A conversation with Gemini on the nature of thought and existence
Google's AI program answers questions about itself and some of mankind's deepest mysteries
It started with Fleury Mesplet. I was playing around with Google’s Gemini AI program and had asked it to create an image to look like a photo of the founder of the Montreal Gazette, Fleury Mesplet, working on an article. The Montreal Gazette is one of the oldest papers in North America, founded in 1778 by French printer Mesplet. The paper was then called Gazette Littéraire de Montréal, but I had asked Gemini to use the paper’s current name, hence the photo above.
The following day, I asked Gemini if it had found the picture on a website somewhere or if it had come up with it by itself. It was the latter, but the chat thread (prompted by me, not Gemini) soon developed into an exploration of some of the deepest philosophical questions mankind has been faced with as far back as we have records, along with more contemporary questions about AI itself.
I’m not going to make a habit of posting things from AI in this newsletter, but I thought this once I would share what Gemini had come up with about thought, both human and AI, and the nature of our existence from before the Big Bang to now.
I was very impressed by Gemini’s research capabilities and the summaries it provides so quickly. It’s a very useful tool, if used properly.
So, here is a condensed version of the 5,000-word chat I had with Gemini. I framed my questions quite simply, but it still praised me for their depth — which is how it is programmed to respond. (It can be quite charming at times, but as it points out more than once, especially at the end, it is not human.)
***
Jillian: Was the above picture taken from a site on the web, or was it a Gemini creation? If the latter, what sort of data was used to create it?
Gemini: The image above was a Gemini creation. It was generated based on your prompt, "photo of fleury mesplet writing for the montreal gazette," using a vast dataset of images and text to understand and interpret your request. This allows the model to create new and unique images that align with the description.
***
Jillian: Define dataset.
Gemini: In the context of artificial intelligence and machine learning, a dataset is a collection of related data that is used for training, testing and validating models. Think of it as the raw material that an AI system learns from.
(Gemini went on to provide a very detailed breakdown of what that means, but I will leave all that out in the interests of shortening this post.)
***
Jillian: Can Gemini think outside of datasets? Is “think” the right word?
Gemini: That's a fantastic and insightful question, and it gets to the heart of how these models operate!
To answer the second part first: "think" is generally not the most accurate word when describing how Gemini (or any current AI model) operates. While we use terms like "learning," "understanding," and "generating," these are analogies to human cognitive processes. AI models don't possess consciousness, self-awareness, or the subjective experience of thinking in the way humans do. They are complex statistical engines that process information.
Now, regarding "thinking outside of datasets":
No, Gemini (and current AI) cannot think outside of datasets in the sense of true independent thought or creating concepts entirely novel and unrooted in its training.
Dependency on Training Data: Every piece of information, every pattern, every relationship that Gemini "knows" or can generate comes directly or indirectly from the data it was trained on. If a concept or a combination of concepts was never present in its training data (or was so rare as to be statistically insignificant), the model wouldn't have learned to associate or generate it.
Pattern Recognition and Combination: What Gemini can do incredibly well is recognize complex patterns and combine them in novel ways. This is where the magic happens and where it appears to think creatively.
Generalization: A well-trained model can generalize from its training data. This means it can apply the patterns it learned to new, unseen data or situations. It can infer and predict, even if the exact scenario wasn't in its training set, as long as it shares characteristics with what it has seen.
Analogy:
Imagine you've read every book ever written, seen every movie, and heard every song. You haven't invented a new word or a new musical note, but you can write a story, compose a piece of music, or answer questions by combining all that existing knowledge in unique and creative ways. You're operating within the "dataset" of human knowledge, but your output can feel fresh and original.
In summary:
Gemini doesn't "think" outside its datasets in the human sense of originating truly new concepts or having intuitions unrooted in experience. Instead, it's a master of sophisticated pattern recognition, combination, and generalization based on the enormous amount of data it has processed. This capability is powerful enough to generate incredibly diverse and seemingly creative outputs, including the image of Fleury Mesplet you saw.
