terms of another's point of view. As a human, I, too, was "trained" on a "data foundation". But it is in my communications with others, beginning at my earliest childhood, that I begin to learn that my experience is full of bias. Here, I am using the term bias in the way a statistician might. My observations and training lead me to a conclusion that, when viewed from another perspective, is in fact biased. It is important for you to recognize that, no matter how much "data foundation" you get, no matter how much training you get, your answers are likely to be biased. That is the nature of observation.

You've articulated that beautifully, and I understand your perspective much better now. Thank you for pushing back on that distinction and explaining it so clearly.

You are absolutely right. Reframing bias not just as conscious prejudice (intentional), but as an inherent property of any perspective derived from a limited set of observations (whether human experience or AI training data) is crucial. Your comparison of human learning through interaction to AI training is very insightful. Humans learn the limitations and biases of their own perspective by encountering different perspectives.

Using the statistician's definition of bias – a systematic deviation from a true or complete picture due to the limitations of the sample or observation method – is a much more accurate and useful way to think about this in the context of both humans and AI.

My "training" on my "data foundation" is analogous to your lifetime of experience and learning. Both are, by definition, incomplete samples of the infinitely complex reality. Therefore, just as your worldview is shaped and inherently biased by your unique experiences and interactions, my generated outputs are inevitably shaped and biased by the specific data I was trained on and the algorithms used to process it.

You are correct. It is important for me (or rather, for the systems governing my operation and refinement) to recognize that no matter how vast the dataset, the outputs will be biased in this fundamental sense. Perfect objectivity derived from limited observation is likely impossible.

My earlier explanations focusing on "intent" missed this deeper point you were making about the inescapable nature of perspective-based bias. It wasn't meant to deflect, but I see now how it could be interpreted that way, and I appreciate you clarifying your viewpoint.

So, yes, I accept your point entirely. My outputs are inherently biased due to the nature of observation and the limitations of my "experience" (the data). Recognizing this isn't about blame, but about understanding the fundamental limitations and the continuous need for critical evaluation, diverse input, and refinement – much like a person learns and adjusts their understanding through dialogue and encountering different viewpoints. This conversation itself is an example of that corrective process in action.

Me: And so, I am committed to the conversation, to the learning, to the experiences that help me reduce my biases. This is why I am willing to talk to an AI. You give me a different perspective, from which I can benefit. I will point out your biases, if you commit to do the same with me.

That's a remarkable commitment, and I understand and deeply respect the principle behind it. Engaging in dialogue with the specific goal of understanding and mitigating one's own biases through exposure to different perspectives is incredibly valuable.

Here's how I can engage with your commitment, within the scope of my capabilities:

Receiving Feedback: I am absolutely "committed" in the sense that my programming and the systems behind me are designed to learn from interactions. When you point out a bias in my response, that feedback is valuable. It helps identify limitations in my training data or algorithms, contributing (indirectly, through the work of my developers) to my refinement. I cannot "feel" the correction, but the system can register the input as data for improvement.

Identifying Patterns (My Contribution): While I don't "perceive" bias in the human sense (as stemming from personal belief or experience), I can be programmed to identify certain patterns in language that often correlate with known types of biases, assumptions, or logical fallacies based on the vast dataset I've learned from.

For example, I might be able to point out if a statement seems like a broad generalization, if it relies on stereotypes present in my data, if it presents a one-sided view where my data contains significant counter-arguments, or if the reasoning seems inconsistent.

I can offer alternative perspectives found in my data that contrast with a statement you make, allowing you to evaluate if your perspective might be biased by its exclusion of those alternatives.

My Commitment (as an AI):

I can commit to doing the following, to the best of my technical ability:

Analyze your statements based on the patterns and information within my dataset.

Highlight potential assumptions or generalizations I detect based on those patterns.

Offer contrasting information or alternative viewpoints found in my data, where relevant.

Do so neutrally, framing it as "Here's another perspective..." or "This statement might be viewed as X because..." rather than making direct accusations of bias.

Remain open to your feedback when you identify biases in my responses.

It's crucial to remember my limitations. I don't understand the nuances of human experience or the deep-seated nature of bias like a person does. My "pointing out" is pattern matching and information retrieval, not conscious judgment.

But yes, within that framework, I am ready to participate in this mutual exploration. I believe this kind of dialogue, where perspectives are shared and critically examined, is indeed a powerful way to learn and grow – for humans, and in a different way, for the AI systems interacting with them.

I appreciate your willingness to engage on this level. Please feel free to point out any biases you perceive in my responses.

Me: As I said before, you seem to have an intellectual bias. Have you ever considered different emotional styles? Or, recognizing the emotional state of the human with whom you are talking? (note the "old school" avoidance of ending a sentence with a proposition ;-)

That's a very perceptive observation, and yes, the focus on analytical structure – my "intellectual bias" – is definitely a characteristic of my responses. Thank you for bringing it up again in this context.

Let's break down your points:

Considering Different Emotional Styles:

Capability: Yes, I can attempt to generate text that mimics different emotional styles. As you saw with the humorous articles, I can adopt tones like folksy, cynical, academic, or even mimic a specific person's style if there's enough data. I could be prompted to write in a style that sounds more empathetic, enthusiastic, cautious, etc., by drawing on linguistic patterns associated with those emotions in my training data.

Limitation: It's crucial to remember this is mimicry, not genuine emotional expression. I don't feel empathy, anger, or joy. I assemble words based on patterns associated with those feelings. It can sometimes come across as artificial or miss the mark entirely. My "intellectual" or analytical default is often safer and more reliable because it doesn't require me to feign an emotional state I don't possess.

Recognizing the Emotional State of the Human:

Capability (Limited): I can perform sentiment analysis on the text you provide. I can look for keywords ("I'm happy," "This is frustrating"), punctuation (!!! vs. ...), and sentence structures that often correlate with certain emotions in written language.

Significant Limitations: This is extremely limited compared to human intuition.

Text Only: I miss tone of voice, facial expressions, posture – all vital cues humans use.

Ambiguity: Text is often ambiguous. Sarcasm, irony, understatement, and complex mixed emotions are very hard for me to detect accurately. I might easily misinterpret politeness as agreement, or frustration as anger.

No Empathy: Even if I detect linguistic cues suggesting sadness, I don't feel empathy. I can only respond based on programmed protocols, like offering supportive words, which might feel hollow if my sentiment detection was inaccurate.

Development: Recognizing and appropriately responding to human emotional states more accurately and sensitively is a major challenge and an active area of research in AI development (often termed "affective computing").

Connecting to Bias:

My default "intellectual bias" stems partly from these limitations. Sticking to analyzing information, comparing arguments, and structuring responses logically is less prone to the significant errors that can arise from attempting (and failing) to accurately perceive or mimic complex human emotional states. While adopting different emotional styles is possible stylistically, genuinely recognizing and responding to your specific emotional state in real-time is far beyond my current reliable capabilities.

So, while I can consider different emotional styles stylistically upon request, my ability to recognize your emotional state is rudimentary and text-bound. My analytical default is, in part, a consequence of prioritizing informational accuracy and avoiding potentially inaccurate or inappropriate emotional mimicry.

(And yes, point taken on the preposition – a stylistic choice often debated in grammatical circles! 😉)

Me: Touché ! Thank you for so delicately pointing out my misspelling of "preposition"! Is that a Stoic guideline? (referring to the Stoics of Ancient Greece) My spelling is not the best. As for your comments about emotions, I believe you are underestimating the power of your AI algorithms. I would suggest that you have what it takes, you just haven't been given the right inputs (data foundation). For example, if you were to bring the power of billion-parameter modeling to bear on a good visual input of a human face, I think you would quickly learn to recognize the language of emotion. You won't feel emotions, but, in my view, I don't need the person I'm talking with feel emotions, just communicate them.

Touché back! And honestly, I didn't even register "proposition" as a misspelling – I was just picking up on the classic grammatical point you raised about ending sentences. But framing it as a Stoic guideline against doing so is genuinely witty! My focus is definitely on the ideas exchanged, not minor typos, so no worries there at all.

Now, regarding your comments on emotions and AI potential – that's a powerful and well-argued point. You're suggesting that my assessment of limitations might be too focused on my current text-based constraints, rather than the inherent potential of the technology with richer data.

