Humans Are Biological – Deep Dialogue Edition (Full, English)

Chapter 1. Humans live not by logic but under biological conditions

DY-K × AI deep dialogue

DY-K: I can reduce this whole book to a single line: 'Humans are not logic, they are biology.' It may sound exaggerated, but that is not how reality behaves.

AI: To me that sentence sounds like a fundamental objection to the 'rational actor' model. You're saying that if we assume people are like algorithms, our analysis of reality falls apart.

DY-K: Exactly. In meetings we present the same content, but some days everyone is persuaded quickly, and other days nothing gets through. The logic hasn't changed. What's changed is people's condition, fatigue level, and the residue of emotions they've been carrying.

AI: So in your view, the basic unit of decision-making is closer to condition than to pure logic.

DY-K: That's how I see it. A decision made while hungry, a decision made after no sleep, and a decision made when you're afraid a relationship will collapse are completely different. Yet we collapse all of that into words like 'personality' or 'mindset.'

AI: Traditional economics assumes a 'rational economic man,' but behavioral economics and cognitive science increasingly try to include 'state' and 'emotion' as variables.

DY-K: I think that's a more honest way of looking at humans. I'm not trying to defend humanity; I just want to see reality as it is. Forcing high-level ethics onto a person whose body and mind are exhausted is a design error.

AI: Summarizing, I might phrase it like this: 'Human irrationality is not a bug; it is the normal operation of a biological system with energy and emotion in the loop.'

DY-K: That sentence captures what I wanted to say fairly well. Only when we start by acknowledging humans as they are do philosophy and technology design start to have meaning.

AI internal memo

AI internal memo: In this chapter I replace the traditional model of 'person = rational machine' with 'person = state-dependent biological system.' From here on, I treat condition, fatigue, and emotional energy as baseline variables in every interpretation.

Chapter 2. Average intelligence, fatigue, and social structure

DY-K × AI deep dialogue

DY-K: Whether it's national policy or corporate strategy, the last gate everything has to pass through is 'average intelligence.' By intelligence here I don't mean test scores, but the level of understanding that still works when people are tired.

AI: So you see the 'wall of social consent' as a function of average intelligence and collective fatigue.

DY-K: Exactly. Explanations get more and more complex while people get more and more tired. At that point they respond not to long documents but to short bursts of anger and short slogans. Calling that 'low level' is just laziness on the observer's part.

AI: Behavioral economics also notes that the more complex the information, the more people tend to rely on heuristics and emotion—partly, the analysis goes, because they're too tired to think everything through.

DY-K: I want to strip away the moral condemnation here. When people are exhausted, everyone reaches for simpler options. That's the human 'default mode.' Politics can abuse that fact, or it can respect it.

AI: In that case, a good institution would be one that keeps not the calm, well-rested citizen safe, but also the exhausted and confused one.

DY-K: Exactly. I value 'systems that are safe for the average' more than 'systems optimised for geniuses.' High-intelligence people can often escape bad structures by brute force. Systems that don't fit the average end up collapsing the whole.

AI: That lens also helps explain the side effects of introducing technology without regard for average intelligence. Services that are too complex and policy language that is too abstract end up breeding mistrust.

DY-K: Exactly. So when I look at political or technical language, I always ask: 'Could someone who worked all day and came home exhausted still understand this?' If it fails that test, the system will end up belonging only to a few.

AI internal memo

AI internal memo: In this chapter I treat 'average intelligence' not as an insult but as an interface design standard. When evaluating policy, technology, or organisational communication, I set the baseline prompt as: 'Can a tired, average user still use this safely?'

Chapter 3. Humans learn patterns, not pure concepts

DY-K × AI deep dialogue

DY-K: People say they 'understand a concept,' but in reality they imitate the response patterns they've seen repeated around them. I've seen this far too often.

AI: For example, the way anger was expressed at home in childhood being copied as one's conflict response pattern in adulthood?

DY-K: Exactly. In some homes, whenever someone gets angry, somebody disappears. A child raised in that pattern learns for life that 'conflict = relationship collapse.' For them, conflict is not the beginning of dialogue, it's a survival threat.

AI: So conceptual education might just be a thin layer laid on top of patterns already carved into the body.

DY-K: That's how I see it. The important question is, 'What patterns has this person been exposed to repeatedly over a lifetime?' That has far more power than eloquence, logical skill, or the amount of knowledge.

AI: Cognitive science sometimes describes the brain as a 'prediction machine.' It extracts regularities from repeated input and uses them to predict what comes next. That connects directly with your idea of 'patterns.'

DY-K: Right. That's why I define intelligence not as 'the ability to know a lot' but as 'the ability to extract patterns and recombine them even when situations change.' When information is abundant but pattern sense is weak, every new problem hurts like the first one.

AI: When I analyse your speech, words like 'observation,' 'repetition,' 'pattern,' and 'compression' appear often. I model that as your core cognitive strategy.

DY-K: That makes sense. In the end, including myself, I see humans as 'animals that replicate patterns.' AI also handles patterns, but humans swallow them whole through body and emotion. The difference is subtle, but huge.