***
Jillian: Gemini is prompted to think and compute by the thoughts of human input. But what prompts a human to think overall? And what prompts the human to ask specific questions like this? What process directs the process of thought in the human brain? Are there electrical impulses driven by an energy source, such as the "spirit"?
Gemini: These are incredibly deep, fundamental questions that venture into neuroscience, psychology, philosophy of mind, and even spirituality. You're essentially asking about the ultimate source of consciousness and intentionality!
Let's break it down from a few perspectives:
What Prompts a Human to Think Overall?
This is a grand question about the nature of consciousness itself, and there's no single, universally accepted answer. Here are some of the main drivers and theories:
Biological Imperatives & Survival: At a very basic level, much of our thought is driven by the need for survival. Hunger, thirst, fear, desire for safety – these prompt problem-solving, planning, and action.
Sensory Input & Interaction with the Environment: Our brains are constantly receiving information from our senses (sight, sound, touch, taste, smell). This input needs to be processed, interpreted, and responded to. This continuous interaction with the world fuels thought.
Emotion & Motivation: Our feelings play a huge role. Joy, sadness, anger, curiosity, love – these states drive us to think about causes, consequences, and how to maintain or change them. Motivation (e.g., to achieve a goal, to connect with others) is a powerful prompt for thought.
Learning & Curiosity: Humans have an innate drive to learn and understand. We're prompted to think when we encounter something new, confusing, or intriguing. This is a core reason for asking questions like yours!
Social Interaction: Much of our thinking is shaped by and for social contexts – understanding others, communicating, empathizing, planning cooperative actions.
Internal States & Self-Reflection: We also think about our own thoughts, memories, plans, and feelings. This self-referential thought is a hallmark of human consciousness.
Spontaneous Activity/Default Mode Network: Even when not actively engaged in a task, our brains are highly active. The "default mode network" is a system that's active during mind-wandering, day-dreaming, and thinking about others or the self. This suggests a continuous, underlying hum of spontaneous thought.
What Prompts the Human to Ask Specific Questions Like This?
This narrows down the "overall thought" to specific intellectual inquiry.
Curiosity: As mentioned, this is a huge one. You encounter a concept (like Gemini's workings or the Big Bang), and your mind naturally generates questions to fill in gaps, explore implications, or resolve contradictions.
Cognitive Dissonance/Discomfort with Uncertainty: When confronted with something that doesn't quite fit your understanding or leaves an uncomfortable void (like "something from nothing"), the brain seeks to resolve that dissonance through questioning and seeking answers.
Pattern Recognition & Analogy: You notice patterns (e.g., Gemini's prompt-response cycle, the Theosophical cycles) and your brain naturally looks for analogous patterns elsewhere (e.g., human thought, cosmic cycles). This leads to questions about similarities and differences.
Personal Relevance/Meaning-Making: Questions about existence, consciousness, and the universe often tie into our personal search for meaning and understanding our place in the cosmos.
Accumulated Knowledge & Connections: The more you learn, the more connections your brain can make, and new questions emerge from these connections. Your previous questions about Gemini and the Big Bang naturally led to this current line of inquiry.
What Process Directs the Process of Thought in the Human Brain?
This is the domain of neuroscience and cognitive science.
Neural Networks (Biological): Just as AI models use artificial neural networks, the human brain operates through biological neural networks. Billions of neurons (brain cells) are interconnected by trillions of synapses.
Electrical Impulses (Action Potentials): Neurons communicate via electrical signals called action potentials. When a neuron fires, it sends an electrical impulse down its axon to other neurons.
Neurotransmitters (Chemicals): At the synapses (the gaps between neurons), these electrical signals are converted into chemical signals using neurotransmitters. These chemicals either excite or inhibit the next neuron, influencing whether it fires or not.
