If we consider the definition of thinking as “the process of using one’s mind to consider or reason about something”:
Descartes thought “I think therefore I am”.
He then doubted this phrase.
He believed that doubt = form of thinking, and that thinking = proof of existence.
Therefore doubt = proof of existence, and by doubting your own existence you prove that you exist.
But what if a person believed to be incapable of independent thinking (for example, a baby) has been trained to say the phrase “I think therefore I am”?.
What if an AI (supposedly bereft of consciousness) types or generates the phrase “I think therefore I am”? Does it think?
In both cases is merely saying or producing the phrase a proof that they can think, and so (in Descartes’ logic) a proof that they exist?
Is saying something part of thinking it?
What proves that I am thinking other than the knowledge of “thinking” I choose to believe in?
I suppose we can only ever test these questions and assumptions in our own minds, and I believe this touches on solipsism.
I think we’d also have to establish grounds and limits as to the definition of existence, as the article below states.
Reference: I got the definition of thinking from this article
I’ve also read a part of this post and considered asking my question there but I thought it would go off on a tangent and would take the focus away from the post’s main point.
Did he? I think not, from my understanding of “Meditations On First Philosophy”, Sec. II, Par. 16, 1641, in which, if your understanding is more accurate with respect to his than mine, he must eventually contradict himself.
That I am does not mean I exist. It means nothing more than there is necessarily that which thinks, which is exactly the same as that which thinks, is something.
If it is the “I” that thinks, then it is necessarily the case it is the “I”, that is. From which follows, given first-person perspective, then, and the only perspective with any philosophical importance, I think therefore I am.
To generate a sentence is not the same thing as thinking it. Descartes was reporting on a thought. The thought was what was important, not the report. He could have reached the same conclusion about his existence without generating any sentences.
The AI, in contrast, is not reporting on a thought. There are various ways we might describe what it is doing. Perhaps “lying” comes closest, but even that attributes mental attitudes to this piece of programming that I doubt it has.
Oh well that’s interesting. I’ve only so far encountered opinions which automatically considered “am” and “exist” to be synonyms, skipping straight to “I think therefore I exist”. Now I’d like to know what you (and others!) consider as “being” and as “existing”.
As for the part where he doubts, I’ve only read Descartes through a philosophy book I have, I haven’t had the chance to read his actual Meditations, so I can only base my knowledge on what I’ve read:
“When he (Descartes) finds himself considering a belief, he can ask: “could the demon be making me believe this even though it was false?” and if the answer is “yes” he must set aside the belief as open to doubt. Descartes has put himself into an impossible position - nothing seems beyond doubt, so he has no solid ground on which to stand. He describes himself as being helplessly tumbled around by universal doubt, unable to find his footing.”
The book also states the following: “The First Certainty: It is at this point that Descartes realizes that there is one belief that he surely cannot doubt:his belief in his own existence.Each of us can think or say: “I am, I exist”, and while we are thinking or saying it we cannot be wrong about it.”
So the book mentions Descartes’ doubting, and does interpret “I am” as “I exist”, but I suppose I would rather trust the actual Meditations of Descartes. Thank you for pointing that out, though, I’ll check it out.
Don’t we speak to ourselves when we think alone in our heads and thus still and automatically generate sentences (unless we picture a mental image)? At least in my experience of thinking in my head…
I don’t think Descartes is saying that “I think therefore I am” is proof of the existence of others. It is only proof that the doubter’s own existence is undoubtable. So if you’re asking whether or not we can ascertain the existence of some external thing (in your case, the baby or the hypothetical LLM’s consciousness) only from its production of the words “I think therefore I am”, then I would say no we cannot. That is not the purpose of the phrase.
You are suggesting the possibility that a person who is incapable of independent thinking does not exist. I don’t think that is what should come of the phrase “I think therefore I am”. If a person is incapable of independent thinking like you say, the only thing that should come of it is that that person cannot do the doubting themselves. Or in other words, they cannot become a Cartesian meditator. They cannot begin their own journey of doubt. That is all.
Again, the purpose of “I think therefore I am” is to establish that the doubter’s own existence is undoubtable. It is not used to establish the existence of external things (that’s a later step in his process).
Say I am bad at math with large numbers: I doubt that 423534 + 5235389 = 5658923. But it turns out that those two numbers do in fact lead to 5658923. My doubting of it just means that I cannot be sure about the answer. The fact that I doubt it does not mean that it is false. It’s rather that we must treat it as if it were false, not that it actually is false.
I tend to agree. But the difference between a “thought” sentence and an articulated sentence remains important. The reason Descartes could (presumably) think the sentence “Je pense, donc je suis” without generating it publicly is that he could, indeed, think. There was a separation between thinking and articulating. But we have every reason to doubt that an AI can do this – can “keep something private” rather than express it upon request. It all gets back to our assumptions – which at the moment I think are pretty well grounded – about whether an AI is an actual entity, as opposed to a tool that humans use. But stay tuned . . . God knows what we’ll say about this in 100 years.
I consider as existing anything I perceive with my senses. Anything else is inference, whether mathematical, logical or technological.
I don’t mess around with being; if there is an existent it is something, it is some kind of being necessarily.
Being may be given by existence, but that won’t tell me anything at all about what I’m perceiving, except which of my senses is affected.
————————-
A belief he couldn’t doubt? Why would he care about beliefs, in a search for the undeniable, for which no mere belief is ever sufficient?
I think you’ll find he couldn’t doubt only that he thinks. He never said “I’m pretty sure I think”, he never said “I believe I think”. He said, “I think……” BOOM!! period. Done deal, live with it!! (Grin)
He’s already said he can easily doubt the existence of his arms, legs, whatnot, so how could he then be certain of his existence, if that mandates the existence of all that which he’s already said he couldn’t affirm?
“….. Can I affirm that I possess any one of all those attributes of which I have lately spoken as belonging to the nature of body? After attentively considering them in my own mind, I find none of them that can properly be said to belong to myself….”
(Meditations, II, 6)
———————
You still have to judge for yourself, but at least it’s just between you and ol’ Renè. Oh, and the translators of course.
Glad you read my thread. It was meant to discuss Descartes’ (donc) Je suis and Buddha’s anatman. Correct that Descartes’ argument is about thinking, doubting to be precise (cogito/dubito ergo sum). Buddha’s is about dependent origination (chariot analogy).
I’ve already provided a formalization for Descartes. Below is an attempt to formalize Buddha’s argument.
I’m not familiar with these notations, would you mind explaining your formula?