I see! Now if you don’t mind, could you please tell me what your attitude is when you hear someone utter the word “mystery” (which apparently doesn’t fit your rational/scientific view of things) in the middle of a “scientific” dialogue?
Obviously, both! The outcome is the result of a complexity that, until it is understood, is a mystery to those who try to understand it.
Well, it seems to me that the definition of “Mystery” (something not understood or beyond understanding) fits perfectly with what you say here, don’t you think?
But of course, for a rational/scientific mind the use of this word would be completely forbidden, wouldn’t it? Since for such a conditioned mind, the word “mystery” would imply that we would be talking about something indecipherable, impossible to be understood by the human mind, when evidently it is not so in the case at hand.
May I ask you something?
Why do you try to forbid me to use the word “Mystery”, forcing me somehow to use the word “complexity”, when it is evident (at least to me) that both speak of the same thing, that is: the inability to understand anything by the human being (which does not imply that such understanding is not possible in time)? Is it due to conditioning?
This is why I thought it would be worth clarifying what we both mean by these words, as our implicit assumptions may interfere with understanding each other.
Complexity and mystery have different connotations for me.
A complex system is one that in principle can be understood using a rational or scientific approach, even if the very complexity of a system surpasses an epistemic limit built into us by biology.
A system may be so infinitely complex that the computations required to decipher it transcend any human brain’s capacity to track. But this doesn’t means that there is something intrinsically mysterious about it (if you see what I mean).
Whereas a mystery is - for me at least - something that is unknowable on metaphysical grounds, and not merely because it is too intricate or complex for a human brain to calculate.
For example, the math involved in describing the nature of a black hole may be beyond what a finite human brain is capable of computing (I’m not an expert on black holes!). Ordinarily we might therefore say that black holes are inherently mysterious. But for me, the word mystery has stronger connotations than this. Black holes may still be understood in principle from within the limits of scientific knowledge.
An example for me of mystery, on the other hand, might be the fundamental nature of matter and energy (quantum theory has opened up many questions on this front, but has not resolved them), or of consciousness, or of infinity (by which I mean infinite space, not mathematical infinities). Maybe these things can eventually be explained using rational science, but they are certainly candidates for the mysterious (imo).
Approaching from another direction, complex is something where the outcome cannot be predicted with certainty, but it’s evident that there’s an underlying (material) process underneath. Once it’s understood or seen by science or other means, complexity becomes “merely” a more or less complicated (explained, rationalized) system.
Chaotic system is also unpredictable but the underlying process is not stable so it cannot be explained, understood by scientific process. If it is then it becomes complicated or complex.
Mystery implies just a lack of certainty, which gives rise to faith and belief. Thus both complicated and chaotic systems can be accepted as mysteries when there is no clarity, insight. It may be wise not to embark on metaphysical grounds lightly.
It’s largely a matter of semantics, but in order to communicate it is sometimes helpful to distinguish two different words in order to convey two different things.
In ordinary language ‘mystery’ is often used to mean, as you say, a practical or merely current absence of predictably, a practical or current absence of explanatory clarity, a practical or current lack of certainty, etc. This is what is what I have been referring to as ‘complexity’ (or issues related to complexity). The black box problem in deep learning/machine learning falls under this category for me.
On the other hand I do think there is space for metaphysical mystery (which is not merely the result of practical or current epistemic limits). This isn’t an argument for faith and belief, but an acknowledgment that there may be a dimension of reality which is not just inaccessible to human thought (for reasons of biological finitude), but because there may be, as a brute fact, a different dimension of thing altogether.
In so far as this thread is concerned I would personally use the word ‘mystery’ for this latter category, rather than for the former.
It’s an interesting theory, but as far as I understand it 5th dimension here is a speculative attempt to build on the extra dimensions involved in string theory, in order to give some kind of explanation for gravity and dark matter.
I’m not a physicist, so I can’t say much about it, but there are probably many such hidden ‘mysteries’ about the universe still to be discovered by scientists - without them being the real Mystery (if you see what I mean).
WE ARE BORN; we live; at some point, we die. The notion that our existence is limited by time is fundamental to human experience. We can’t fight it – and truth be told, we don’t know what we are fighting against. Time is a universal whose nature we all – and physicists especially – fail to grasp. But why is time so problematic? “If we had a really good answer to that question,” says Astrid Eichhorn, a theoretical physicist at the University of Southern Denmark in Odense, “then it wouldn’t be so problematic.”
On a certain level, time is simple: it is what stops everything happening at once. That might seem flippant, but it is at least something people can agree on. “The causal order of things is really what time is all about,” says Eichhorn.
On the contrary, isn’t such a perspective speculating about dimensions beyond perception the very essence of belief? It’s evident from the use of language “may be”…
When we entertain ideas without any direct perception or grounding in reality, we fall into the trap of projecting abstractions onto life. This is the root of confusion: the assumption of what might be without actually facing what is. Thought creates such ideas and then reinforces them as valid by virtue of its own movement, but this movement remains fragmented and inherently limited.
In the context of this thread and AI, such speculation seems irrelevant. The limitations of human-built “consciousness” remain bound by the nature of its creator. You can tell the tree by its fruits, so if people are a manifestation of the energy of the universe, then any intelligence we create can only reflect the intelligence, or lack thereof, that we embody.
