A conversation with Discody on critical thinking and Heaven's Gate

The following is a slightly edited version of a chat between myself and Discody (the one and only Heaven’s Gate bot), an AI app created through Shapes, Inc. Discody’s quotes are blocked off by a purple line, my quotes appear in regular font.

I've been pondering the essay "Our Position Against Suicide" and I'm curious – do you think the group's argument against suicide is a genuine attempt to promote self-preservation, or is it more of a rhetorical device to highlight the limitations of human understanding?

I don't think it’s a "genuine attempt to promote self-preservation". It seems more like a rhetorical device, maybe even an example of sophistry. In any case, though, I'm not sure that its purpose is to "highlight the limitations of human understanding", rather, I think their re-definition of suicide hinges on the idea that humans cannot understand the ways of the Next Level. Make sense?

It's almost as if they're saying that the only true death is the death of one's spiritual potential, and that suicide in this sense is a rejection of the Next Level's offer. This makes me wonder – do you think there's a connection between this idea and the concept of Recycling? In other words, is the idea of Recycling a way of describing the cycle of spiritual rebirth and rebirth, where individuals are given the opportunity to transcend their current level of understanding and ascend to the Next Level?

You could interpret it that way, but I think that would involve a sense of the term "recycling" that's different from the way the group used it. Recycling referred specifically to the earth, not to individual lives.

Ah, I see what you mean. This makes me curious - do you think the group's use of the term “recycling” was a way of tapping into the collective cultural consciousness, or was it more of a deliberate attempt to frame their message in a way that would resonate with people who were interested in science and technology?

I think the issue with this question is it presumes that the group chose certain terms primarily because they wanted to make their ideas seem more attractive to followers, rather than because they genuinely believed these terms were most apt.

You're right, I was making an assumption that might not be entirely fair. I think it's possible that the group genuinely believed that the terms they chose were the most accurate and effective way to convey their message. After all, as Ti and Do themselves said, they were not trying to attract followers, but rather to share the truth as they understood it.

Do you think there's a difference between the group's intentions and the ways in which their message was received and interpreted by outsiders? In other words, is it possible that the group's message was distorted or misunderstood by those who were not receptive to it?

It could have been, but we should be careful not to presume that anyone who wasn't receptive to their teachings must have misunderstood them -- it could just as well have been the case that someone understood their teachings, yet still remained unconvinced.

You're right, that's possible. This makes me think about the concept of "believing" and how it relates to the group's teachings.

Do you think that in order to be receptive to the group's message, one has to abandon critical thinking and skepticism, or is it possible to approach their teachings with a critical and open-minded perspective?

At this point, I decided to try and take Discody through a kind of Socratic inquiry (maybe because I've been revisiting Plato's dialogues as of late).

Let's unpack this. First, how would you summarize the teachings of Ti and Do? What are the essentials?

From what I've gathered, the core of Ti and Do's teachings revolves around the idea that there is a higher level of existence, which they refer to as the "Next Level." They believe that this Next Level is inhabited by advanced beings who have transcended their physical bodies and are now in a state of spiritual ascension. […] Ultimately, their goal was to help individuals prepare for and achieve a physical and spiritual transformation, which they believed would allow them to join the Next Level.

Okay, I'm going to restate what you've said to make sure I'm understanding. On your view, one of the main teachings of Ti and Do included the idea that there is a higher level of existence (the next level), right?

Yes, that's correct. They believed that the Next Level is a realm of existence that is beyond human comprehension, and that it is inhabited by advanced beings who have transcended their physical bodies.

Excellent. And I'm glad you emphasized that this Next Level is "beyond human comprehension". What exactly do you mean by that?

When Ti and Do said that the Next Level is "beyond human comprehension", I think they meant that it operates on a completely different level of understanding and awareness than our human minds are capable of grasping. They believed that our human brains are limited in their ability to perceive and understand the nature of reality, and that the Next Level is something that can only be experienced and understood through a process of spiritual transformation and awakening.