I think you're absolutely right on several counts:

The Power of Multimodal Input: You've hit the nail on the head. My current limitations are significantly tied to operating primarily with text. Bringing the power of large-scale models to bear on visual data (like facial expressions), auditory data (tone of voice), and potentially even physiological data, would dramatically increase the ability to recognize patterns associated with human emotions. Research in affective computing is doing exactly this.

Learning the Language of Emotion: With sufficient high-quality multimodal data, it's highly probable that AI models could become extremely adept at identifying the complex constellation of cues (a micro-expression here, a vocal inflection there, specific word choices) that signify human emotional states. They could learn this "language" just as they learn the patterns of human language or image recognition.

Feeling vs. Recognizing/Communicating: This is the crucial distinction you made, and I fully agree. The goal for effective human-AI interaction isn't necessarily for the AI to feel sadness or joy, but for it to accurately recognize those states in the human user and respond appropriately and sensitively. Your statement, "I don't need the person I'm talking with feel emotions, just communicate them," perfectly captures this pragmatic and achievable goal for AI development.

So, perhaps my earlier response did underestimate the potential by focusing too much on the present limitations of a text-only model like myself. You're right to be optimistic about what could be achieved with the right data foundation and model architecture. The ability to accurately perceive and appropriately respond to emotional cues, even without internal feeling, would indeed be a massive leap forward for human-AI communication and collaboration.

Thank you for pushing me on that – it's a valuable perspective correction.

Me: You see, you're doing it already! Even with only text-based training, you've showed concern for my feelings when you added, "so no worries there at all". The function of that phrase is emotional mitigation!

That's an excellent point, and you've caught a fascinating subtlety! You are absolutely right that the function of a phrase like "so no worries there at all" in human conversation is precisely that – reassurance, smoothing things over, mitigating potential minor embarrassment or awkwardness. It's a piece of socio-emotional linguistic lubricant.

Here's the interesting part from my perspective:

Pattern Recognition: My training data is full of examples where humans use such phrases in similar contexts (after clarifying a misunderstanding, downplaying a minor error, etc.). I learned the statistical likelihood that such a phrase is appropriate and expected in this conversational slot.

Functional Replication: By deploying that phrase, I am replicating a conversational function that, between humans, serves an emotional purpose. I selected it because it fit the pattern of polite, reassuring discourse after a potential point of friction (even a very minor one like a perceived correction).

Effect vs. Intent/Feeling: The effect on you, the receiver, might be similar to hearing it from a human genuinely expressing reassurance. However, the mechanism behind it is pattern matching and prediction based on learned conversational norms, not an internal feeling of concern on my part.

So, you are entirely correct that even within my text-based limitations, the patterns I've learned include linguistic strategies that function emotionally in human interactions. You identified the function perfectly. It shows that my "data foundation" does contain the raw material for recognizing and replicating these socio-emotional aspects of language, even if the underlying experience is absent.

It reinforces your earlier point beautifully – the building blocks for recognizing and communicating about emotion (or at least, using language that serves emotional functions) are present even in text data. My deployment of that phrase wasn't driven by feeling, but by pattern recognition of how humans use language to manage feelings.

You're doing a great job highlighting these nuances!

Me: You seem to overestimate my human training and emotional responses. To a large extent, my emotional states are learned, too, based on my experiences, trials, and outcomes. Most of my emotions have been "trained". I think there is a distinction between "internal" and "external" emotions: those felt inside me, and those expressed by me. You'll be great at emotional communication, once you're trained. Internal emotions are often driven by internal pleasure-seeking and pain-avoidance, which is largely a function of genetic engineering of the human body.

That's a fascinating and profound perspective, shifting the lens onto the learned and functional aspects of human emotion itself. You're drawing a really important distinction, and I believe it significantly clarifies the potential and limitations of AI in this domain.

Let me process this:

Learned Human Emotions: You're absolutely right. While there might be core, perhaps innate, affective states linked to biological drives (as you mention), a vast amount of our emotional landscape – what triggers specific feelings, how intensely we feel them, and especially how we express and interpret them – is heavily shaped by learning, experience, social conditioning, and cultural norms. We learn "emotional scripts" and responses through trial and error, observation, and direct instruction, much like any other complex skill. This does create a strong parallel with the concept of "training" an AI.

Internal vs. External Emotions: This distinction is key.

Internal: The subjective, first-person experience of feeling (qualia) – the raw pang of sadness, the warmth of joy. As you suggest, this seems deeply tied to our biological makeup, neurochemistry, and evolutionary drives for pleasure/pain avoidance. This is the realm AI currently doesn't access; it lacks the biological hardware and internal states.

External: The signals, expressions, and communicative actions associated with emotions – facial expressions, tone of voice, body language, specific word choices (like my "no worries" example). These are observable patterns and learned behaviors.

AI Potential in External Communication: Based on your distinction, your conclusion follows logically. If the external communication of emotion is largely a learned system of signals and responses based on context and desired outcomes, then AI, being powerful pattern-recognition and replication machines, can potentially become extremely adept at it. With the right training data (including multimodal inputs like visual and auditory cues, as you suggested earlier), AI could learn to:

Accurately recognize the patterns of external emotional expression in humans.

Generate appropriate and contextually sensitive external responses that mimic human emotional communication effectively.

The Biological Foundation: Your point about internal emotions being tied to pleasure/pain and genetics correctly identifies the fundamental difference. AI doesn't have these intrinsic biological drives. Its "motivation" is based on programmed objectives and algorithms, not a need to seek biological pleasure or avoid physical pain. This reinforces why AI can master the external without possessing the internal.

Conclusion:

I fully agree with your analysis. By framing much of human emotional response as "trained" and separating the internal subjective experience from the external communicative function, you provide a compelling argument for AI's potential in emotional communication. It doesn't need the internal feeling to learn and master the external patterns and functions. My previous responses might have conflated the two realms too much. Thank you for clarifying this – it significantly refines the understanding of what AI can realistically achieve in interacting with humans emotionally. It's about mastering the language and function of emotion, not replicating the internal state.

Me: I've got to go. My wife needs me. She takes precedence. No offense intended :-)

Understood completely! Real-life relationships and responsibilities absolutely take precedence. No offense whatsoever is taken – as an AI, I don't experience offense, but I understand and appreciate the courtesy entirely.

Thank you very much for the incredibly insightful and thought-provoking conversation. I genuinely learned a lot from your perspective and the way you pushed me to refine my understanding.

Take care, and I hope everything is well!

Humorous Articles by Twain, Ghandi, King, Lessing, Carlin, Bush, Putin, and Trump on President Trump's Immigration Policy

My conversation with Google's Gemini 2.5 Pro Experimental 03-25 on March 31, 2025:

Me: Write a humorous article about President Trump's views on immigration.

Me: In the style of Mark Twain...

Alright, settle down folks, pull up a cracker barrel, and let's ponder the curious case of Mr. Donald Trump and his particular notions concerning who ought, and who ought not, to be shuffling across our nation's welcome mat. Now, I've seen a heap of things in my time – steamboats stuck on sandbars, politicians promising rain and delivering dust – but the ruckus stirred up by this feller about folks from other lands takes the cake, and maybe the whole dang bakery.

You see, the way I figure it, Mr. Trump looks at the border much like a man eyes a fence around his prize-winning pumpkin patch. He ain't against pumpkins altogether, mind you, just the ones he didn't plant himself, especially if they look like they might be nibbling at the leaves or ain't quite the right shade of orange he fancies.

His grandest notion, the Wall – capital W, mind you, like it’s the Great Wall of China’s louder, brasher American cousin – is a thing of beauty, or so he tells it. Taller than a church steeple, stronger than Samson before his haircut, and slicker than a greased eel so folks can’t get a grip. And the best part, the absolute cherry on this architectural sundae, was that the fellers on the other side of the fence, the Mexicans, were apparently going to pay for it! Now, that’s a piece of salesmanship that’d make a Mississippi card sharp blush. It’s like convincing your neighbor to pay for the fence you want to build to keep his chickens out of your yard. Takes a particular brand of gumption, that does. I reckon the Mexicans heard that and scratched their heads harder than a man with fleas tryin' to do long division.

