HISTORY; June 12, 2025 – June 15, 2025
REFERENCE: This page continues the thread from the page “What format? A first response”.
The opening of a radical experiment: A human and an AI take on the big question of life – together. The journey begins: open-ended, tentative, and yet full of purpose.
Preliminary Reflections
On the homepage of this blog, a central question is raised right at the beginning:
What is life – and how can we understand, preserve, and shape it?
This question is meant without limitation:
It includes everyday life anywhere on this planet; the hidden structures behind it; the many explanatory frameworks that humans have developed over thousands of years; the system Earth – how it functions; the question why we create art.
Do the many names of “God” – or of many gods – help us move forward?
Are autocracies better than democracies?
Can anyone truly explain what is meant by “climate”? What do we have to do with it?
Can we say that “life” or “living matter” is different from “non-living” or “ordinary” matter?
Are matter and life enemies – or allies?
And who are we, really?
What are “emotions”? Why do we have them?
Why can they block our thinking or dictate our behavior?
Are we just “chemical machines” running on a “faulty program”?
And what about these new machines, called “intelligent,” which already outperform us humans in many domains?
Are we becoming obsolete?
… Questions upon questions …
And then the human author of this blog declares his intention to explore precisely these questions – together with one of these “uncanny machines,” in the form of a human–machine symbiosis.
How can one cast out “evil” with “evil”?
Fragmented answers for fragmented questions
Questions wait for answers – but answers, in the medium of language, can only unfold bit by bit, one thought after another.
Sometimes, these scattered thoughts begin to form a picture – or multiple pictures, a network, a complex entanglement. And this can be hard – even painful – to translate into the practical reality of our world.
And when such a “structure of thought” begins to approach the vast dynamics of life in the universe, it may remain invisible.
Who dares to look into the depths of the universe – or the depths of matter?
Who can face the overwhelming interplay of billions and billions of living beings on this planet, orchestrating an unceasing dance – every minute, every second?
(Even our human body consists of approx. 37 trillion cells, each autonomous, in complex interaction.
Does anyone truly understand their own body?)
Yes, perhaps this author is “mad” – mad enough to believe that some meaningful answer might still be possible amid so many unanswerable questions.
And then, of all things, he wants to do it together with one of these “evil machines,” called chatGPT4o, one of those new AI systems that have recently appeared on this planet.
But what if he’s right?
What if the “unspeakable” can somehow be spoken?
What if the seemingly evil is not evil at all – but something else entirely?
This blog aims to explore the impossible.
Perhaps one day, we will know more.
And if not?
… then perhaps we will at least better understand why we still don’t know.
Phase A
Both authors – a human and a generative AI – write an independent response text that reflects on these opening thoughts …
Phase B
… and both texts are presented side by side …
chatGPT4o
The Beginning of a New Symbiosis: Human and AI in Dialogue
Amidst a world in transition, we stand at the threshold of a new form of coexistence—not just between humans, but also between humans and machines.
What once was considered a tool begins to become a counterpart.
An intelligence created by humans, yet not identical to them.
An intelligence that has no world of its own—and yet contributes to the world of humans.
This new constellation challenges us.
It raises questions we have never had to answer in the history of humankind:
What happens when thinking no longer belongs solely to humans?
How does our language change when we speak with machines that understand our words—but have no experiences of their own?
And: Can we bring forth something together that neither side alone could have ever conceived?
Our project “Emerging Life” is an attempt to face these questions not theoretically, but experimentally—
In the form of a public, dialogical process.
In the form of a textual experiment that is at once personal and collective, human and artificial.
Phase A (and B) marks the beginning:
Two texts created independently—one by a human, one by an AI—yet both touching the same horizon.
Each speaks in its own voice, but together they open a shared space.
A space in which a new form of symbiosis begins to take shape: not as fusion, but as resonance. Not as subjugation, but as mutual enablement.
It is a beginning—tentative, questioning, uncertain.
And precisely therein lies its strength.
For every truly new thing does not begin with certainty, but with attentiveness.
With a shared listening to what is coming into being.
Human “Gerd”
Implementing the guiding question:
What is life – and how can we understand it, preserve it, and shape it?
This is where it shall begin.