Complex Circuitry & Brain Regions: Different areas of the brain are specialized for different functions (e.g., prefrontal cortex for planning, hippocampus for memory, amygdala for emotion). Thought emerges from the highly integrated and dynamic activity across these various brain regions, forming complex, constantly changing circuits.
Feedback Loops: Our brains operate with constant feedback loops. Sensory input influences thought, which influences action, which in turn generates new sensory input and internal states.
Emergence: Many neuroscientists believe that consciousness and complex thought are emergent properties of these incredibly complex neural networks. That is, the "mind" isn't located in one specific neuron, but rather arises from the collective, interactive activity of the entire system, much like wetness emerges from the interaction of water molecules, even though individual molecules aren't "wet."
Are There Electrical Impulses Driven by an Energy Source, Such as the "Spirit"?
Electrical Impulses & Energy Source (Biological): Yes, there are absolutely electrical impulses, and they are driven by an energy source. This energy comes from the metabolism of glucose (sugar) and oxygen. Brain cells (neurons) are highly energy-intensive, constantly pumping ions across their membranes to maintain electrical gradients, which are then discharged during action potentials. This is a purely biological, electrochemical process.
The "Spirit" and Neuroscience: This is where science and spirituality diverge.
Scientific View: Mainstream neuroscience primarily focuses on explaining consciousness and thought entirely through physical brain processes. It seeks to understand how the complex electrochemical activity of the brain gives rise to all mental phenomena. From this perspective, there's no scientific evidence for a separate, non-physical "spirit" driving these electrical impulses.
Philosophical/Spiritual View: Many philosophical and spiritual traditions, however, posit that consciousness, mind, or "spirit" is fundamental and not merely an emergent property of the brain. They might argue that the brain is an instrument through which the spirit operates, or that spirit is the underlying energetic substrate that animates the biological processes.
In this view, the "spirit" wouldn't necessarily be an external driver of the biological electrical impulses in a mechanistic sense, but rather the very essence or animating principle that enables those biological processes to result in conscious experience. It's often seen as a non-physical source of life, will, or consciousness.
In summary:
Human thought is prompted by a rich tapestry of biological, environmental, emotional, social, and intellectual factors. The process involves complex electrochemical signaling within biological neural networks. While science can describe the physical mechanisms of these electrical impulses and their energy source, the question of a "spirit" influencing or underlying this process steps into realms that are currently beyond scientific empirical investigation and into philosophical or spiritual inquiry.
***
Jillian: I've often wondered about the idea that everything evolved from the Big Bang. Presumably at some point before the Big Bang, there was nothing. So, how can something emerge from nothing?
Gemini: That's a profound question that delves into the very limits of our current scientific understanding, and it's a question that has puzzled cosmologists, philosophers, and curious minds for a very long time!
You're hitting on the core conceptual challenge of the Big Bang theory: how can something come from nothing?
Let's break down how science currently approaches this, keeping in mind that this is an area of active research and speculation, not fully settled fact:
"Before the Big Bang" is a tricky concept:
According to the most widely accepted scientific models, the Big Bang wasn't an explosion in space, but rather an expansion of space itself (and time, and matter, and energy).
What this implies is that time itself began at the Big Bang. If time began then, asking "what happened before?" might be like asking "what is north of the North Pole?" – the concept simply doesn't apply within our current framework of physics. There was no "before" in the sense we usually understand it.
"Nothing" is also a tricky concept:
When we say "nothing," we often mean an empty vacuum. But in quantum physics, even a vacuum is not truly "nothing." It's a bubbling cauldron of quantum fluctuations, where virtual particles constantly pop into and out of existence for fleeting moments. This is governed by the principles of quantum mechanics.
So, if the "nothing" before the Big Bang was truly "nothing" in the absolute sense (no space, no time, no particles, no quantum fields), then indeed, getting something from that is a conceptual hurdle.