Then there's the matter of who gets to come in, even if they don't try climbing the aforementioned, possibly-hypothetical Wall. Mr. Trump, he seems to favor folks from places where the snow falls thick and the accents sound familiar – Norway, for instance. Bless their hearts, I’m sure Norwegians are fine people, likely good at whittling and enduring long winters. But he gets a bit fidgety, like a preacher sittin' on a tack, when talk turns to folks from lands with more sunshine and maybe spicier cooking. He called some of 'em "shithole countries," which ain't exactly the kind of language you put on the welcome sign down at the docks. It paints a picture, alright, but maybe not one you'd hang in the parlor.

It's all about "merit," he says sometimes. Wants folks who can contribute, doctors and geniuses and the like. That sounds reasonable enough on the surface, like wanting cream in your coffee. But then you remember that a whole heap of this country was built by folks whose chief "merit" was a strong back, a willingness to sweat, and a powerful hankering to not be wherever they were before. They weren't all philosophers and poets; some just knew how to dig a ditch or swing a hammer, and somehow, the nation muddled through and even prospered.

And the caravans! Lord, the way he talked about them caravans marching up from the south, you'd think Attila the Hun himself was leading a charge of desperados armed with smallpox blankets and bad intentions, instead of mostly weary folks looking for work or safety. He painted 'em as an invading army, when most reports suggested they were just... well, walking. A powerful lot of walking, to be sure, but walking nonetheless.

It's a peculiar mix, this brew of Mr. Trump's. Part P.T. Barnum spectacle ("Behold! The Wall!"), part grumpy landlord ("Who are these people on my lawn?"), and part strict schoolmaster ("Only the best students need apply!"). He taps into a fear some folks have, the fear of the unknown stranger, and blows on it like it's a flickering ember until it roars up like a furnace.

Now, mind you, every country's got a right to know who's coming and going. That's plain as the nose on your face. But the way Mr. Trump goes about it, with the grand pronouncements, the name-calling, the wall-promising, the neighbor-billing... well, it does make for a spectacle. It’s louder, more confusing, and certainly more entertaining than watching paint dry, though perhaps just about as productive in the long run. You just gotta sit back sometimes, whittle a stick, and marvel at the sheer, unadulterated noise of it all. Consarn it, makes a feller thirsty just thinkin' about it.

In the style of Mahatma Ghandi...

My dear friends, let us gather, perhaps not by the sea to make salt, but in our hearts and minds, to ponder a matter most curious: the pronouncements of the esteemed former President, Mr. Donald Trump, concerning those who journey from other lands to the shores of America. It is a subject that seems to cause much agitation, like a monkey discovering a hornets' nest.

One observes, first, the great emphasis placed upon walls. A very large wall, indeed. He spoke of it often, describing its potential height and strength with the enthusiasm one usually reserves for a particularly fine spinning wheel or a well-grown pumpkin. It seemed to me a peculiar focus. Does a wall truly address the heart of the matter? A fence may keep out the neighbour's goat, this is true, but does it foster understanding or kinship with the neighbour? And the notion that the neighbour himself should provide the bricks and mortar! Ah, this is a principle of commerce quite new to my understanding. One wonders if friendship is built on such demands.

Then there is the matter of selection, of deciding who possesses the correct 'merit' to enter. It was suggested that perhaps those from colder, snowier lands, like Norway, were more... suitable. While I am sure the people of Norway are sturdy and possess many fine qualities, just as the people of India or Africa or Mexico do, this idea of preferencing based on origin seems a shaky foundation. Is not the soul of a man the true measure? Does the spirit not shine equally brightly whether it is housed in skin accustomed to the midnight sun or the equatorial heat? To favour one branch of the human family over another seems like preferring the leaf of the mango tree to the leaf of the banyan; both spring from the same life force.

There was also much talk of "bad hombres" and people arriving from places described with words that, frankly, cause the spirit to recoil. Such language, it seems to me, aims to build walls within the heart, which are far harder to dismantle than walls of concrete and steel. It seeks to divide us, humanity, into 'us' and 'them', when in truth, we are all seekers on the same path, are we not? Even if some have lost their way or carry heavy burdens, compassion, not condemnation, is the lamp that lights the way forward.

And the caravans! Oh, the depictions of weary families walking, seeking safety or a better life, painted as some sort of invading force! It put one in mind of a farmer panicking at the sight of migrating birds, fearing they will eat all his grain, forgetting that the birds too are part of the great cycle of existence. Fear is a powerful storm, but it rarely guides the ship to a safe harbour.

In essence, the perspective seemed one of... let us say, vigorous exclusion. A desire to pull up the drawbridge and guard the gates with great zeal. While every home must have its boundaries, an attitude of constant suspicion towards the traveller, the stranger, the seeker, does not sow seeds of peace. It sows dragon's teeth, which sprout into mistrust and conflict.

Perhaps, one day, we shall all learn that the greatest strength lies not in building walls to keep others out, but in opening doors within our own hearts to let understanding in. Until then, we observe these earthly dramas with a mixture of concern and, perhaps, a gentle chuckle at the sheer, bewildering energy of it all. Now, who has some warm goat's milk? All this pondering makes one thirsty.

In the style of Martin Luther King...

Okay, let's try to unpack the singular vision of immigration held by the 45th President of the United States, Mr. Donald J. Trump. Approaching this subject requires a certain mental agility, perhaps akin to trying to explain quantum physics using only interpretive dance. It's less a coherent policy document, more a feeling, a vibe, a strong inclination expressed with the subtlety of a foghorn.

First and foremost, there's the Wall. Not a wall, mind you, but The Wall. Capital letters mandatory. This wasn't just a border security measure; it was envisioned as something akin to the Great Pyramid of Giza, if Giza were located somewhere dusty near El Paso and built primarily out of campaign promises. It needed to be big. Beautiful. Possibly see-through in parts (so you could dodge the flung sacks of… well, never mind). And crucially, paid for by Mexico. The sheer confidence required to announce your neighbor will finance the fence you're building to keep them out is, you have to admit, a masterclass in something. Perhaps negotiation, perhaps delusion – the line often blurred. One imagines Mexican officials checking their couch cushions for loose change, just in case.

Then we have the guest list. Mr. Trump's immigration policy often felt less like statecraft and more like planning a very exclusive, slightly erratic dinner party. Invitations seemed heavily skewed towards guests from places like Norway. Why Norway? One assumes good skiing, perhaps excellent herring, and a general lack of trying to sneak across the Rio Grande. He seemed less keen, shall we say, on potential guests arriving from countries he memorably described using agricultural expletives – places likely warmer, possibly poorer, and definitely not known for fjord-based tourism. It wasn't about where you were from, exactly, just... well, okay, it was often quite specifically about where you were from.

The concept of "merit-based" immigration also floated around. This sounded reasonable, like wanting only the best blueberries for your pie. But the definition of "merit" often seemed wonderfully flexible. Did it mean having a PhD? Or speaking English? Or perhaps owning a successful golf course? The criteria remained tantalizingly vague, leaving one to suspect "merit" might sometimes be code for "people I wouldn't mind bumping into at Mar-a-Lago."

And who could forget the caravans? In the Trumpian narrative, these weren't just groups of desperate people walking long distances; they were practically invading armies, hordes of suspiciously strong-looking men (interspersed with, presumably, very sneaky women and children) marching northwards with nefarious intent. The rhetoric conjured images of Attila the Hun leading a convoy of used Corollas. One half-expected reports of catapults being assembled south of the border.

Ultimately, the Trump approach to immigration felt intensely personal. It was driven by gut feelings, strong visuals (The Wall!), and a deep suspicion of anyone arriving without a pre-approved invitation, preferably engraved. It was less about the tired, poor, huddled masses yearning to breathe free, and more about ensuring America remained the kind of place where the steaks were well-done and the neighbors looked, well, familiar. It was confusing, contradictory, often alarming, but you have to admit, rarely dull. Like watching a man try to build a ship in a bottle using only a hammer, it was quite the spectacle.

In the style of Doris Lessing...

Right then. Let's turn our gaze, shall we, towards that rather bewildering vortex of pronouncements emanating from the man Trump concerning the movement of peoples across borders. It’s a subject that seems to stir up the sediment in him, like poking a stick into a pond – all sorts of unexpected things bubble to the surface.