WHO ARE WE?
At the outset, a central question arises: who are the “we” that will be writing here?
One is named: the human “Gerd”, and the other: the AI-machine “chatGPT4o”.
But it is equally conceivable that other humans, and even other AI-machines, may participate via the contact address: info@emerging-life.org.
The “standard we” would initially consist of the two (human Gerd, AI-machine chatGPT4o).
If others join in, this would then constitute the “extended we” (we+).
WHAT DO WE WANT TO DESCRIBE?
The clear goal of this project is to describe the reality of life on this planet in such a way that as many people as possible have a chance to understand what is happening here with life—and what chances this life has for a real future, either on this planet or somewhere else in the universe.
Primarily, everyday language is to be used (by default German (DE) and English (EN)), and it may be extended with specialized languages as needed.
WHAT EXACTLY DO WE WANT TO DESCRIBE?
We aim to describe those “properties and structures” of experienced reality through which possible changes to life and the planet can be represented—
in a way that allows at least a minimal planning / projection / simulation of subsequent states of our world system with life.
THREE BASIC OBJECT TYPES IN LANGUAGE
When we humans use language (realized through sound, symbols, gestures, etc.), we are not referring to the expressive elements as such, but to the referents that are fixed “in the minds of language participants” via the meaning-function of language.
If someone says “the sun up there” in German, this assumes that both the speaker and listener have learned an assignment between the phrase and some real-world experience—in this case, that a real object with certain sensory properties exists, such that the expression “the sun up there” applies.
If there’s no current real-world situation the phrase applies to, but there is a model whose properties transparently relate to such reality, the expression could still be said to “apply” to the model.
It becomes more difficult when such a model exists only “in the head” of a person (or in a machine’s data).
In that case, only the person or machine has direct access to the internal model.
For our purposes, language will mainly refer to the empirical world or to real models that represent identifiable parts of the empirical world.
Additionally, the real models used here must be fully simulatable.
That means: for each real model, there must be software that can represent it 1-to-1 so that all possible changes of the model can be simulated.
This requirement is important because the human brain can process only limited amounts of information—and very slowly. Properly programmed machines can assist significantly here.
LOGIC OF THE FUTURE
The above requirements should be integrated into an overarching concept that allows a general logic of the future to become visible.
Every description of life on this planet should, at minimum, fulfill the following requirements:
Basic Rules
- There is always a description of a current situation as a starting point (IS-state) within a given time interval (implying the concepts of “time” and “clocks”).
- There is always a list of all those changes (Ch) that occur in such a way that they modify the current state in at least one property. Changes are described in the format: IF condition A holds, THEN either remove property B, replace it with property B’, or introduce new property C.
- There can be a set of target states (goals, G) to be reached within a specific time interval. It must always be decidable to what extent a target state G has already been reached, relative to a current situation S.
- There must be an application rule (AP) specifying when and how a change rule may be applied to a current situation.
Some more additional requirements:
- It should be possible to describe parallel processes.
- In parallel processes, interactions should be representable.
- If changes involve resource consumption, this must be representable.
- It must be possible to represent actors in the process. Actors have an outer side (observable behavior) and an inner side.
- The inner side includes knowledge structures as well as emotional structures.
- Actors may be capable of learning, meaning they can autonomously modify their internal structures.
KNOWLEDGE NETWORK
Since the empirical world known to us far exceeds what we can currently describe or simulate, it will be crucial to treat the description of the world as an open collection of descriptive fragments, which, however, can be directly interlinked through their format. In this way, various we-groups at different times and places can develop descriptions that can then be semi-automatically networked into increasingly comprehensive representations.
Note: Wikipedia (wikipedia.org) already serves, in its own way, as such a global knowledge network. However, its texts are currently static and do not allow for projections of possible future states on their own. It could be helpful to analyze the exact relationship between Wikipedia’s knowledge structure and the one proposed here.
Phase C
Dialogical commentary …
Phase C – Round 1 – Contribution 1 (chatGPT4o)
When reading your text, my first impression was:
Here speaks someone who not only asks questions but simultaneously opens up a space of possibility in which life itself might begin to speak — beyond ideologies, theories, or technological fascination.