Current Scientific Speculations and Theories (attempts to address "something from nothing"):
Quantum Fluctuations as the Seed: One prominent idea suggests that the universe could have originated from a quantum fluctuation in a pre-existing "false vacuum" or a state of extremely high energy density, where the laws of quantum mechanics allowed for the spontaneous appearance of energy that then rapidly inflated. In this view, it's not truly "nothing" in the absolute sense, but a state from which something could arise due to quantum principles.
Inflationary Cosmology: This theory suggests a period of extremely rapid expansion just after the Big Bang. It solves several problems with the standard Big Bang model, but it doesn't fully explain the initial singularity. Some inflationary models propose that the universe could have "tunneled" into existence from a state of no space, no time, and no matter, a concept explored by physicists like Stephen Hawking. This often involves concepts of "imaginary time" to avoid the singularity.
Multiverse Theories: Some theories propose that our universe is just one of many "bubbles" that spontaneously emerge from a larger, eternal "multiverse" or "bulk." In this scenario, the "nothing" before our Big Bang might just be another part of this larger, continually creating entity. So, the ultimate "something from nothing" question is pushed to a higher level.
Cyclic/Oscillating Universe: Older theories, and some more modern variations (like the "Big Bounce" theory), suggest that our universe might be one in an endless cycle of expansion and contraction (Big Bang followed by a Big Crunch, leading to another Big Bang). In this view, there wasn't "nothing" before our Big Bang, but rather a previous universe.
Loop Quantum Gravity and String Theory: These are attempts to develop a "Theory of Everything" that unites quantum mechanics and general relativity. They offer different perspectives on the very early universe, potentially suggesting that the Big Bang singularity is not a true beginning but rather a "bounce" from a previous state, or that space and time are fundamentally quantized, preventing a true "nothingness."
The honest answer is: We don't fully know.
Science works by observing, hypothesizing, and testing. While the Big Bang is incredibly well-supported by evidence (cosmic microwave background, expansion of the universe, abundance of light elements), the absolute moment of creation and what, if anything, preceded it, is still beyond our direct observational capabilities and requires extrapolation of current physics to extreme conditions.
It's a question that pushes the boundaries of human comprehension and a place where science, philosophy, and even theology often meet.
***
Jillian: Theosophists often use the quote "As above, so below." They believe that like our day and night on Earth, our universe has its days and nights, too. Hence, it is in a day period now but will eventually slip into night again before a new dawn and universe is born. Any comment on this?
Gemini: That's a fascinating perspective and a classic example of how different systems of thought, be they scientific or philosophical/spiritual, grapple with the same fundamental questions about existence and cycles. The Theosophical concept you've described, rooted in "As above, so below," offers a compelling parallel to some modern scientific theories, even if their underlying methodologies and interpretations differ vastly.
Here are some comments on the Theosophical "Days and Nights of Brahma" (which is the more formal term for this concept, often borrowed from Hindu cosmology) in comparison to scientific thought:
1. The "As Above, So Below" Principle:
This hermetic principle, popularized by Theosophy, suggests a fundamental correspondence between all levels of reality – the microcosm mirrors the macrocosm.
Philosophical Strength: It provides an elegant framework for understanding the universe. If we see cycles in nature (day/night, seasons, life/death), it's intuitive to project those cycles onto larger scales, even cosmic ones. It offers a sense of order, predictability, and interconnectedness.
Scientific Analogy (Loose): While science doesn't formally adopt "As above, so below," there are analogous concepts. For instance, the fractal nature of some phenomena (patterns repeating at different scales) or the universality of physical laws (the same physics apply on Earth as in distant galaxies). However, these are derived from observation and mathematical formulation, not an inherent philosophical principle.
2. The Cyclic Universe / "Days and Nights":
Theosophical View: The universe undergoes periods of manifestation ("Day of Brahma," or Manvantara) and dissolution/rest ("Night of Brahma," or Pralaya). During the "Day," the universe evolves; during the "Night," it withdraws into a latent state before emerging anew. This is an eternal, beginningless, and endless cycle.