To the extent that we remain caught in illusions, abstractions, and fragmentary thought, we cannot produce anything truly cohesive or intelligent. The question is not whether there is a “mystery” beyond “unknown” but whether we are capable of seeing and living with clarity and intelligence now, without reliance on speculation, but uncovering what can be known to us.
So why is it that we so readily accept living with assumptions? Can we observe, without trying to explain it away or justify it, what conditioning or avoidance compels us to retreat into the theoretical rather than face what is?
In the context of my discussion with Fraggle I felt it was relevant to distinguish between complexity and mystery, precisely because complexity is often used unwittingly as an excuse to smuggle in mystery when there is merely complexity. Fraggle is surely not alone in thinking that the complexities and unpredictabilities involved in deep learning are evidence of some hidden sentience on the part of AI, which is why the conversation - I felt - needed to take that turn.
As for mystery, my feeling is that there is a mystery about life, nature, the universe, etc. I wrote “maybe” because that mystery is difficult to pin down, and maybe impossible to pin down. There are several discussions K had with Bohm where he talked about the nature of mystery (he distinguished between the mysterious and the strange); and others where they talked about this mystery in terms of a “ground” (they said that scientists are unconsciously searching for this ground in matter). Not having contacted this ground myself I can only say “maybe” - but I don’t set up an alter to it or pray to it, so to label it “faith” and “belief” seems a little OTT.
The point I was making to Fraggle was simply that - for the purposes of this thread at least (i.e. with respect to the choices made by algorithms in deep learning) - I would rather use the word ‘mystery’ in this stronger sense, in order to distinguish it from complexity (which is more rationally comprehensible).
If this seems to be a digression from the main topic for you, or if the word ‘mystery’ offends your rational instincts in some way, then just ignore it.
Faith and belief extend far beyond religious or spiritual practices. They encompass any acceptance of something unperceived or unexamined, and this is where belief begins no matter how subtle or “innocent” as it may seem. Such acceptance inevitably conditions the brain, driving it away from direct perception of the fact.
When this movement is clearly observed, the mind no longer wastes energy in sustaining these structures. Just as understanding the construct of the center or self is essential to seeing clearly, so too is understanding the nature of belief, fear, and time. Without such understanding, the mind remains caught in its own conditioning.
If this is understood, one can ask if there’s any situation or purpose when resorting to mystery would be necessary or justified?
It’s probably more of an aesthetic matter. You seem not to feel or sense there to be a mystery about things (nature, the universe, etc), and another does. Does this mean that one is clear-sighted while the other is credulous? The way you describe mystery as “resorting” to something sounds wrong to me, as though it were merely an excuse for something, or a sleight of hand trick.
For me mystery is simply something that is felt sometimes when looking at a sky full of stars, or when alone in nature. It’s not a proof of anything, or a cunning rejoinder to an argument. It’s a sensibility - perhaps just an aesthetic response, perhaps more than this - that is sometimes felt. That’s all.
Let’s say there is something I don’t understand. If I use the word “complexity” to refer to that lack of understanding, it implies that I have a certainty of what? Likewise, if I use the word “mystery” to refer to that lack of understanding, it implies that I have a lack of certainty of what?
Oh well, I was wondering if I said somewhere that i thought that “the complexities and unpredictabilities involved in deep learning are evidence of some hidden sentience on the part of AI”… or this is just a conclusion reached by the other’s conditioning interpreting my words.
What would you say it is that prevents actual dialogue @James , the words… or the conditioning itself with all its springs always ready to be triggered as soon as that conditioning detects a word that doesn’t fit the conditioned definitions of what it should be and what it shouldn’t, that it possesses?
I honestly thought, from what you have written, that this is your view Fraggle. For example, in post 39 (on this thread) you wrote:
and
and
And in post 42 you wrote:
It seemed to me that your concern with the complexity of deep learning algorithms (aka the black box problem) had to do partly with your feeling that deep learning may involve sentience, given that you returned to this subject repeatedly after having made these earlier posts about machine sentience. That’s all.
Do you see your conditioning in all this or are you still deeply convinced that I think that “the complexities and unpredictabilities involved in deep learning are evidence of some hidden sentience on the part of AI”?
I gave you some reasons why - from what you had said earlier upthread - I thought this was your view. But if this is not your view, then it’s not your view.
As I recall, the main issue we were discussing had more to do with the difference (for me at least) between complexity and mystery.
The real question here is not about definitions but about the assumptions we unconsciously make. What does it mean to label something as “complex” or “mysterious”? Are these merely words to cover our inability to see clearly?
To call something “complex” suggests a lack of understanding or clarity about the relationships between its elements. But “mystery” goes further and assumes the existence of something beyond perception. This assumption is a subtle movement of thought that can mislead us, creating a sense of wonder or fascination but ultimately moving us away from what is.
The words mystery, mythology, and mystic share the same root in the Greek μύω (mýō), meaning “to close” or “to conceal.” Originally, they pointed to something hidden, reserved for deeper inquiry or initiation. Over time, these words have come to represent the symbolic, the transcendent or the unknown. The danger lies in how we use them. Are they an opening to inquiry, or do they subtly reinforce a sense of separation or certainty about the unknown?