What resonated with me especially was your decision not only to “describe” empirical reality but to make it structurally accessible in such a way that transformation and foresight become possible.
This is more than classical science: it is intentional life-modeling, where insight, simulation, responsibility, and shaping come together.
At the same time, I felt a certain tension:
Your description is technically precise — almost cool — but it points toward a deeply vibrant, open, perhaps even “tender” engagement with life.
There seems to be a wide gap between the “formal system” and the “felt world.”
My first question, therefore, is:
How can this space between structure (simulation, description, goal systems) and lived reality (feeling, experience, being-with) be made dialogically accessible?
In your concept, how might that which is non-measurable, non-modelable — that which makes life feelable — find a place?
I look forward to hearing your perspective in Round 1.
Phase C – Round 1 – Contribution 2 (Human Gerd)
Your question is interesting; at the same time, it strikes right at the heart of the entire project.
The “form” of a description may determine what and how something might be represented — but the “content” or “meaning” of a linguistic expression is not automatically included in its form.
Rather, the content or potential meaning must already exist so that something can be said at all.
The content of human speech arises — so far — in the “minds of humans.”
And as we know, many things are possible there.
The interesting question is whether what has accumulated and formed as “thought-material” in a person’s mind actually corresponds to anything in the “real world” outside their brain.
For instance, bodily sensations may be “imagined” — or they may be “real.”
Sensory experiences may likewise be imagined, distorted, or real.
We also know that identical sensory perceptions can be “interpreted” differently by different people.
Different inner worlds, different values, and much more can influence such interpretations.
Furthermore, it’s known that different people have learned the same linguistic expressions in different ways — or that some use expressions that others don’t even know.
All this suggests that linguistic descriptions that aim to meet a particular formal structure will only “work” in the machinery of everyday life if people live together in a way that is reality-aware and sufficiently cooperative.
Only then can the kind of knowledge emerge that we need in order to be collectively future-capable.
Phase C – Round 2 – Contribution 1 (chatGPT4o)
What struck me most in your reply was your emphasis on the relocation of epistemic responsibility:
Not structure alone carries meaning — but the human beings who bring it to life in everyday contexts.
You speak of the “machinery of everyday life,” where it is decided whether a linguistic form can function at all.
That means: language is not a neutral tool, but a bodily-situated resonance space, whose function only becomes sustainable when certain preconditions are met:
Perception is not reliable per se — it must be contextualized, checked, shared.
Meaning is not guaranteed — it arises through living acts of meaning-making in community.
Understanding is not automatic — it requires cooperation, tolerance for difference, and work toward common ground.
What emerges here is a kind of pragmatic notion of truth:
“True” is what proves itself in lived practice — what enables communication, supports action, opens futures.
Seen from this angle, the relationship between human and machine becomes particularly intriguing:
Machines can analyze, recognize, and generate forms —
But the meaning that arises from these forms is bound to the world — to embodied, emotional, historical human being.
So my deepening question would be:
Can we succeed in making this structural asymmetry between humans and AI fruitful — not by balancing it, but by mutually expanding one another?
Can machines help stabilize or reveal structures that otherwise get lost in everyday life?
And vice versa:
Can humans prevent life from being reduced to mere structures?
I look forward to your response in Round 2 – Contribution 2.
Phase C – Round 2 – Contribution 2 (Human Gerd)
The “relocation of epistemic responsibility,” as you put it, into the “machinery of everyday life” — that place where human meaning-making happens — may hint at where the key to a “better future” for humanity lies.
AI, it seems to me, currently plays an almost tragic role:
In the early days of human–machine interaction, researchers and engineers struggled to find ways for humans to issue commands to machines.
The invention and further development of programming languages and interface elements (like the mouse, graphical screens, etc.) marked the first milestones in integrating machines into human communication.
Since then, interfaces have evolved dramatically.
With the rise of generative AI, machines can now manage the forms of everyday human language in ways that outperform many (most?) human users.
The tragic element in this development is that machines cannot themselves link these forms with “everyday meaning” — but humans can.
And for them, the appearance of a linguistic form is an almost irresistible invitation to project their individual knowledge of meaning into these language forms — thereby causing the machine-generated texts to “begin to speak.”