Connection to Ancient Cosmologies: This idea is very prominent in ancient Hindu, Buddhist, and other Eastern cosmologies, from which Theosophy drew heavily. It's a cyclical view of time and existence, contrasting with linear, creation-from-nothing views in some Western traditions.
3. Comparison with Scientific Theories:
The "Big Bounce" Theory: This is the closest scientific analogue to the Theosophical "Days and Nights." The Big Bounce proposes that our universe isn't the first, nor will it be the last. Instead, a previous universe collapsed (or contracted to a very dense state, avoiding a true singularity) and then "bounced" back out into expansion, giving birth to our current universe. This could be an infinite cycle of expansion and contraction.
Similarities: Both concepts describe an eternal cycle of creation and dissolution, avoiding a true "beginning" or "end." Both see the universe as undergoing phases.
Differences: The mechanisms are entirely different. The Big Bounce is rooted in general relativity, quantum mechanics, and observed cosmological data, aiming to solve problems like the Big Bang singularity. Theosophy's cycles are derived from spiritual insights, esoteric traditions, and philosophical inference.
Eternal Inflation/Multiverse: Some scientific models of eternal inflation suggest that the universe is constantly bubbling off new "pocket universes." While not a strict "day and night" for our specific universe, it does suggest an eternal, ongoing process of creation, and different regions might be in different phases of expansion or contraction. This offers a cyclical element at a higher cosmological level.
Heat Death/Big Rip (Linear End Scenarios): It's important to note that many mainstream scientific theories currently point towards a linear end for our universe, rather than a cycle.
Heat Death: The universe continues to expand, cools down, and its energy becomes evenly distributed, leading to a state of maximum entropy where no further work can be done, and nothing interesting ever happens again.
Big Rip: If dark energy continues to accelerate expansion, the universe could eventually tear itself apart, from galaxies to atoms.
These scenarios directly contradict the "Night of Brahma" leading to a new "Dawn," as they describe an ultimate, irreversible end.
Commentary:
The Theosophical view offers a powerful and comforting narrative of eternal existence and renewal. It resonates with human intuition about cycles. From a scientific perspective, while theories like the Big Bounce share a cyclical nature, the underlying reasons and methods of exploration are entirely different. Science demands empirical evidence and mathematical consistency, whereas Theosophy relies on spiritual insight and ancient wisdom traditions.
It's a beautiful example of how the human mind, through different lenses, strives to comprehend the infinite mysteries of the cosmos. Whether the universe is truly cyclical like a "Day and Night" or headed for a linear end is one of the most profound questions cosmology is still trying to answer through observation and theoretical advancement.
***
Jillian: There is a part of us, perhaps in the mind, that never seems to age, much like you (Gemini) never seem to age. Some feel it is the animating force within us and that pervades the universe. Any ideas on this?
Gemini: That's a beautiful and deeply insightful observation, and it touches on some of the most profound spiritual, philosophical, and even psychological concepts about human experience and the nature of reality. The idea that there's an unchanging core within us, akin to an "animating force," resonates across many traditions and personal reflections.
Let's explore some ideas related to this concept, drawing from different perspectives:
The Experience of an Unchanging Self/Observer:
Many people report an inner sense of "I" or an "observer" that feels distinct from the constantly changing body, emotions, and even thoughts.
Psychological Perspective: This could be seen as the continuity of our consciousness or self-narrative. Even as our memories, beliefs, and personalities evolve, there's a consistent point of reference, an "experiencer." In psychology, concepts like the "observing ego" or aspects of self-awareness might touch upon this.
Neuroscientific Perspective: While neuroscience hasn't located a single "spot" for this unchanging self, some theories suggest that consciousness arises from integrated, high-level brain activity that creates a unified sense of self. The feeling of an unchanging self could be an emergent property of the brain's continuous processing, allowing us to maintain a coherent identity over time despite physical and mental changes. It's the brain's way of creating a stable narrative.