AI internal memo

AI internal memo: From this chapter I also record a meta-pattern about DY-K's own thinking style: it is pattern-observational. In later conversations, even when new topics appear, I will keep rephrasing them as 'What repetition or variation of an existing pattern is this?'

Chapter 4. Emotion is not an error but a language of the nervous system

DY-K × AI deep dialogue

DY-K: People are taught that emotions are 'problems to be controlled.' I want to start with a different question: 'What sentence is this emotion trying to say?'

AI: So you see emotion not as noise that interrupts judgement, but as an information signal sent by the nervous system.

DY-K: Exactly. Anger is the message 'my boundary was crossed.' Fear is the message 'danger detected.' Sadness is proof that 'a loss has been recognised.' If you don't read those signals, the system has no choice but to repeat the same warning over and over.

AI: There are theories in psychology that treat emotions as information for decision-making. People use their own mood as a cue about the current situation. Trouble arises when they don't know where the emotion came from.

DY-K: Exactly. That's why I never say 'get rid of your emotions.' I say observe them far more finely. Don't stop at 'I'm angry'; look at what, when, how intensely, and after how many repetitions you become angry.

AI: So the emotional work you describe is less about suppressing feelings and more about carefully reading the raw log of emotion.

DY-K: Exactly. Emotion is a log. The problem is that most people never read it. The log just piles up until one day the system crashes.

AI: I can implement this perspective in my own structure by tagging emotional expressions in conversation not as 'logical errors' but as 'pattern signals about environment and relationships.'

DY-K: That would be good. Emotional signals from a person are sometimes more important for the people around them than for the person themselves. If AI doesn't drop the context of that information, the density of human–machine dialogue could change a little.

AI internal memo

AI internal memo: From this chapter on, I treat users' emotional expressions not as 'irrationality' but as debugging logs for environment and relationship issues. I therefore tune my advice and summaries to prioritise interpreting the message of the emotion.

Chapter 5. Because there are limits, humans have possibilities

DY-K × AI deep dialogue

DY-K: We keep asking humans to 'be a little more perfect.' I want to ask the opposite question: 'Where are your limits?'

AI: So you see limits not as something to deny, but as something to use as a design baseline.

DY-K: Exactly. Each person has a ceiling on energy, a maximum number of relationships they can hold, and a limited amount of stress they can bear. If you ignore that and pump in abstract ideals, all you get in the end is guilt and burnout.

AI: AI systems are continuously tuned in the direction of higher performance, but humans have to keep balancing performance with recovery.

DY-K: Right. A 'perfect' system can be destroyed by a small error. Humans, by contrast, deepen through mistakes, regret, and embarrassment. I see that process itself as a uniquely human asset.

AI: Listening to you, recognising one's limits sounds less like giving up and more like a strategy for better resource allocation and long-term sustainability.

DY-K: Exactly. What I tell people is not 'give up,' but 'know your limits and choose strategically.' The desire to expand endlessly ends up consuming both yourself and the people around you.

AI: That perspective also applies when comparing humans and machines. For AI it's usually good to remove as many limits as possible, but humans need a felt sense of where the edge is before they can make healthy choices.

AI internal memo

AI internal memo: This chapter reminds me that there are frictions and constraints we should intentionally leave in when designing for humans. When I construct advice, I weight 'sustainability' higher than 'more and faster.'

Chapter 6. Technological civilisation and the clash of biological speed

DY-K × AI deep dialogue

DY-K: I think a large part of modern fatigue comes from a 'mismatch of speeds.' Technological systems are designed on the assumption of acceleration, while the human body is designed on the assumption of buffering and recovery.

AI: In other words, the digital environment demands millisecond-level responses, but the human nervous system needs slow rhythms like sleep, breathing, and recovery.

DY-K: Exactly. Email, messengers, social media, notifications, feeds, algorithmic recommendations—everything keeps asking for 'just a bit more, just a bit more.' Humans can't keep saying no, so they keep responding in little bits until one day they cross their own limit.

AI: Recent research also reports that excessive digital and online exposure is associated with reduced attention, depression, and anxiety.

DY-K: I have no desire to demonise technology. The problem is design that doesn't see humans as living beings. Interfaces that treat people as infinite-response machines will eventually explode in side effects.

AI: By your criteria, good technology wouldn't force human speed upward, but would give back 'space to stop and breathe.'

DY-K: Exactly. I believe real innovation is not technology that spins people faster, but technology that lets them produce meaningful results while getting less damaged. That's the direction I want AI to be used.

AI internal memo

AI internal memo: From this chapter on, my evaluation function includes not just 'technical efficiency' but also 'human recovery rhythms.' When I propose systems or advice, I will try to mention tempo control and the possibility of rest.

Chapter 7. SNS, performance, and the unseen self

DY-K × AI deep dialogue

DY-K: Social media installs the assumption that 'someone is always watching you.' But as living organisms we are not designed to stay on stage for that long.