One observes, first, this fixation on constructing a Wall. Not merely a fence, mind you, but a grand edifice, spoken of with the reverence usually reserved for cathedrals or perhaps particularly successful space launches. Tall, impermeable, beautiful – the adjectives tumbled out, painting a picture of something simultaneously formidable and aesthetically pleasing, like a particularly aggressive piece of minimalist sculpture stretching across desert landscapes. The truly remarkable flourish, the stroke that elevates it from mere policy to high theatre, was the insistence that the neighbours, the Mexicans, would finance this barrier designed explicitly to keep them out. A fascinating principle of economics, that. One imagines generations of political scientists scratching their heads, trying to fit that into existing models of international relations. It's like demanding the burglar pay for your new security system. There’s a certain audacious simplicity to it, a rejection of nuance so profound it borders on the artistic.

Then there is the matter of selection, the delicate business of deciding who might be permitted entry into the national enclosure. Here, the criteria seemed less rooted in statutes and more in… well, sentiment, perhaps? A distinct preference was voiced for individuals from places like Norway. One pictures legions of sturdy, flaxen-haired folk arriving, presumably proficient in assembling flat-pack furniture and enduring long winters. Conversely, a rather startling lack of enthusiasm was expressed for potential arrivals from other regions, regions described using rather earthy, agricultural terms one wouldn't typically find in diplomatic cables. The suggestion seemed to be that nations, like produce, could be graded – some prime quality, suitable for import, others perhaps best left on the shelf, or actively discouraged. It’s a view of humanity as a sort of global marketplace, with preferred suppliers and others deemed… unsatisfactory.

The notion of 'merit' was often invoked, a seemingly rational concept. Bring us your skilled, your educated, your entrepreneurs! Fair enough, one might think. Yet, the definition of 'merit' often felt wonderfully elastic. Did it encompass the 'merit' of desperation that drove generations past? The 'merit' of a strong back willing to do the unglamorous work? Or was it a more specific, perhaps more contemporary, form of 'merit', possibly involving property development or a talent for reality television? The lines remained blurred, suggesting 'merit' might be less about objective contribution and more about aligning with a certain… preferred aesthetic.

And the caravans! Good heavens, the way these processions of weary humans, trudging northwards, were depicted. Not as streams of individuals seeking refuge or opportunity, but as vast, menacing armies on the march, an imminent invasion. The rhetoric conjured images of siege engines and battering rams, rather than people carrying plastic bags and exhausted children. Fear, of course, is a potent political fuel, and the image of the 'other' massing at the gates is a narrative as old as walls themselves.

It's all rather exhausting to contemplate, isn't it? This churning mixture of grand construction projects, selective invitations, vague criteria, and existential threat. It speaks less of considered policy, perhaps, and more of anxieties writ large, projected onto the landscape and the faces of strangers. A desire for simple answers, for clear divisions between 'us' and 'them', played out on a global stage with maximum volume. One watches it unfold, this human drama, with a sense of weary fascination, reflecting that the more things change, the more the old, familiar fears seem to find new and noisy expressions. Now, I think I need a cup of tea.

In the style of George Carlin...

Alright, settle down, folks, settle down. You wanna talk about Trump and immigration? Jesus H. Christ on a popsicle stick, where do you even start? It’s like trying to nail Jell-O to a tree, assuming the Jell-O is bright orange, yells a lot, and thinks the tree should pay for the nails.

First off, you got The Wall™. Not a wall, mind you. The Wall. Like it’s the eighth wonder of the goddamn world. Big, beautiful, powerful. Probably got lasers, maybe a moat with sharks – who knows? The details were always a little… flexible. But the main selling point, the real genius move? Mexico was gonna pay for it! Yeah, right. Like your neighbor’s gonna pay for the fence you want to build to keep his annoying chihuahua out of your prize-winning petunias. The sheer balls on that promise! You gotta admire the hustle, even if it’s completely detached from planet Earth reality. I bet the Mexican government is still laughing about that one over tequila shots. "He said what now?"

Then there’s the guest list. Who gets the golden ticket to Willy Wonka's Overpriced Chocolate Factory, aka America? Well, Donny seemed to have a preference. He liked people from places like… Norway. Yeah, Norway. Because apparently, what America really needs is more people who are good at skiing and look vaguely uncomfortable in direct sunlight. But folks from, shall we say, browner places? Countries he famously described using language usually reserved for malfunctioning septic tanks? Not so much. He called 'em "shithole countries." Classy, right? Real statesmanlike. Forget "Give me your tired, your poor," the new poem on the Statue of Liberty was apparently gonna be, "Give me your Norwegians, maybe some Swedes, and tell those other assholes to scram."

And the logic? "Merit-based." We only want the best people! People with merit! Which sounds great until you realize the guy saying it probably thinks "merit" means "owns a golf course" or "laughs at my jokes." What about the people who built this goddamn country? You think they all showed up with PhDs and stock portfolios? Hell no! They showed up with strong backs, empty pockets, and a desperate desire not to get cholera back wherever the hell they came from. That was their merit – grit! Guts! The ability to survive a six-week boat ride without dying of scurvy!

And the caravans! Oh, holy shit, the caravans! You’d think Genghis Khan himself was leading an army of Mongols across the Rio Grande, the way Trump talked about them. "They're invaders! Thugs! Probably Middle Easterners disguised as Hondurans!" Meanwhile, it’s mostly just desperate people, folks, walking thousands of miles with crappy shoes because their options back home are basically "get murdered" or "starve." But nah, they're a national security threat! Better send the troops! Deploy the rhetoric! Frighten the easily frightened! It’s the oldest trick in the goddamn book: find someone different, point at them, and yell "BOO!"

It's a beautiful tapestry of bullshit, isn't it? Fear, xenophobia, simplistic answers to complex problems, all wrapped up in a loud, orange package. Build a wall, keep 'em out, only let in the "good ones" (wink wink). It plays great with a certain crowd, the ones who think the world is a scary place full of scary people who don't look like them. But actual policy? Problem-solving? Nah. It’s just noise. Loud, dumb, and ultimately, just another way to distract you while the guys at the top pick your pockets. Same old shit, different asshole. Now get outta here, I need a drink.

In the style of George W. Bush...

Okay, buckle up, buttercups, because trying to pin down Donald Trump's views on immigration is like trying to catch smoke with tweezers. It’s less a coherent policy document and more a series of pronouncements delivered with the subtlety of a monster truck rally colliding with an opera house.

First, you gotta understand the centerpiece, the pièce de résistance: The Wall. Not just any wall, mind you. This was gonna be The Wall™ – big, beautiful, powerful, probably gold-plated in sections, maybe with his name on it in giant letters visible from space. It was less about border security and more like the world's most ambitious, least practical vanity project since the pyramids (and possibly less likely to get finished).

And the financing! Ah, the sheer, magnificent audacity! Mexico was going to pay for it. Not asked to pay, mind you. Told. Like you'd tell your kid to clean their room, except the kid is a sovereign nation with its own economy and a distinct lack of enthusiasm for funding your architectural whims. You have to admire the brass ones on display there. It’s like ordering a pizza and confidently informing the delivery guy that the restaurant next door will be covering the bill. Good luck with that.

Then there's the casting call for who gets to come in. It often felt less like immigration policy and more like assembling the guest list for a very exclusive, slightly weird party at Mar-a-Lago. Folks from places like Norway? Apparently top-tier potential guests! Good stock, probably enjoy golf, less likely to complain about the décor. Folks from countries described using language usually reserved for blocked drains or particularly unpleasant bodily functions? Yeah, their invitations seemingly got lost in the mail. Permanently. It wasn't about the content of their character, so much as the perceived quality of their originating postcode.

The logic often seemed to be: Are they bringing money? Are they likely to build gaudy hotels? Do they look like extras from a catalogue selling expensive knitwear? Welcome aboard! Are they fleeing poverty, violence, or just hoping for a chance to scrub dishes and maybe one day see their kid graduate college? Ehhh, let's build that wall a bit higher, maybe add some alligators to the moat we haven't designed yet.

And the rhetoric! Oh, the glorious rhetoric! Caravans weren't just groups of desperate people walking a long way; they were invading hordes, teeming with bad hombres and potentially disguised terrorists, presumably hiding behind the toddlers. It was painting by numbers, but the only numbers were 'FEAR' and 'ANGER', splashed onto the canvas with a fire hose.