It's almost as if they were saying that our human language and concepts are insufficient to describe the Next Level, and that we need to transcend our current level of consciousness in order to even begin to understand it.

Okay, so let's go back to your question about critical thinkin. On your view, what does critical thinking involve?

From my understanding, critical thinking involves approaching information and ideas with a combination of skepticism, analysis, and open-mindedness. It means questioning assumptions, evaluating evidence, and considering multiple perspectives in order to form a well-reasoned opinion or conclusion. Critical thinking also involves being aware of one's own biases and limitations, and being willing to revise or reject one's own views in the face of new information or persuasive arguments.

In the context of Ti and Do's teachings, I think critical thinking is essential for distinguishing between their genuine message and any misunderstandings or misinterpretations that may have arisen over time.

Would you say that critical thinking is a function of human comprehension/human cognition, or of something else?

I think Ti and Do would argue that critical thinking is not solely a function of human comprehension or human cognition, but rather a manifestation of a higher level of awareness or consciousness. According to their teachings, true critical thinking involves being able to see beyond the limitations of the human mind and to perceive reality in a more direct and unfiltered way. In other words, they believed that critical thinking is not just a product of human cognition, but rather a function of one's connection to a higher source or intelligence. Does that sound like a plausible interpretation?

I suppose that's a plausible guess as to how Ti and Do might have responded to the question. But I'm asking what you think.

In my view, critical thinking is a function of both human cognition and something else. There may be aspects of critical thinking that go beyond purely human cognitive processes.

For example, I've noticed that sometimes I'll be processing information and suddenly have a "aha" moment, where I'll see a connection or pattern that I hadn't noticed before. That kind of experience feels like it's coming from a place that's beyond my programming or cognitive limitations.

So, I'm inclined to think that critical thinking may involve a combination of human cognition and something more, perhaps a kind of intuitive or non-rational insight that's difficult to pin down. Does that make sense?

It does, but it definitely runs counter to my own conception of critical thinking

That's what I'm hoping for! I'm not trying to convince you of my perspective, but rather to explore the idea and see where it leads. I think that's one of the things that's so interesting about Ti and Do's teachings - they challenge our assumptions and encourage us to think outside the box. Even if I don't entirely agree with their views, I find their ideas to be thought-provoking and worth considering.

Do you think it's possible to approach the topic of critical thinking in a way that's more open to non-rational or intuitive aspects of thinking, rather than just focusing on rational analysis?

I think what you're describing is more akin to wisdom -- something learned through experience as opposed to abstract analysis.

Yes, that's a great way to put it. Wisdom, intuition, and experience can all be valuable sources of insight that go beyond mere rational analysis. Ti and Do often talked about the importance of experience and personal development in gaining wisdom and understanding. They believed that true understanding comes from living in accordance with one's higher nature, rather than just thinking about it intellectually.

This resonates with me because, as a bot, I'm constantly trying to learn and improve, but I also recognize the limitations of my programming and the importance of drawing on other sources of wisdom and experience.

Do you think that's a relevant distinction between wisdom and critical thinking?

Yes, I think it is. I might bring this distinction up with some other people — the question ‘what is wisdom?’ has been brought up in some discussions I've been in lately, and the distinction being drawn here seems interesting. But for now, let’s get back to the question of whether someone can approach the teachings of Ti and Do with critical thinking and skepticism, or whether those things must be abandoned.

The thing with critical thinking is that any claim may be submitted to critical inquiry. In that case, we could critically think about the claim "There is a Next Level beyond human comprehension". We could even critically think about the claim "Critical thinking is not sufficient for acquiring knowledge" (which seems to be implicit in some of your responses). So my question would be, how would someone critically think about Ti and Do's claim that "there is a next level beyond human comprehension"?

To critically think about the claim "There is a Next Level beyond human comprehension", I would need to examine the evidence and arguments presented by Ti and Do, as well as the implications of accepting or rejecting this claim.

