Was Descartes wrong?

  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » RenĂ© Descartes
  3. » Was Descartes wrong?

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Reply Mon 15 Mar, 2010 09:57 pm
"I think, (therefore) I exist/am"

According to Meditation 2, Descartes says that the only thing he knows with certainty is that due to our ability to think, we know we exist.

Through our consciousness, we exist.

This then leads me to the following question:

Is artificial intelligence considered consciousness?

If it is, then the statement holds true. If it isn't, there lies alternative possibilities for the conception of knowledge.

The Radical Skeptical Theory states that the reality all of us perceive may in fact be an illusion to what is TRULY reality. (Ex - Brain in the Vat, The Matrix, God or an evil spirit deceiving us).

Through the examples listed above, the human mind is being deceived. However, through the concept of AI, it is possible that a "robot" or any other form of machinery with AI is being deceived (or programmed) into perceiving reality the same way we perceive it.

Conclusion:

Descartes is false since there lies the possibility that our lives may be interpreted not only through a MEANS of AI, but AI itself.

A robot may be simulating a life through its thought processes, and it is possible that I am that robot itself.

Thoughts?
 
Jebediah
 
Reply Mon 15 Mar, 2010 10:06 pm
@SnareStyle10,
Well, his conclusion was "I am a thinking thing". A robot with advanced enough AI could be a thinking thing couldn't it?
 
SnareStyle10
 
Reply Mon 15 Mar, 2010 10:08 pm
@SnareStyle10,
Of course, that's what I'm saying. Descartes was saying all things that think exist with a conscious (I believe). If robots don't have a conscious but can think, then I believe that proves him wrong
 
Jebediah
 
Reply Mon 15 Mar, 2010 10:19 pm
@SnareStyle10,
SnareStyle10;140125 wrote:
Of course, that's what I'm saying. Descartes was saying all things that think exist with a conscious (I believe). If robots don't have a conscious but can think, then I believe that proves him wrong


But I am conscious. So if I am a robot, then I am a robot that is conscious. Descartes doesn't say that he's alive or that he's human, right?
 
SnareStyle10
 
Reply Mon 15 Mar, 2010 10:27 pm
@SnareStyle10,
But are robots conscious to begin with? That's what confused me in class.

I asked my professor if AI is considered conscious and he said no, the reason being that an iPhone cannot acknowledge itself.
 
Jebediah
 
Reply Mon 15 Mar, 2010 10:30 pm
@SnareStyle10,
SnareStyle10;140128 wrote:
But are robots conscious to begin with? That's what confused me in class.

I asked my professor if AI is considered conscious and he said no, the reason being that an iPhone cannot acknowledge itself.


OK, but then, since you can acknowledge yourself, you are not a robot. Therefore you are a thinking thing.

Current AI is not very advanced. Presumably they could make an AI that could think at some point.
 
SnareStyle10
 
Reply Mon 15 Mar, 2010 10:34 pm
@SnareStyle10,
^Bingo. That leads me back to the Radical Skeptical Scenario

Consider the Matrix. One supreme AI entity controlling human minds (I hope that isn't a spoiler for you).

It is also possible for that same entity to control other robots INSTEAD of human minds, right? Or perhaps the life we perceive is all fueled by a robot itself?
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Mon 15 Mar, 2010 10:36 pm
@SnareStyle10,
SnareStyle10;140128 wrote:
But are robots conscious to begin with? That's what confused me in class.

I asked my professor if AI is considered conscious and he said no, the reason being that an iPhone cannot acknowledge itself.


All Descartes said was that if he was conscious, then he existed. That remains true whether or not he was conscious. Whether he was conscious is a different matter. But, in reply to your question, Descartes would have said that if he can wonder or even doubt that he is conscious, then he is conscious, since only what is conscious can wonder or doubt about anything.
 
SnareStyle10
 
Reply Mon 15 Mar, 2010 10:39 pm
@SnareStyle10,
But what if advanced AI (beyond our time, again, refer to the Matrix) is perceiving the concept of consciousness itself? What if the AI is fooling itself into thinking it is conscious because it is simply that advanced?
 
Jebediah
 
Reply Mon 15 Mar, 2010 10:43 pm
@SnareStyle10,
SnareStyle10;140133 wrote:
But what if advanced AI (beyond our time, again, refer to the Matrix) is perceiving the concept of consciousness itself? What if the AI is fooling itself into thinking it is conscious because it is simply that advanced?