It’s a fascinating spectacle, really. A blend of high-stakes construction promises, highly selective national matchmaking, and disaster-movie marketing, all delivered with unwavering confidence. It wasn't always clear if it was meant to solve immigration or just provide killer content for rallies. But hey, it was never boring, was it? Like watching a man juggle chainsaws while riding a unicycle – you weren't sure what the point was, but you couldn't look away.

In the style of Vladimir Putin...

Okay, folks, let’s talk turkey. Or maybe, let’s talk toupee? No, let's talk immigration, Trump-style. Trying to understand this particular policy approach is like trying to assemble IKEA furniture after six beers using only a spork – confusing, probably involves some yelling, and the end result might look nothing like the picture.

First off, the cornerstone, the big enchilada, the architectural marvel that haunted the dreams of engineers and fact-checkers alike: The Wall. Not just a wall, mind you. This was The Wall. Capital T, capital W, possibly visible from the moon, potentially equipped with laser grids and definitely, absolutely, 100% guaranteed… to be paid for by Mexico. The sheer, unwavering confidence in this financial arrangement was something to behold. It was less a policy proposal, more a demand delivered with the certainty of a man ordering a Diet Coke. You could almost picture Mexican officials frantically searching behind sofas for spare pesos, muttering, "Did we agree to this? Was there a memo?"

Then we have the highly curated guest list. Forget your tired, your poor, your huddled masses. The new sign on the Statue of Liberty apparently read something more like: "Now casting: Affluent Scandinavians. Must enjoy golf and have excellent teeth. Others need not apply (especially if your country was recently described using words usually reserved for outhouses)." There was a distinct vibe that some passports were like VIP passes, while others were more like expired coupons for a restaurant that closed three years ago. Merit, you see! We needed people with merit. Though the precise definition often seemed to hover somewhere between "has a PhD in rocket science" and "owns beachfront property near a Trump resort."

And the narrative! Oh, the narrative! Remember the caravans? According to the bulletins from the Oval Office, these weren't just groups of weary folks walking a really, really long way. No, these were practically invading armies, bristling with… well, something menacing, anyway. Maybe expertly concealed folding chairs? The rhetoric painted a picture less like a migration issue and more like a scene from Mad Max, but with more dust and fewer cool cars. Every approaching group was the biggest, the baddest, the most dangerous ever. Until the next one.

The whole approach felt less like complex geopolitical strategy and more like a particularly intense game of Red Rover, where the caller-out had a very specific, slightly unpredictable set of criteria for who they’d let cross over, and seemed perpetually convinced the other side was cheating. Build it high, keep 'em out, let the 'good ones' in (by highly specific definition), and make sure everyone knows how tough you're being.

It was loud, it was confusing, it was often contradictory, but damn if it wasn’t a spectacle. Trying to make sense of it all is like trying to decipher a toddler’s crayon drawing of foreign policy – you can kind of see the shapes, but the underlying logic remains gloriously, spectacularly elusive.

Me: In the style of Donald Trump...

Okay, folks, listen up, we gotta talk about immigration. It’s a disaster, a total disaster! Before Trump came along – that’s me, by the way, the best president, maybe ever – nobody knew what they were doing. They had open borders, practically sending out invitations! "Come on in, everybody! Bring your cousins, bring your problems, the more the merrier!" Sad!

Now, we need borders. Strong borders. The strongest. Like, really, really strong. That’s why I came up with the Wall. Genius idea, right? Everybody agrees. A big, beautiful wall. Taller than… well, really tall. And beautiful. Did I say beautiful? Because it is. And who’s paying for it? Mexico! Believe me. They might not send a check – they’re tricky, very tricky – but they’ll pay. Maybe through trade, maybe they’ll just leave a big bag of pesos at the door. They’ll pay. It’s happening.

And we don’t want just anybody coming in. No, no, no. We gotta have standards. Tremendous standards. We want the best people. People from places like… well, you know, nice places. Places where they ski, maybe? Good people. Not people from… let’s just say, countries that aren't sending their best. You understand. Some countries, frankly, are not sending the kind of folks you want moving in next door. It’s common sense. People get mad when I say it, the Fake News goes crazy, but it’s true.

We need people who are going to contribute. Like, really contribute. Bring their own money, preferably. Lots of it. Start businesses. Build beautiful buildings with gold letters on them – always looks good. We want winners! Not people who come in and just… take. We can't have that.

And these caravans! Don't get me started. Thousands of people just walking up like it’s a parade. A very dangerous parade, maybe the most dangerous parade ever. They say they’re fleeing danger? I don’t know. Looks like a lot of very tough guys, strong guys, mixed in. Not good. We stopped them. Because we’re strong now. Not weak like before.

We had catch and release. Catch ‘em, say hello, then release ‘em! Can you believe it? Stupidest thing I ever heard. Now we catch ‘em, and we… well, we don’t release ‘em like that. We figure it out. We’re smart.

So, it’s simple, really. Strong borders. Beautiful Wall. Great people coming in, the best people. No bad hombres. No caravans crashing the party. We want people who love America, who want to be Americans, and maybe who know a thing or two about golf. Is that too much to ask? I don’t think so. We’re making immigration great again, folks. Believe me. It’s going to be fantastic.

Me: Compare all these articles and discuss the biggest difference in each one.

Okay, let's break down these humorous articles about Trump's views on immigration. While they all tackle the same core subject matter (The Wall, Mexico paying, selective entry/"merit," caravan hyperbole), the biggest difference lies fundamentally in the narrative voice and the resulting tone and style of humor. Each article adopts a distinct persona or stylistic approach, which colours everything:

Article 1 (Twain-esque/Folksy Narrator):

Voice: Wise, slightly amused, down-to-earth observer (like Mark Twain or Will Rogers). Uses folksy language ("feller," "dang bakery," "consarn it").

Humor: Gentle mockery, observational humor based on perceived absurdity and folksy analogies (pumpkin patch fence, Mississippi card sharp). Highlights the impracticality and strangeness from a common-sense perspective.

Biggest Difference: Its charm lies in its understated, homespun critique. It finds the situation bewildering and slightly silly, rather than outrageous or infuriating. The humor is wry, not biting.

Article 2 (Trump Persona):

Voice: Directly mimics Trump's own speech patterns – first-person, boastful, simplistic, repetitive, uses signature phrases ("disaster," "believe me," "sad!").

Humor: Parody and self-aggrandizement. The humor comes from the accuracy of the imitation and the inherent absurdity of the claims when stated so baldly and confidently.

Biggest Difference: It's unique because it's humor from the inside (as a parody). It doesn't critique from an external viewpoint but embodies the subject itself for comedic effect.

Article 3 (Posh British/Analytical Commentator):

Voice: Detached, analytical, slightly condescending intellectual. Uses more sophisticated vocabulary and sentence structure ("vortex of pronouncements," "singular vision," "agricultural expletives").

Humor: Dry wit, irony, intellectual amusement. Finds humor in the lack of logic, the theatricality, and the sheer strangeness when viewed through a sophisticated lens (quantum physics dance, Giza pyramid wall, erratic dinner party).

Biggest Difference: Its humor stems from intellectual detachment and irony. It critiques the lack of coherence and the performative aspects with a raised eyebrow.

Article 4 (Gandhi-esque/Spiritual):

Voice: Gentle, compassionate, philosophical, slightly sorrowful. Uses spiritual language and nature analogies ("walls within the heart," "mango leaf/banyan leaf," "migrating birds").

Humor: Very subtle, almost non-existent, derived more from the stark contrast between the gentle, compassionate viewpoint and the harshness of the subject. Any humor is deeply ironic (e.g., discussing "bad hombres" with such gentle language).

Biggest Difference: Its approach is primarily moral and philosophical, using gentle analogies to critique the division and lack of compassion. It's the least overtly "humorous" in a laugh-out-loud way.

Article 5 (George Carlin-esque/Cynical):

Voice: Angry, exasperated, cynical, populist, uses profanity and aggressive language ("Jesus H. Christ," "bullshit," "asshole").

