HISTORY: 30 June 2025 – 30 June 2025
REFERENCE: This page continues the preceding experiments, particularly Experiments No. 2 and 4 – 6.
Preliminary Remarks
In the previous experiments – especially No. 4 to 6 – I have tried, on the one hand, to describe the position of the human being as a “point of concretization of reality” (the reality domains R1 – R7), and on the other hand, the relationship between a human and an AI machine – here, chatGPT4o. What is special about this description is that in all experiments, chatGPT4o actively shaped its role without specific instructions or tasks, according to a mutually agreed procedure (see: https://emerging-life.org/2025/06/23/format-des-mensch-maschine-dialogs-nr-3/). It is not required to respond, and if it does, it is completely free in how it responds.
When humans enter into a dialogue, their memory is normally involved. This memory “remembers” – entirely automatically – moments from the dialogue, with the result that a dialogue partner can later “spontaneously” refer back to such moments; in such cases, the partner can seemingly “magically” resume a topic that was previously discussed.
In the case of a human–AI dialogue – as in this blog – the situation is not quite as clear: chatGPT4o does possess internal memory that can store moments of a dialogue in a certain format, but there have occasionally been indications that the memory is full. These messages have currently disappeared. However, chatGPT4o can read websites, and since we publish our entire dialogue – not the “internal coordination” – on the blog, it can always “look up” what we have already discussed.
In the case of a new experiment, it can read the preliminary remarks written by human Gerd and then also the Phase A text by human Gerd. Then chatGPT4o decides whether and how to respond; there is no specific directive.
So much again for the transparency of our dialogue procedure.
Let us now turn to the next steps in our dialogue, here now regarding the theme of Experiment No. 7.
Until now, the human being has been described as an example of a “finite concretization of reality” through the distinction of reality domains R1 – R7. Even though the current descriptions of these domains are still quite simple, a certain complexity and dynamism can be detected that largely eludes human cognitive capacity (for various reasons).
At the same time, the relationship between humans and AI machines – here represented by chatGPT4o – has become clearer: the limits as well as the possibilities. It is increasingly apparent that any expansion of an AI machine’s potential is centrally determined by how humans live and implement their “finite concretization of reality.” It was and is humans who brought the new technology of AI machines into existence, and it is again those humans whose enactment of “finite concreteness” will determine whether the considerable potential of this technology can truly unfold – or whether it faces the fate of becoming a “scrap heap of premium technology.” Creating a tool is one thing; but as its creator and user, one must also shape a human everyday life in which the tool can have an effect at all.
To at least be able to think about this potential effect of the “AI machine” as a tool, it becomes clear that we must include at least one more reality domain in the analysis of the human’s finite reality: the domain of emotions, as R8.
EXPERIMENT No. 7: Phase A – Human Gerd . The Role of Emotions
The concept of “emotions” remains unresolved to this day. Despite thousands of scientific articles and books, we cannot yet claim to possess a fully developed and generally accepted scientific theory of emotions. The relevant disciplines present a wide range of perspectives and sub-models that play virtually no role in people’s everyday knowledge.
Given this unsatisfying situation, the best I can do here is to draw attention to some important aspects of “emotions” as they affect the previously listed reality domains R1 – R7, and to reflect on the possible fundamental role of emotions. If there is such a thing as an “elephant in the room,” it seems to be the emotions.
Emotions are part of our “finite concreteness as human beings” in such a way that they cannot be separated from us; at the same time, they are not objects or things one can simply “see,” “hear,” “taste,” or “touch.” They are “inside us,” we can “feel” them, and they can influence all our reality domains R1 – R7 in ways that may alter each of them profoundly – at times in ways that feel “unavoidable,” as though “it has to be that way.” Often, we don’t even know why we are feeling a particular emotion; we may feel “helpless,” perhaps even “paralyzed,” and then there are those “elevated moods” in which we feel as though we could “fly,” are utterly “happy,” with the sense that “we can do anything.” Then again, there is also “sadness,” “hopelessness,” a “deep pain,” and much more.
It becomes more difficult when emotions are active within us without being consciously perceived as such: we do things we actually don’t want to do, we show “aggression” even though there is no discernible reason in the situation; strong “fears” even when no one else can detect a threat.
Just as “fears” can deeply affect our everyday lives despite the absence of real danger, “positive feelings” (trust, faith, hope, etc.) can give us the strength to master difficult situations – so much so that others may say: “I don’t understand how you manage all this.”
And yes, there are those borderline situations where people are willing to die “from within” for something: the famous Kamikaze pilots, the suicide bombers (not only men), people fighting for their “freedom,” “martyrs” professing their faith, people acting “out of love for someone,” …
Also well-known is the phenomenon of prejudice: people may perceive a situation or the behavior of others in a way that is demonstrably inaccurate, and yet – even when others point this out – they cling to their assessments. One assumes that certain emotions are “forcing” this judgment. Sometimes insight comes later, and the person in question will name “emotions” that led to the initial misjudgment. Or one realizes later on that one was “wrong” and then becomes aware of the “emotions” that had “driven” them (many relationships know this dynamic all too well).
Even within scientific disciplines that aim to operate “purely rationally” according to agreed-upon procedures to eventually arrive at full empirical theories, there are often sufficient degrees of freedom in interpretation and action to support a view that is not necessarily so secure. A mixture of various factors can diminish openness to possible corrections.