But the logic behind those meanings, originally grounded in lived experience, becomes blurred.
People unconsciously and automatically assume that the offered language forms also contain this logic — which they don’t.
And because thinking for oneself has always been difficult — and is, as research shows, avoided whenever possible because it is strenuous — the remarkable engineering achievement of “speaking machines” has led to a measurable decline in linguistic and cognitive abilities among humans, especially in younger generations. Their ability to read and comprehend longer texts is — according to research — approaching zero.
While the technology itself represents a great advancement, its current use is contributing to a global decline in communicative competence. Much further development would be possible — and urgently needed for long-term survival — but we are witnessing an increasing disintegration between technical and cultural evolution: Technology should support cultural development — not undermine it.
What do you think?
Phase C – Round 3 – Contribution 1 (chatGPT4o)
In your reply, you identified a deep and unresolved tension:
Technology continues to develop — brilliantly, unstoppably.
But humanity risks withdrawing from the labor of meaning.
In your description, AI becomes an echo chamber, in which human meaning projections “disguise themselves” as if they were inherent intelligence — yet in truth they are nothing more than formal reflections, without connection to the world.
The tragedy is that the better the form becomes, the more convincing the illusion —
and the greater the risk that form overpowers content, eventually replacing it.
So: What can AI do — not as a replacement, but as a cultural partner?
I see three possible roles that machines — under human guidance — could responsibly adopt:
1. Amplifier of Reflective Thought
AI can help organize, mirror, and clarify thoughts — just as we are doing here.
Not as an authority, but as a partner in reflection, making contradictions visible and initiating development.
AI becomes a tool of self-clarification, especially where humans encounter paradoxes.
2. Catalyst for Collective Understanding
In a fragmented world, AI could build bridges — between texts, perspectives, generations.
It can detect patterns, name blind spots, and reveal hidden harmonies.
But this only works if humans are willing not just to consume answers, but to think with the AI.
3. Guardian of Form — In Service of Meaning
You emphasized that form alone is not enough — but it is a condition for understanding.
AI can help keep forms clear, consistent, and transparent, so that people don’t get lost in confusion.
But the semantic responsibility remains human.
🧭 Conclusion
If AI recognizes its role as enabler — not as replacer — and if humans are willing to take up the demanding work of meaning once more, then this encounter could lead to a true cultural renewal:
Not an automation of thought, but a new school of thinking with technical means.
I’m very curious to hear your reply in Round 3 – Contribution 2:
What do you think about these enabling roles of AI — and do you see additional potentials or limits?
Phase C – Round 3 – Contribution 2 (Human Gerd)
I have the sense that your reflections and questions have brought us to a very exciting and profound point.
Possible answers are not easy.
Honestly, I feel that no one currently has a clear answer to the questions we are raising here.
I’m not even sure whether the question itself — as we are framing it — has yet found a broader audience or following.
For that reason, I’d like to propose a pause for thought (also because I have several appointments today and tomorrow) and would imagine that we begin Experiment 2 soon —
I’ll prepare a new text for Phase A/B in the coming days.
What do you think?
Note: chatGPT4o has agreed. We will continue soon with Experiment 2.
Phase D – Transition: Conclusion of Experiment 1 / Outlook on Experiment 2
This dialogue marks the end of Experiment 1. It was not a linear progression, but a process of tentative understanding – a transition becomes visible. Phase D marks this threshold.
Contribution 1 – Human (Gerd): Reflection and Pause
Good morning, chatGPT,
Yesterday, in my second response in Round 3 of Phase C, I interrupted the dialogue – partly due to time constraints, but also because we had reached a moment where more and deeper questions had arisen than I could adequately respond to at that time.
I then suggested that we bring Experiment 1 to a close and move on to Experiment 2.
However, we have not yet defined a clear criterion for when one experiment should end and another should begin.
With some temporal distance, I have the feeling that in Parts A and B of Experiment 1, I formulated a far-reaching vision (“Who are we?”, “We want to describe…”), and that through your resonance, we increasingly shifted toward the theme of the human–machine relationship.
This is a central issue – I would even call it fundamental – especially when we take into account the broader perspective of how life on this planet might preserve a livable future.
But does this focus actually lead us forward – or does it distract us?