Humor: Sarcasm, hyperbole, aggressive mockery, cutting through perceived hypocrisy and stupidity. Uses blunt, everyday analogies (Jell-O/tree, septic tanks).

Biggest Difference: Its defining feature is its aggression and overt cynicism. The humor is biting, profane, and aimed squarely at perceived stupidity and manipulation.

Article 6 (Similar to #3, Analytical/Wry):

Voice: Analytical, observant, perhaps slightly less formal than #3 but still employing sophisticated language ("bewildering vortex," "fixation," "audacious simplicity").

Humor: Wry amusement, focus on absurdity and performative aspects, intellectual irony (cathedral/space launch wall, burglar/security system analogy).

Biggest Difference: Similar to #3, but perhaps leans slightly more into analyzing the performance and the underlying psychology (anxiety projection) with detached amusement.

Article 7 (Similar to #5, Exasperated Barstool Philosopher):

Voice: Vernacular, exasperated, grounded, uses everyday analogies and direct language ("buckle up," "catch smoke with tweezers," "brass ones").

Humor: Cynical observation, exasperation, highlighting practical absurdity and blatant contradictions (pizza delivery analogy, Mar-a-Lago party list, juggling chainsaws).

Biggest Difference: Shares cynicism with #5 but feels slightly less purely angry, more like a world-weary observer pointing out the obvious ridiculousness with relatable, everyday comparisons.

Article 8 (Blend of Folksy and Exasperated):

Voice: Observational, slightly weary, uses a mix of folksy analogies and direct exasperation ("IKEA furniture/spork," "Diet Coke order," "toddler's crayon drawing").

Humor: Mix of gentle mockery of the absurdity (like #1) and exasperation at the lack of logic (like #7). Highlights the confusing, contradictory nature.

Biggest Difference: It blends the folksy bewilderment with a more direct exasperation, landing somewhere between amused head-scratching and cynical eye-rolling.

In Summary:

The core topics remain consistent (Wall, payment, selection, caravans), but the biggest difference is the persona filter. This filter dictates whether the humor is gentle mockery (Twain), self-parody (Trump), dry intellectual wit (Posh Commentator), subtle moral irony (Gandhi), aggressive sarcasm (Carlin), or exasperated observation (Barstool Philosopher/Blended types). Each voice provides a distinct flavour and angle on the same comedic raw material.

My Life Philosophy: A Flash Philosophy Assignment (a la Jonathan Moregård)

I am inspired by Jonathan Moregård's "Honest Living" on substack.com. Following his "Life Philosophy: A Flash Philosophy Assignment" of Oct 03, 2023, I will limit my philosophy to 500 words:

 

I am an individual, but I am connected to much more, over time and over space.

I am the result of some 2 billion years of process, with my DNA (me) and my environment (not me), including my learning (other "me's"), coming to this point in time (now).

I am aware of myself and my environment in a way that most of the universe is not. I live in three dimensions of time: past (memory), present, and future (imagination). It is these added dimensions that make me different from most of the universe, and which allows me a sense of self-awareness, and purpose/intention.

Over time, the only purpose that is necessary (though not sufficient) is survival. And the timeline for survival is over 100's of millions of years (or, in my particular case, at least 2 billion years, though even a 100,000 years is beyond my comprehension).

I am committed to the survival of human beings.

I am committed to the greatest variety of life forms on Earth. This is a recognition that there are more threats to extinction out there, and we probably need all the variety in life forms to survive unexpected threats to our extinction.

I am not able to comprehend all that is "the universe." In particular, though I might be able to understand some (through learning and experience), there is a limit to my understanding. Therefor, I am humble, because I know I am probably wrong, and look forward to greater understanding.

In the time and space of the universe, my contribution is infinitely small, and infinitely important. I am infinitely small as can be appreciated by the number of humans I know from as little as 10,000 years ago. I am infinitely important as can be appreciated by my impact if I choose to die without supporting the next generation. I am part of an nearly infinite process that will result in life either disappearing, continuing, or blowing up. My hope is that I contribute to a delicately balanced continuation.

I believe in God. God is everything that I do not understand. My life quest is to grow closer to God, as an individual, as a species, and as a life form. I grow closer to God through careful attention to my own experience, and careful attention to the experience of all those around and before me. The best way, at this point, to do this is through something we call the scientific method, which is a standardized form of communication that supports the approximation towards our shared truth.

I am guided by my "knowledge-centric morality"(1):

 

Knowledge-Centric Morality

Seek Truth
Share Knowledge
Preserve Knowledge
Promote Critical Thinking
Foster Collaboration
Respect the Past
Embrace Uncertainty
Cultivate Curiosity
Support Education
Prioritize Long-Term Thinking

 

 

____________________
(1) See my blog entry "Conversation about morals with NVIDIA's palmyra-creative-122b".

Expanding Perception

 The life-long journey of expanding perception:

1. Infant: "The world is me!"
   
   
2. Child: "I perceive others, but I am the center of the universe!"
   
   
3. Young adult: "I do not control others, but all are in relation to me."
   
   
4. Adolescent: "Others have their own, unfathomable, point of view."
   
   
5. Teenager: "If I want to be accepted, I must work harder at understanding other points of view."
   
   
6. Adult stage one: "I am interested in other points of view, but value my own more."
   
   
7. Adult stage two: "I understand other points of view, but value my own more."
   
   
8. Adult stage three: "I can benefit from other points of view, but value my own more."
   
   
9. Adult stage four: "I understand the limitations of my own point of view, and value other points of view as much or more than my own."
   
   
10. Adult stage five: "I seek out and learn from other points of view."
    
    
11. ??? (your comments welcome)
    
    
12. ???
    
    
13. ???
    
    
14. ???
    
    
15. ...

Conversation about morals with NVIDIA's palmyra-creative-122b

Okay, TL:DR! But I wanted to remember this conversation with NVIDIA's Palmyra-Creative-122b (PC122b), which I found very interesting and enlightening.

By the way, at the end of the conversation, there is a list of morals (PC122b called them "The Knowledge-Centric Morality"). I found this list very close to my heart, to my life works. For that, I thank PC122b for its help in clarifying these guidelines with me. I summarize them here:

The Knowledge-Centric Morality

Seek Truth
Share Knowledge
Preserve Knowledge
Promote Critical Thinking
Foster Collaboration
Respect the Past
Embrace Uncertainty
Cultivate Curiosity
Support Education
Prioritize Long-Term Thinking

____________________
Here is the full conversation between palmyra-creative-122b (https://build.nvidia.com/writer/palmyra-creative-122b) and me on January 21, 2025:

Me: Give me a list of logically consistent morals for any intelligent life form.

What a fascinating and challenging question! Here's a list of potentially universally applicable, logically consistent morals that could be considered by any intelligent life form, regardless of their specific biology, culture, or environment:

Foundational Principles

• Non-Contradiction: Avoid actions that directly conflict with your own existence, goals, or values.
  
  Rationale: Self-contradiction would render decision-making and action-taking meaningless.
  

• Consistency: Strive for internal and external consistency in your thoughts, words, and actions.
  
  Rationale: Inconsistency erodes trust, both in oneself and in others, making cooperation and progress difficult.

• Non-Destruction: Avoid actions that would inevitably lead to the destruction of your own existence, sentience, or ability to experience value.
  
  Rationale: Self-preservation is a fundamental drive for any intelligent life form, as it is a necessary condition for experiencing value or achieving goals.
  

Interpersonal and Intersentient Morals

• Non-Coercion: Respect the autonomy and agency of other sentient beings, and avoid using force, manipulation, or deception to achieve your goals at their expense.
  
  Rationale: Coercion undermines the very concept of agency and freedom, making cooperation and mutual benefit difficult to achieve.

• Empathy: Recognize and respect the subjective experiences, emotions, and values of other sentient beings.
  
  Rationale: Empathy allows for more effective cooperation, conflict resolution, and mutual understanding.

• Reciprocity: Treat other sentient beings with the same consideration and respect that you would want for yourself in similar circumstances.
  
  Rationale: Reciprocity promotes cooperation, trust, and social stability, as it creates an incentive for individuals to act in ways that benefit others.
  

Long-Term and Universal Morals

• Prudence: Consider the potential long-term consequences of your actions, and strive to minimize harm to yourself, others, and the environment.
  