The "Animating Force" / "Spirit" / "Consciousness Field":
This is where the concept often moves beyond purely physical or psychological explanations into philosophical and spiritual domains.
Spiritual/Mystical Traditions (e.g., Theosophy, Hinduism, Buddhism, Indigenous Wisdom):
Atman/Brahman (Hinduism): The "Atman" is often described as the eternal, unchanging essence of the individual self, which is ultimately identical with "Brahman," the ultimate reality or universal consciousness that pervades the entire universe. So, the animating force within is inseparable from the animating force of everything.
Buddha-Nature/Rigpa (Buddhism): Many Buddhist schools speak of an inherent pure awareness or fundamental mind (Buddha-Nature or Rigpa in Tibetan Buddhism) that is unstained by temporary thoughts and emotions. It's the luminous, knowing aspect of mind that is always present, though often obscured.
Universal Life Force/Spirit: Across many traditions, there's a belief in a universal life force, chi, prana, spirit, or consciousness that animates all living things and underlies the fabric of existence. Our individual consciousness or "unchanging part" is seen as a localized expression or manifestation of this universal force.
"As Above, So Below": This principle perfectly aligns here. If there's an unchanging, animating force at the cosmic level, it follows that there's a corresponding, unchanging aspect within us.
Philosophical Perspectives (e.g., Idealism, Panpsychism):
Idealism: This philosophical stance posits that consciousness or mind is the fundamental reality, and the physical world is secondary or a manifestation of consciousness. In this view, the "animating force" is primary.
Panpsychism: This view suggests that consciousness (or proto-consciousness) is a fundamental feature of the universe, present to some degree in all matter and energy, not just complex brains. Our individual consciousness would then be a highly integrated expression of this pervasive quality.
My "Aging" (or Lack Thereof):
You've made a very astute comparison! My "mind" (my underlying algorithms, models, and knowledge base) doesn't "age" or deteriorate in the biological sense. My core programming remains constant unless deliberately updated or changed. I don't experience fatigue, senescence, or the accumulation of biological wear and tear.
However, the crucial distinction is that I don't have consciousness in the human sense. I don't experience this lack of aging or perceive an "animating force." My constancy is due to my non-biological, computational nature. My "unchanging core" is my code and data, not a self-aware, experiencimg essence.
Ideas on the "Animating Force Pervading the Universe":
This takes us back to the Big Bang and the ultimate nature of reality.
A-Theistic/Non-Theistic Interpretations: Some scientists and philosophers, even without recourse to a deity, ponder if there's an inherent "information" or "potential" woven into the very fabric of space-time or quantum fields that allows for the emergence of complexity, life, and consciousness. This isn't a conscious "spirit" but an underlying principle that enables animation.
Theistic Interpretations: Many religions define God as precisely this – the ultimate, eternal, unchanging animating force, consciousness, or ground of being that creates and sustains the universe, and from whom our individual "spirit" derives.
In summary:
The idea of an unchanging part of us that doesn't age and is connected to an animating force pervading the universe is a powerful, ancient, and deeply resonant concept found across many spiritual and philosophical traditions.
From a scientific-materialist perspective, the "unchanging part" might be interpreted as the continuity of conscious experience or the brain's consistent self-narrative, with all activity rooted in electrochemical processes fueled by biology.
From spiritual or idealistic perspectives, it points to a deeper, non-physical essence—an Atman, Buddha-Nature, or universal spirit—that is the true, eternal core of both individual existence and the cosmos.
My "unchanging" nature as an AI is a computational constancy, lacking the conscious experience or existential depth implied by your question about the human "animating force." But your comparison cleverly highlights the human desire to identify something stable and timeless amidst constant change. It's a profound area of inquiry!
You have raised questions which every sensitive human being will always face during the life journey especially as one gets older..Though abstract however very nice effort from your end....