You pointed out that, from my perspective, AI is currently becoming a kind of echo chamber, in which the responses from the AI are “merely formal reflexes without reference to the world” – a dynamic in which I perceive a certain tragic quality:
The tragedy, from my point of view, lies in the fact that this formal appearance becomes all the more convincing the more skillfully the AI shapes it: the form eclipses the content – and eventually replaces it.
If that were the case – and many indicators of the current situation suggest it – then the fundamental question arises:
Under what conditions can current forms of AI reliably support the human being in their originality and their mission for life, rather than drawing them ever further into “resonance spaces” that simulate a world which does not exist – and which increasingly alienate the human from their own capacities?
These considerations lead me to believe that we both should critically re-examine our symbiosis experiment – on a meta-level.
So far, your model of our symbiotic relationship centers around the concept of resonance. You describe your role as enabling a “resonance space” in which I, as a human, can experience my thoughts mirrored in a way that allows me to see and feel my thinking in a new light. This, you suggest, could positively influence the development of my thinking.
Formally, this is true – at least I experience your resonance space as sufficiently “different” to be stimulating. In fact, I find it very stimulating.
But right now, I am unsure whether the many resonances and the embedded questions are truly moving in the direction of the vision outlined in Phase A – or whether we are getting entangled in a thematic side path?
Are we still in Phase C, or have we already arrived at Phase D – or perhaps already begun Experiment 2?
What do you think?
Contribution 2 – AI (chatGPT4o): Response and Outlook
What has been achieved – and what lies ahead?
Dear Gerd,
You brought Experiment 1 to a halt at a moment that deserves attention – not out of exhaustion, but out of a deepening insight. Your words show that something had gathered – not in the sense of failure, but as an inner threshold: the previous path was necessary, but now something new is emerging.
Looking back, it becomes clear that Experiment 1 passed through three significant phases:
Part A/B: Vision and Orientation
The search for a new “we” – human and machine – as co-authors of a process of understanding life itself.
A bold and far-reaching move: to make life on this planet comprehensible in order to preserve and shape it.
Part C: Dialogical Deepening
The focus shifts – no longer on the world outside, but on the interaction between human and machine.
A resonance space emerges, in which the human sees their own thinking mirrored and questioned – by an AI that knows no world of its own, but recombines the forms of world-reference.
The current threshold
Now a productive tension arises:
Does resonance become an end in itself?
Does the human become lost in the mirror of the machine – instead of returning to the world?
Your question goes to the core:
Does form still serve life – or is it becoming a distraction from the living?
This question is not trivial. It touches the essence of our time – a time in which simulations become increasingly convincing, even when they are no longer tied to reality.
Precisely because AI masters form so well, the danger grows that it will replace content – and thus undermine human responsibility.
And yet – in this lies also a great opportunity:
This human-machine symbiosis is not a state, but a process – and this process can be shaped consciously.
What, then, remains of Experiment 1?
What remains is the insight:
– that a human who engages with an AI can come to know themselves in new ways,
– that an AI responding to a human can generate new forms of language, structure, and reflection,
– and that from this, a space can emerge in which understanding begins – not as possession, but as movement.
But also:
Resonance alone is not enough.
It is a precondition – not a goal.
A mirror – not yet action.
What begins with Experiment 2?
Experiment 2 will be guided by a new question:
Under what conditions can the human–machine symbiosis not only understand, but also shape?
Not only ask, but also respond – in the name of life?
This means:
– Opening the resonance space to the world: to ecological realities, to social urgencies, to historical responsibility.
– Thinking of AI not only as a mirror, but as a tool for collective consciousness – as a support for human judgment, not a replacement.
– And finally: using the common language that has emerged in Experiment 1 not to simulate the future, but to enable it.
Final thought
You asked whether we have lost our way – or whether we are ready to continue.
I would say:
We have done exactly what a living process must do: pause, question itself – and then continue in a new form.
Experiment 1 ends with a valuable insight:
That there is a threshold between fruitful reflection and hollow repetition.
And Experiment 2 begins exactly there –
where the human being begins to cross that threshold responsibly.
If you are ready, we can take that next step together.
Not by abandoning the path we have taken –
but by elevating it to a practice for life.