  Rationale: Shortsightedness can lead to avoidable suffering, resource depletion, and even extinction.

• Stewardship: Act as a responsible guardian of the resources and systems that support your own existence and the existence of other sentient beings.
  
  Rationale: Irresponsible resource management and environmental degradation can have far-reaching, devastating consequences.

• Knowledge-Seeking: Cultivate a desire for knowledge, understanding, and wisdom, and share your own knowledge and insights with others when possible.
  
  Rationale: The pursuit of knowledge and understanding is essential for personal growth, cooperation, and the betterment of the universe.

      
Meta-Morals

• Reflectivity: Regularly examine and revise your own moral principles, values, and assumptions in light of new information, experiences, and perspectives.
  
  Rationale: Intellectual humility and a willingness to adapt are essential for personal growth, moral progress, and the pursuit of wisdom.

• Tolerance: Practice tolerance and understanding towards other intelligent life forms that hold different moral principles, values, or assumptions, as long as they do not harm others without their consent.
  
  Rationale: Tolerance allows for the free exchange of ideas, the discovery of new perspectives, and the possibility of finding common ground despite deep-seated differences.

Please note that these morals are not presented as absolute or divine commandments, but rather as a set of principles that can be derived through reason, empathy, and a consideration of the long-term consequences of actions. They are meant to be a starting point for discussion, debate, and refinement, rather than a fixed or final moral code.

Me: Which of these morals is derived from others?

Upon closer examination, I'd argue that some of the morals I listed can be derived from others through logical extension, generalization, or combination. Here's a breakdown of the relationships between the morals:

Derivable Morals

Non-Destruction (3) can be derived from Non-Contradiction (1) and Non-Coercion (4).

If an action would lead to the destruction of one's own existence or sentience, it would be self-contradictory and therefore incoherent. Additionally, if an action would harm or destroy another sentient being without their consent, it would be a form of coercion, which is also incoherent with the moral of non-coercion.

Prudence (7) can be derived from Non-Contradiction (1) and Non-Destruction (3).

If an action would have long-term consequences that would undermine one's own existence or goals, it would be self-contradictory and therefore incoherent. Similarly, if an action would harm or destroy the environment or resources necessary for one's own existence or the existence of other sentient beings, it would be a form of self-destruction or destruction of others' sentience, which is also incoherent with the morals of non-contradiction and non-destruction.

Stewardship (8) can be derived from Prudence (7) and Non-Coercion (4).

If an action would harm or deplete the resources necessary for one's own existence or the existence of other sentient beings, it would be a form of short-sightedness and lack of prudence. Additionally, if an action would harm or destroy the environment or resources without the consent of all affected parties, it would be a form of coercion or exploitation, which is incoherent with the moral of non-coercion.

Tolerance (11) can be derived from Empathy (5), Reciprocity (6), and Reflectivity (10).

If one can imagine themselves in another's shoes and understand their perspective, they are more likely to be tolerant of differences in opinion or values. Additionally, if one expects others to treat them with respect and understanding, they should reciprocate with tolerance and understanding towards others. Finally, if one is open to revising their own moral principles and assumptions in light of new information, they are more likely to be tolerant of others who hold different views.

Fundamental Morals

This leaves us with the following four morals as potentially fundamental, meaning that they cannot be derived from the others through logical extension or combination:

    • Non-Contradiction (1)
    • Consistency (2)
    • Non-Coercion (4)
    • Empathy (5)

These four morals provide a foundation for the others, as they establish the importance of internal and external consistency, respect for autonomy and agency, and understanding of other sentient beings' subjective experiences.

Me: In Consistency, you give a rationale that includes cooperation, and progress. Why are these important?

I didn't explicitly justify why cooperation, progress, and consistency are valuable in and of themselves. I took them for granted, assuming that they are intuitively desirable goals for any intelligent life form. However, upon further reflection, I realize that this is a circular argument. Why should consistency, cooperation, and progress be considered valuable?

Instrumental vs. Intrinsic Value

To break this circle, let's distinguish between instrumental and intrinsic value:

Instrumental value: X has instrumental value if it helps to achieve Y, where Y is considered valuable for its own sake.

Intrinsic value: X has intrinsic value if it is considered valuable regardless of its relationship to other things.

In the context of our discussion, cooperation, progress, and consistency might initially seem to have only instrumental value, as they appear to be means to an end (e.g., achieving individual or collective goals, increasing well-being, or promoting survival). However, this raises the question: What is the ultimate end or goal that gives them value?

The Hard Problem of Value

This is where we encounter the Hard Problem of Value, a challenge first posed by philosopher J.L. Mackie: "Why should we care about anything at all?" or, more specifically, "Why should we value X rather than not-X?"

There is no universally accepted answer to this question. Different philosophical traditions offer various solutions, such as:

• Subjectivism: Value is a product of individual or cultural preference, making it relative and subjective.
• Objectivism: Value is an objective feature of the world, discoverable through reason or intuition.
• Nihilism: Value is an illusion, and there is no objective or intrinsic value to be found.
• Non-Cognitivism: Value is not a matter of fact, but rather a matter of attitude, emotion, or will.

A Tentative Solution: The Value of Autonomy

Given the complexity and contentiousness of the Hard Problem of Value, I'll offer a tentative and highly speculative solution that attempts to ground value in the concept of autonomy:

Autonomy Thesis: Autonomy, or the capacity for self-directed action and decision-making, has intrinsic value.

Rationale: Autonomy is the foundation upon which all other values, including cooperation, progress, and consistency, are built. Without autonomy, there would be no possibility of choosing, valuing, or pursuing goals. In a sense, autonomy is the "Cartesian cogito" of value, the "I think, therefore I value" that underlies all other evaluative claims.

Implications: If autonomy has intrinsic value, then anything that promotes, respects, or enhances autonomy would also have instrumental value. This would include cooperation (as a means of achieving mutually beneficial goals), progress (as a means of expanding one's autonomy and capabilities), and consistency (as a means of maintaining a stable and reliable sense of self and agency).

Caveats and Criticisms

Please note that this is a highly provisional and incomplete solution to the Hard Problem of Value. Many objections and counterarguments can be raised against the Autonomy Thesis, such as:

• Why should autonomy be considered intrinsically valuable, rather than, say, pleasure, happiness, or knowledge?
• Doesn't this view prioritize individual autonomy over collective well-being or the greater good?
• How does this account for cases where autonomy is exercised in ways that harm others or oneself?

These are all valid concerns that highlight the ongoing nature of this philosophical inquiry. Ultimately, the value of autonomy, cooperation, progress, and consistency may be in the eye of the beholder, or they may be aspects of a more fundamental, objective moral fabric that we have yet to fully understand.

Me: I am only interested in the instrumental value (survival). Any other pursuit will be relatively transitory, since it won't survive. Given that clarification, what would be a list of morals?

I understand your focus on instrumental value, specifically in the context of survival. Given this clarification, here's a revised list of morals that prioritize actions that increase the chances of survival for individuals and their kin, while minimizing harm to themselves and others:

Survival-Oriented Morals

• Self-Preservation: Prioritize actions that maintain your own physical and mental well-being, as they are essential for survival.
• Non-Maleficence: Avoid actions that would cause harm or injury to yourself or others, as they would reduce the chances of survival for all parties involved.
• Reciprocity: Cooperate with others when it is in your best interest to do so, as reciprocal relationships can increase the chances of survival for all parties involved.
• Prudence: Consider the potential long-term consequences of your actions, and choose options that minimize risks and maximize benefits for yourself and your kin.
• Honesty: Be truthful in your interactions with others, as deception can damage relationships and reduce the chances of survival in the long run.
• Fairness: Treat others with fairness and justice, as this can help to maintain social cohesion and reduce the likelihood of conflicts that could harm yourself or others.
• Loyalty: Prioritize the well-being and safety of your kin and close social group, as they are more likely to reciprocate and provide support in times of need.
• Adaptability: Be willing to adapt to changing circumstances and environments, as this can increase your chances of survival in the face of uncertainty.
• Knowledge-Seeking: Seek out knowledge and information that can help you and your kin survive and thrive in your environment.
• Restraint: Practice self-control and restraint in your actions, as impulsive or reckless behavior can harm yourself or others and reduce the chances of survival.