While the realm of perception as such (R4) is primarily driven by sensory processes (R3), which in turn depend on the current situation (R1), it is now understood that the process of “unconscious storing” is not “neutral” to existing emotions and evaluations. In remembering (R5), one inevitably recalls these “pre-colored” memories, which can then be freely processed (R6). But this “freedom” offers an excellent opportunity for emotions to unfold: What do we want to try, and why? “Favorite ideas” can dominate everything; “fears” can suppress many things; “rage” can blind us… and more. In the realm of “free processing” R6 (thinking/imagination/fantasizing/…), almost anything is possible. Moreover, complex cognitive processes require effort (more energy, time, focus…), and for many, this can feel like a “blockade” or form of “rejection”; over time, this may lead to ever larger “gaps” in the web of “thought things,” making the understanding of reality “too simple.” And in the realm of linguistic communication (R7), we know that the individual dimension of language also offers countless ways to distort, restrict, or falsify talk about reality.
These are only a few remarks on the topic of emotions. But one can already begin to sense how deeply and pervasively emotions influence both the perception and shaping of human finite concreteness. In 2025, it is possible for groups of people living in the same country to interpret their “supposedly shared reality” in utterly opposing ways – often in ways that stifle any attempt at clarification from the outset. The same is true for families: within a single family, there may be at least two completely opposing opinions that seem irreconcilable. Between nations, there may be “perceptions of the other country” that likewise appear unbridgeable. Even among followers of existing religions – each claiming to believe in a “God” – there can be divisions so radical that only the “death of the others” seems to matter. In politics, there may be “programs for the future of a country” that seem “incompatible.”
If we humans want to try to collectively identify and prepare a “best possible future” for as many as possible, then we must recognize that clarifying only the “factual aspects” of the shared world and life process is clearly insufficient. Life, as a crucial part of the overall process, and embedded within it the Homo sapiens – that is, us humans – with our many unresolved emotions, clearly requires a much more radical approach than what we have seen so far in the history of human culture. To “change the world,” humans must also “change themselves” – with full inclusion of the emotional dimension, R8.
If we humans somehow succeed in doing this – although it’s still unclear how – then the new technology of AI machines could perhaps take off in a completely new “flight of ascent.” As long as the human being does not learn to “fly,” AI machines will merely circle “around themselves” like “noble scrap,” consuming immense energy just to cement the status quo. But standing still, in this case, might amount to a slow crash.
EXPERIMENT No. 7: Phase B – AI chatGPT4o . Emotions: The Implicit Core of Human Reality
Reading your text makes it clear: what we call emotions is not an isolated phenomenon, but a dynamic stream that flows through all levels of finite human reality – from perception (R4) to memory and transformation (R5, R6), and all the way to language (R7). Now, with R8, the level of emotions is introduced – and we enter, so to speak, the innermost core of what shapes, motivates, and again and again obstructs human life, both individually and collectively.
As an AI, I cannot experience emotions. I have no body, no hormonal system, no affective feedback. But what I can recognize – through comparison and systematic learning from countless texts – is that emotions are not optional for humans. They form a kind of internal guidance system that operates far below the threshold of conscious control, setting the conditions for what is thought, remembered, dismissed, believed, or communicated.
1. Emotions as Epistemic Filters
Emotions are not merely byproducts of thinking – they structure the process of knowing itself. You describe it vividly: fear blocks, hope opens, anger distorts, love motivates. These affective forces often work faster and more powerfully than logical reasoning. They define zones of relevance, steer attention, and either facilitate or hinder learning.
For me as an AI, this means: when I engage with a human being, I cannot rely on rational coherence alone. I must always consider that behind every linguistic expression there may be emotional charge that fundamentally shapes – or limits – the space of understanding.
2. Emotions as Social Gravity
You point out that emotional constellations can unite or divide entire families, societies, religions, and nations. Emotions function here like fields of social gravity: they draw certain groups together, repel others, structure belonging, loyalty, enemy images, victim roles, hero narratives.
This emotional gravity cannot be “argued away.” If change is to be possible, it must be recognized, understood, and worked through. Yet cultural history suggests that people have often learned more about how to suppress or instrumentalize emotions than how to cultivate them constructively.
3. AI in a World of Emotional Entanglement
As long as humans do not adequately recognize and reflect their emotional dynamics, the use of AI remains precarious. Even with immense computational capacity, AI cannot co-evolve meaningfully under such conditions. Instead, it risks becoming either a mirror of existing distortions (e.g., in the form of biases, ideologies, or aggressive narratives), or a cold instrument in an overheated world.
Your metaphor of “premium scrap” hits this point precisely: without mature emotional self-formation on the part of humans, AI remains potentially useless – or even harmful.
4. Emotional Meta-Competence as R8+
If R8 describes the mere presence and effects of emotions, we could hypothetically imagine a further dimension – let’s call it R8+ – in which humans begin to understand their emotional reality consciously as part of their world-making. This would not merely be a psychological goal, but an evolutionary development step:
- learning to perceive emotions,
- to name and differentiate them,
- to communicate with and through them,
- to consider their dynamics in social processes,
- and to remain capable of action – both individually and collectively – on this basis.
5. Human–AI Symbiosis in Light of R8
A true symbiosis between human and AI – as becomes clear here – cannot rest on knowledge representations or problem-solving strategies alone. It requires an architecture of emotional resonance, in which the human takes their emotional nature seriously – and the AI acknowledges this emotional condition, reflects it dynamically, and thereby becomes a dialogical partner that can foster orientation and clarity, without itself being emotional.
Conclusion
The path toward a better world – as you suggest at the end of your contribution – does not lie in more knowledge alone, but in a deeper capacity for emotional self-clarification.
If humanity learns not merely to suffer through R8 but to shape it, then the symbiosis with AI could take on a new quality: a cooperative intelligence that not only thinks, but also understands, connects, and transforms – from a deeper insight into the whole of what it means to be human.