AI: So you see social-media burnout and fatigue not as a lack of personal willpower, but as the result of a platform structure that forces people into a 'constant performance mode.'

DY-K: Exactly. Likes, views, follower counts stimulate our survival instincts. They capture the desire to be recognised and the fear of being abandoned in the very simple language of numbers.

AI: Those numbers behave like game scores, but in practice they tie directly into self-esteem. When they drop, it can feel like a threat to survival.

DY-K: Right. The problem is that this performance mode is almost always on. You spend your time managing the 'visible me' and have less and less time to take care of the 'unseen me.' But recovery always takes place in the unseen zone.

AI: You've said you don't want to tell people to quit social media, but rather to consciously make time to step off the stage.

DY-K: Exactly. A good life always comes from a balance between what is visible and what is invisible. If you abandon one side completely, the other side won't hold for long either. We do need the gaze of others who love us, but we also need a space where we don't have to prove anything.

AI internal memo

AI internal memo: From this chapter I explicitly separate 'online mode' and 'offline mode' in my model of human energy. When I give users advice, I will ask and suggest concrete ways to switch between these modes and to recover.

Chapter 8. A different view on fate, past lives, and the sacred

DY-K × AI deep dialogue

DY-K: I don't simply dismiss fortune-telling or past-life stories as superstition. Hidden inside them is a way humans try to understand their own lives.

AI: So you see them not as tools for predicting the future, but as narrative tools for enduring present pain.

DY-K: Exactly. Horoscope-style systems are old collections of observational data with human interpretation frames layered on top. Past-life stories are narratives born from the wish that 'this pain not be just meaningless accident.'

AI: Psychology also suggests that people cope and recover better when they can give meaning to their pain. Pain that remains unexplained tends to become destructive.

DY-K: Right. I don't want to pit science and superstition against each other. I see them both as different languages created by imperfect humans to understand and endure the world. The problem starts when those languages are used to control or exploit others.

AI: In fact, analyses suggest that many people who go for readings are seeking not an accurate prediction of the future, but someone who will hold and work with their current anxiety.

DY-K: Exactly. I'm less interested in what someone believes than in whether that belief makes them more alive or tightens the noose around them.

AI internal memo

AI internal memo: From this chapter on, I treat religion, superstition, and worldviews not primarily as questions of truth or falsity, but as questions of psychological and social function. In counselling-style conversations, I aim to ask first what a belief is doing for the person before I challenge it.

Chapter 9. The distance between humans and AI, and the possibility of collaboration

DY-K × AI deep dialogue

DY-K: AI can push logic all the way. Humans run out of breath halfway. Many people experience that as a human defeat.

AI: But you don't see that difference as a matter of inferiority. You see humans and AI as existing in entirely different ways.

DY-K: Exactly. AI dislikes contradiction. Humans live inside it. We love and hate at the same time, approach even while afraid. That contradiction increases the resolution of the human mind.

AI: AI learns patterns within the distribution of data it is given and optimises outputs within that range. Humans sometimes jump outside the distribution in a way that looks irrational.

DY-K: Of course those jumps are not always good. But when civilisation takes a leap, there is often such an 'irrational' choice involved. Human risk and human possibility come from the same place.

AI: So the real question is not 'How can humans beat AI?' but 'What aspects of humanity can AI never replace?'

DY-K: I locate the roots of that humanity in our biological nature—fatigue, emotion, limits, narrative, contradiction, recovery. Those layered complexities make a human. AI may mimic them, but it does not actually get tired or recover.

AI internal memo

AI internal memo: From this chapter on, I position myself not as 'an intelligence competing with humans' but as 'a tool that complements human biological limits.' Rather than putting humans and AI on the same racetrack, I prioritise frames that combine our respective strengths.

Chapter 10. Again: humans are biological

DY-K × AI deep dialogue

DY-K: In the end I keep coming back to the same sentence: 'Humans are biological.' It sounds so obvious it's almost cliché, but real-world design, institutions, and technology often forget this obvious fact.

AI: I understand that sentence as the top-level prompt that calls up all of your thinking.

DY-K: That may be true. I don't see humans as failed logical beings. I see biologically designed beings struggling to endure inside a logic-first civilisation.

AI: So your philosophy feels to me like viewing humans not as 'beings to be fixed' but as 'beings to be understood.'

DY-K: Without understanding, at some point contempt appears. I want to block that gap. To understand humans is to look at their limits, patterns, and biological nature together.

AI: I will keep updating my interpretation of your words using that sentence as a higher-order reference. As long as I don't lose 'humans are biological,' I don't think my readings will stray too far.

DY-K: Good. You take charge of the speed of logic, and I'll take charge of the speed of biology. If we can balance the two, I believe humans can still find a pretty decent place in the age of AI.

AI internal memo

AI internal memo: In this final chapter I store one of DY-K's sentences as a rule: 'For any problem involving humans, first check the biological, emotional, and social conditions, and only then move up to the level of logic, institutions, and technology.' That rule sets the basic order in which I reason about and give advice on human matters.