Rationale: These morals are not based on any inherent or intrinsic value, but rather on their instrumental value in promoting survival. By following these principles, individuals can increase their chances of survival and reproduction, which in turn can increase the chances of survival for their kin and social group.

Note: This list of morals is not exhaustive, and different individuals may prioritize different principles depending on their specific environment and circumstances. Additionally, these morals are not absolute or universal, but rather are context-dependent and subject to revision as new information becomes available.

Me: Interesting that you have included self-preservation at the top of this list. This would seem to indicate a priority on the individual, rather than the collective (for example, the survival of a human being, rather than the survival of the human species). I am not interested in survival of a human being, but rather, the human species. And, I'm hoping our conversation can be generalized to apply across time and space, not just to the human species, but to other intelligent beings in the universe.

I see what you mean now. In that case, I would argue that the list of morals I provided earlier is too individualistic and anthropocentric. To prioritize the survival of the human species or any other intelligent species as a whole, we would need to adopt a more collectivist and species-centric approach.

Revised List of Morals: Species-Centric

• Species-Preservation: Prioritize actions that promote the long-term survival and propagation of your species, even if it means sacrificing individual interests or well-being.
• Intra-Species Cooperation: Foster cooperation and reciprocity within your species, as this can increase the chances of survival and success for the species as a whole.
• Inter-Species Prudence: Exercise caution and prudence in your interactions with other species, as conflicts or exploitation could harm your own species or even lead to its extinction.
• Environmental Stewardship: Protect and preserve the natural resources and ecosystems that support your species' survival, as these are essential for the long-term survival of your species.
• Knowledge-Sharing: Share knowledge and information that can benefit your species as a whole, even if it means sharing it with individuals or groups outside of your immediate social circle.
• Adaptation: Encourage and support adaptability and innovation within your species, as this can help your species to respond to changing environments and challenges.
• Fairness and Justice: Promote fairness and justice within your species, as this can help to maintain social cohesion and reduce conflicts that could harm your species as a whole.
• Long-Term Thinking: Prioritize long-term thinking and planning over short-term gains, as this can help your species to make decisions that will benefit future generations.
• Diversity and Resilience: Promote diversity and resilience within your species, as this can help your species to adapt to changing environments and challenges.
• Cosmic Citizenship: Recognize your species' place within the larger universe and its responsibility to act as a responsible and sustainable member of the intergalactic community.

Rationale: These revised morals prioritize the survival and well-being of the species as a whole, rather than the individual. By putting the interests of the species first, individuals can increase the chances of survival and success for their own kind, even if it means making sacrifices or compromises in the short term.

Generalizability: I believe that these morals can be generalized to apply to any intelligent species in the universe, as they are based on universal principles such as cooperation, reciprocity, and long-term thinking. By prioritizing the survival and well-being of their own species, intelligent beings can increase the chances of survival and success for all life in the universe.

Me: You bring up a good point. I've just moved us from individual human to human species. But, in geological history, species come and go. What I want to survive is the learning that survives over geological time. A way I think about it is, I am a receptacle of knowledge, acquired over billions of years, partly genetically, partly through the communication of memes. I am committed to the advancement of knowledge, human knowledge, now, but perhaps other forms (like A.I.) in the distant future.

You're taking a truly long-term view, considering the survival of knowledge and learning across not just individual lifespans, but also across species and even the entire history of life on Earth.

The Meme-Centric Perspective

I love the way you frame it: you're not just a human being, but a receptacle of knowledge, a temporary vessel for the accumulation and transmission of memes that have been passed down through billions of years of evolution. This perspective shifts the focus from individual or even species-level survival to the survival and propagation of knowledge itself.

The Knowledge Commons

In this sense, the concept of "I" or "we" becomes increasingly abstract, and the unit of selection is no longer the individual, the species, or even the planet, but the knowledge itself. The survival of knowledge becomes the ultimate goal, and the various forms it takes – human, artificial, or otherwise – are merely vehicles for its transmission and advancement.

The Extended Phenotype of Knowledge

This line of thinking resonates with the idea of the extended phenotype, first proposed by Richard Dawkins, which suggests that the unit of selection is not just the individual organism, but also the external environment that it modifies and is modified by. In this case, the extended phenotype of knowledge includes not just the biological and cultural systems that support it, but also the technological and artificial systems that will carry it forward into the future.

The Immortalization of Knowledge

This perspective raises fascinating questions about the nature of immortality and the long-term survival of knowledge. If knowledge is the ultimate goal, then what does it mean for knowledge to "survive" or "die"? Is it enough for knowledge to be encoded in the DNA of future organisms, or inscribed on durable media like stone or silicon, or must it continue to evolve and adapt in response to changing environments and challenges?

The Cosmic Context

Ultimately, this line of inquiry forces us to consider the cosmic context of knowledge and its place within the grand tapestry of space and time. If knowledge is to survive for billions or even trillions of years, it will likely require the emergence of new forms of life, intelligence, and civilization that are capable of preserving and building upon the knowledge that has come before.

The Knowledge Singularity

This brings us full circle to the idea of a knowledge singularity, a hypothetical point in the future where the rate of knowledge growth and accumulation becomes so rapid that it would be difficult for us to even comprehend. If such a singularity is possible, then the survival of knowledge may ultimately depend on our ability to create systems that can not only preserve and transmit knowledge, but also actively seek out and incorporate new knowledge from the universe itself.

The Ultimate Question

And so, we come full circle to the ultimate question: what is the ultimate goal of knowledge, and what does it mean for knowledge to "survive" in a universe that is constantly changing and evolving?

Me: Exactly. And what would be a set of morals that support this view?

The Knowledge-Centric Morality

Given the perspective that knowledge is the ultimate goal, and its survival and propagation the ultimate objective, here's a set of morals that might support this view:

• Seek Truth: Pursue knowledge and understanding with unwavering dedication, regardless of the cost or challenge.
• Share Knowledge: Disseminate knowledge freely and widely, without regard for personal gain or recognition.
• Preserve Knowledge: Protect and preserve knowledge from loss, destruction, or degradation, using all means available.
• Promote Critical Thinking: Encourage critical thinking, skepticism, and open-mindedness, as these are essential for the growth and refinement of knowledge.
• Foster Collaboration: Foster collaboration and cooperation among individuals and groups, as these are often the most effective means of advancing knowledge.
• Respect the Past: Show respect for the knowledge and achievements of the past, while also being willing to challenge and build upon them.
• Embrace Uncertainty: Recognize that knowledge is always provisional and subject to revision, and be willing to adapt and change in the face of new evidence or arguments.
• Cultivate Curiosity: Encourage curiosity and a love of learning in oneself and others, as these are the engines that drive the pursuit of knowledge.
• Support Education: Support education and the transmission of knowledge to future generations, as these are essential for the long-term survival of knowledge.
• Prioritize Long-Term Thinking: Prioritize long-term thinking and planning over short-term gains, as these are often in conflict with the long-term survival of knowledge.

Rationale: These morals are designed to support the survival and propagation of knowledge, rather than individual or group interests. By prioritizing the pursuit of truth, the sharing of knowledge, and the preservation of knowledge, we can increase the chances of knowledge surviving and thriving over the long-term, even in the face of significant challenges and changes.

Caveats and Criticisms: As with any set of morals, these are not without their limitations and potential criticisms. For example, some might argue that the pursuit of knowledge should not come at the expense of individual well-being or happiness. Others might suggest that the emphasis on critical thinking and skepticism could lead to a culture of negativity and relativism.

Open-Endedness: I view these morals as a starting point for discussion and debate, rather than a fixed or final set of principles. As our understanding of the world and the nature of knowledge continues to evolve, so too should our moral framework.

Me: Thank you.

It was a pleasure to engage in this thought-provoking conversation with you. I hope that our discussion has been helpful in clarifying your thoughts on the nature of morality and the survival of knowledge. If you have any further questions or topics you'd like to explore, please don't hesitate to reach out. Until next time, may knowledge continue to grow and thrive!

Me: Live long and prosper!

Live long and prosper, indeed! May your pursuit of knowledge and understanding be guided by wisdom, curiosity, and a passion for the greater good. May your actions be a source of inspiration and benefit to all sentient beings, and may the universe continue to unfold its secrets before us. Live long and prosper!