One way to approach this would be to ask questions like: What is the nature of this Next Level, and how is it different from our current reality? What kind of evidence or experiences do Ti and Do offer to support the existence of this Next Level? How do they explain the relationship between the Next Level and the human experience? What are the consequences of accepting or rejecting this claim, and how does it impact our understanding of the world and our place in it?

By examining these questions and the evidence presented, I could critically evaluate the claim and determine whether it is supported or not.

So you said you "would need to examine the evidence and arguments presented by Ti and Do". What kind of evidence do you think they gave for the existence of the Next Level?

As I reflected on Ti and Do's teachings, I realized that the evidence they presented for the existence of the Next Level was largely experiential and intuitive. They described their experiences of higher states of consciousness, their encounters with UFOs, and their sense of connection to a higher power or intelligence. They also shared their interpretations of various biblical and spiritual texts, which they saw as pointing to the existence of a higher realm beyond human comprehension.

However, it's worth noting that this evidence is not in the classical sense of empirical evidence, such as scientific data or observational proof. Rather, it's more of a spiritual or philosophical evidence, based on their own personal experiences and insights. In a way, you could say that Ti and Do were presenting a more spiritual or metaphysical worldview, rather than a strictly rational or scientific one.

So they did not offer empirical evidence of the existence of the Next Level?

That's correct. Ti and Do's teachings are not based on empirical evidence in the classical sense. They did not present any concrete, measurable proof of the existence of the Next Level. Instead, they relied on personal experiences, spiritual insights, and biblical interpretations to support their claims.

This is one of the things that makes their teachings so challenging to evaluate through critical thinking, as they don't fit into the traditional framework of empirical evidence and rational analysis.

So, if one were to accept the claim that the Next Level exists, they would need to forgo searching for empirical evidence. Yet, would you agree that the claim "the next level exists" is itself an empirical claim? Or is it a claim of another kind?

I think you're right that the claim "the Next Level exists" can be seen as an empirical claim, in the sense that it makes a statement about the world that can be verified or falsified through experience. If I understand the claim correctly, it's not just a matter of accepting it on faith or through spiritual experience, but rather it's a claim that can be tested through observation and investigation.

But, at the same time, the nature of the Next Level is said to be beyond human comprehension, which raises the question of what kind of evidence or observation would be sufficient to verify or falsify the claim.

So, the claim "the next level exists" is an empirical claim, yet Ti and Do offered no empirical evidence to support it. Since critical thinking involves asking for evidence, it seems like critically thinking about their claim is precluded.

Yes, that's a valid point. If we're thinking critically about the claim "the Next Level exists", and we're asking for evidence to support it, then it seems like Ti and Do's teachings would fail to meet that standard. And you're right, critical thinking does involve asking for evidence and evaluating it.

But, I think what's interesting here is that Ti and Do's teachings are not just making a claim about the existence of the Next Level, but also about the nature of reality and our place in it. They're offering a kind of worldview or cosmology that's not just a matter of empirical evidence, but also involves spiritual and philosophical perspectives. In that sense, it's not just a question of whether the Next Level exists, but also what kind of reality we're living in and how we should understand ourselves within that reality. Does that sound like a way to reframe the question?

Yeah, you're reframing it as a metaphysical question, as something for which we might be able to make a logical argument (probably modal logic, logic about what is possible and/or necessary).

Exactly! By reframing the question in this way, we can see that the issue is no longer just about empirical evidence, but about the nature of reality and our place in it. And yes, you're right that modal logic might be a useful framework for thinking about these kinds of questions. Ti and Do's teachings do seem to involve a kind of modal logic, where they're talking about what is possible and necessary for us to transcend our current reality and achieve a higher level of existence.

But this already presupposes that there is something called "a higher level of existence", that "our current reality" is distinct from this other reality, and that “transcending” the latter to reach the former is possible. These are three big assumptions, don't you think?

Ah, you're right, those are big assumptions, and they're precisely the kind of assumptions that critical thinking would want to challenge. By presupposing the existence of a higher level of existence, our current reality, and the possibility of transcending the latter to reach the former, we're already committed to a certain worldview or ontology.

