Was Descartes wrong?

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Ahab
 
Reply Tue 23 Mar, 2010 06:14 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;142773 wrote:
I don't think that conflicts with the doctrine that we survive the death of the body.


It conflicts with the idea that we survive as disembodied spirits.
 
Fido
 
Reply Tue 23 Mar, 2010 08:17 pm
@SnareStyle10,
SnareStyle10;140122 wrote:
"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?

I think Desccartes was wrong in this sense: Individual people do not exist, but live... And it is through the lives of individuals that humanity exists, because if a thing exists it is because it does not die...In other words, if a thing exists, its being is conserved, while the being of individuals, their lives, are entirely infinite, with no part being conserved...People live, and humanity exists; and who can say for what length of time...
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Wed 24 Mar, 2010 12:03 am
@Ahab,
Ahab;142775 wrote:
It conflicts with the idea that we survive as disembodied spirits.


Yes. The problem is that although Descartes was a dualist, he believed that the person is identical with his mind, but not with his body. So if the mind survives, so does the person. This is, of course, Platonic, and Descartes wanted to revert to Platonism, and discard medieval Aristotelianism. I don't know enough to know why Descartes's works were placed on the Index ("pending revision") but this may well be one of the major reasons. I agree with you now.
 
Fido
 
Reply Wed 24 Mar, 2010 01:44 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;142828 wrote:
Yes. The problem is that although Descartes was a dualist, he believed that the person is identical with his mind, but not with his body. So if the mind survives, so does the person. This is, of course, Platonic, and Descartes wanted to revert to Platonism, and discard medieval Aristotelianism. I don't know enough to know why Descartes's works were placed on the Index ("pending revision") but this may well be one of the major reasons. I agree with you now.

This guy is one of my blind spots, of many; but as a physicist, for his time he was above the mean; but if he thought to apply geometric methods to human behavior he was a fool...What characterizes moral forms is that they are not real even while they contribute to the reality of human kind... These forms, like Justice, or Virtue, or liberty, or love having no being, and only meaning are essential to the life of mankind and of each human being, and yet the idea that we can apply the logic of physics to them is daft... The logic of them is there to be discovered, but as infinites they are beyond measure and conception... We talk about them, but it is the fact that our concepts are mere meta concepts or proto concepts and that the objects conceived are not object at all, but infinites that makes fools of all of us...
 
philonphil
 
Reply Sat 5 Mar, 2011 12:30 pm
@SnareStyle10,
The two of you need to read John Searle. He is a more modern philosopher who is still alive and so has a better idea of robots. John Searle describes the difference between the thinking of a human and the "thinking" of a computer with syntax and semantics. While a computer has a very sophisticated syntax and can give information based on other information, in does not place any semantics on that information. In case you do not know what these words mean.. Syntax and semantics are terms in language (any language), syntax meaning the structure of the language and semantics meaning what words mean. What he is saying is that a computer does not know what something means and therefore does not have a conscious and cannot actually think. Whether or not it is possible to make a robot with that sophisticated of an AI that it would be able to think is debated. I lean to say that it is not possible because we would have to fully understand the brain and be able to duplicate it... which i find highly unlikely.
 
hamilton
 
Reply Wed 16 Mar, 2011 06:14 pm
@SnareStyle10,
I believe that Descartes was correct. after all, when he stated "i think, therefore i am.", i interpret this as a state of consciousness , and self awareness. because of that, any machine that can monitor itself "is". although another point you could mention, "what about those with brain damage?" or vegetables. they exist, and have sentimental value to their family, but do they think? or, perhaps, they think in a way that we have not detected. but then, he could have referred to the afterlife. if, after we die, we have no consciousness, then, we do indeed, not exist.
 
 

 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 03/25/2019 at 01:04:21