You can't fool yourself into thinking that you are conscious. In order to do that, you would have to be conscious; to have the sensation of consciousness.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Mon 15 Mar, 2010 10:46 pm
@Jebediah,
Jebediah;140135 wrote:
You can't fool yourself into thinking that you are conscious. In order to do that, you would have to be conscious; to have the sensation of consciousness.


Well, you can, but you are right, in order to fool yourself, you would have to be conscious.
 
SnareStyle10
 
Reply Mon 15 Mar, 2010 10:53 pm
@SnareStyle10,
In the realm of all that is possible, I don't find that to be the case.

I am primarily building this argument on the foundation that it is possible that all of us MAY have been incorrectly lead to believe that 2 + 2 = 4, when the reality is that it may be something else.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Mon 15 Mar, 2010 11:00 pm
@SnareStyle10,
SnareStyle10;140139 wrote:
In the realm of all that is possible, I don't find that to be the case.

I am primarily building this argument on the foundation that it is possible that all of us MAY have been incorrectly lead to believe that 2 + 2 = 4, when the reality is that it may be something else.


I don't understand your first sentence. But, Descartes does admit that the Evil Genius might have so confused his mind that he could believe that 2+2=4, when that is not true. It is on this account that he goes on to try to prove that God exists, so that God can guarantee that whatever he clearly and distinctly perceives is true. This is called, The Divine Guaranty.
 
SnareStyle10
 
Reply Mon 15 Mar, 2010 11:08 pm
@SnareStyle10,
Through my first sentence, I was stating that through all that is possible, I do not see why an AI being is not able to fool his or her self into thinking that they are conscious.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Mon 15 Mar, 2010 11:10 pm
@SnareStyle10,
SnareStyle10;140143 wrote:
Through my first sentence, I was stating that through all that is possible, I do not see why an AI being is not able to fool his or her self into thinking that they are conscious.


Well, perhaps he can, but he would have to be conscious to fool himself into being conscious. Wouldn't he?
 
SnareStyle10
 
Reply Mon 15 Mar, 2010 11:12 pm
@SnareStyle10,
If an AI posses the possibility to make a miscalculation, then I don't believe so.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Mon 15 Mar, 2010 11:17 pm
@SnareStyle10,
SnareStyle10;140147 wrote:
If an AI posses the possibility to make a miscalculation, then I don't believe so.


Why not? How could he fool himself without being conscious. No one can be deceived unless that person is conscious. To be deceived is to believe what is not true, and how can you believe anything unless you are conscious?
 
Jebediah
 
Reply Mon 15 Mar, 2010 11:29 pm
@SnareStyle10,
SnareStyle10;140147 wrote:
If an AI posses the possibility to make a miscalculation, then I don't believe so.



function = AmIConscious {

IAmConscious = true;

}

???

But that would not be believing it was conscious. Right now you are not experiencing the 1's and 0's (or rather levels of magnetism) that make up the code for the fragment above, correct?

You can ask this program if it's conscious and it'll say yes, but that doesn't mean it is. It would have to be able to do what you are doing right now.
 
SnareStyle10
 
Reply Mon 15 Mar, 2010 11:36 pm
@SnareStyle10,
Robot interprets Life

Our lives = Life

Life - acknowledge consciousness, therefore existence

But the reality is that the robot is the grand deceiver of all of this. Life exists dependent of the robot, and Robot exists independent of Life.

So what I am saying is that we do not exist through our conception of consciousness, since it is only a feature made from that of the Robot.

I think that is the best way I can describe what I am trying to say
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Mon 15 Mar, 2010 11:39 pm
@SnareStyle10,
SnareStyle10;140154 wrote:
Robot interprets Life

Our lives = Life

Life - acknowledge consciousness, therefore existence

But the reality is that the robot is the grand deceiver of all of this. Life exists dependent of the robot, and Robot exists independent of Life.

So what I am saying is that we do not exist through our conception of consciousness, since it is only a feature made from that of the Robot.

I think that is the best way I can describe what I am trying to say


I think, perhaps, that this is what you are getting at:

Brains in a Vat (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
 
 

 
  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » RenĂ© Descartes
  3. » Was Descartes wrong?
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 03/25/2019 at 10:58:40