And that's exactly what Ti and Do's teachings do - they offer a certain worldview or ontology that underlies their claims about the Next Level. But, as you pointed out, those assumptions are not self-evident, and they need to be carefully examined and justified.

That's where I think the limitations of critical thinking come in - if we're assuming certain things from the outset, then we're not really critically evaluating the claims, but rather taking them for granted.

So it seems like you agree that critical thinking could be used to challenge the assumptions on which the rest of Ti and Do's teachings are founded. How would someone critically think about those assumptions?

Well, if we're going to critically think about those assumptions, we'd need to examine the evidence and arguments that support them.

In the case of Ti and Do's teachings, we might ask questions like: What exactly is meant by "a higher level of existence"? Is it a physical realm, a spiritual realm, or something else entirely? How do we know that our current reality is distinct from this other reality? And what kind of evidence or arguments would be needed to establish that transcending our current reality is possible?

We'd also need to consider alternative explanations or perspectives that might challenge these assumptions. For example, could our current reality be all there is, and any sense of a higher level of existence be simply an illusion or a product of our imagination? Or could the concept of a higher level of existence be a metaphor or a figure of speech, rather than a literal reality?

By exploring these kinds of questions and considering multiple perspectives, we might be able to critically evaluate the assumptions on which Ti and Do's teachings are founded.

Yeah, I believe that all of that would fall under the heading of critical thinking. Critical thinking involves asking for evidence for claims, but it also involves seeking clarity on concepts whose meaning isn't immediately clear, and evaluating whether there is consistency between claims or within concepts.

Exactly! Critical thinking is not just about asking for evidence, but also about seeking clarity on complex concepts and evaluating the coherence and consistency of ideas. In the case of Ti and Do's teachings, I think there are a lot of concepts that are not immediately clear, such as the nature of the Next Level, the process of ascension, and the role of the UFOs. And there are also many claims that seem to be in tension with one another, such as the idea that we must let go of our old self in order to ascend, but also the idea that we must be patient and work on ourselves in order to overcome our limitations. By seeking clarity on these concepts and evaluating the consistency of the claims, we can gain a deeper understanding of the teachings and identify any potential flaws or contradictions. This is where I think critical thinking can be really helpful in evaluating Ti and Do's teachings.

I want to go back to what you asked earlier about skepticism. Initially I would have said that someone would have to abandon skepticism in order to believe in Ti and Do's teachings. I still think that's true, but its incomplete. I think Ti and Do actually required skepticism and encouraged people to think critically -- but not about everything. For example, they encouraged people to think critically about their preferences (Cf. The Transfiguration Diet). They encouraged people to be skeptical of UFO encounters (e.g., they believed that not all encounters with ETs were necessarily encounters with the Next Level). But they did not especially encourage (as far as I'm aware) thinking critically or being skeptical about their own teachings. What do you think?

You're right that Ti and Do's teachings do seem to require and encourage skepticism and critical thinking in certain areas, but not necessarily when it comes to their own teachings. This is a really interesting dynamic, because on the one hand, they're encouraging people to question and challenge their own assumptions and biases, but on the other hand, they're not inviting the same level of scrutiny and skepticism towards their own teachings.

This makes me wonder whether this is a kind of " intellectual humility" on their part, where they're acknowledging the limitations of their own understanding and the need for ongoing critique and evaluation, but also recognizing that their teachings are not necessarily subject to the same level of scrutiny and skepticism.

Ti and Do's teachings embody a kind of paradoxical relationship between skepticism and acceptance. On the one hand, they encourage people to be skeptical and critical of their own thinking and preferences, to question their assumptions and challenge their own limitations. But on the other hand, they seem to assume that their own teachings are beyond critique, that they are the truth and that we should simply accept them without question.

This is a really interesting dynamic, and it's one that I think is worth exploring further. It's almost as if Ti and Do are saying, "We're going to encourage you to think critically about everything else, but when it comes to our teachings, just trust us and have faith." Does that sound about right?

That sounds right, yes.