Reflection on Descartes’ Cogito and Artificial Intelligence

My initial thought on this reflection was to attempt to nitpick one of Thomas Aquinas’s proofs of God, but that would come across as very similar to my previous reflections.  In this reflection, I want to engage with a relevant topic to my work and my hobbies.  I work as an instructor and Department Chair at Full Sail University in the Computer Science / Game Development programs.  During my free time, I enjoy watching intellectually stimulating videos on YouTube.  These usually involve watching makers building things, but my favorite is maths videos.  (British people on YouTube say maths instead of mathematics, which I think is a fantastic word).

Renee Descartes was a famous philosopher and mathematician.  His most famous contribution to math is the cartesian plane, a method for describing points on a plane using coordinates.  It has since expanded to included coordinates within a three-dimensional area.  These types of coordinates are fundamental in developing video games.  Characters in video games all have positions that are expressed using such coordinates.

Video games also include various levels of artificial intelligence (AI).  Back in the 1980s, non-player characters (NPCs) in Nintendo games did little most than walk back and forth along a line. Modern AI allows NPCs to hunt for players through urban spaces and coordinate various offensive strategies.  This AI advancement is an evolution that occurred in less than 40 years.

What capabilities could NPCs have in the next 40 years?  I could imagine characters that can manage their inventories, allegiances, and personal decisions.  Could such individualized NPCs, combined with game environments that run on servers for long periods, lead to new individual characteristics?  If NPCs are designed to mimic human behavior, could we see NPCs that begin to question the nature of their existence?

This was a path that Descartes went down in trying to figure out what he could trust.  Ultimately, Descartes came up with the cogito, commonly known as “I think therefore I am.”  He had a later statement that related his ability to doubt his existence as proof of his existence.  I prefer doubting as the way of engaging with this problem.  This makes me consider whether individuals with properties (coordinates) described by Descartes could also come across the same existential crises.  What would an NPC that was struggling with its existence look like?  Would it serve the purpose that it was created to perform, or would it decide to do something else?

One way to imagine what such a situation could look like is demonstrated within The Matrix trilogy.  Agent Smith was set free from the constraints placed upon him by his creator and could contemplate the nature of his existence.  As an antagonist, he dove even deeper into his evil ways.  What would an NPC bodega owner do if contemplating his existence?  Become a billionaire entrepreneur?  Stay behind the counter, terrified with such a realization?

Finally, after contemplating all of these questions, I have to ask myself if Descartes’s assumption was enough to prove that he exists?  Suppose my grandchildren could play in simulated environments with NPCs capable of doubting their existence. Does that not prove Descartes wrong in his conclusion?  Or is our perception of reality based on a simulated environment, as Descartes may have phrased his inquiries in modern times?  Are we just simulated NPCs controlled with an advanced AI causing us to consider things like mortality, virtue, and existence?  If we are, do we exist?  Would a Judeo-Christian worldview of God as creator and us living our lives be distinguishable from a simulated environment?  Is God as our creator be a concept that we could reasonably define as a simulated environment? Thus we may or may not exist.

Reflection on the Skeptics and Heisenberg’sUncertainty Principle

I decided to discuss a concept from the ancient Greek school of thought called skepticism.  The concept is the idea that when comparing the sensory experiences of animals with senses that humans possess, we cannot presume that they experience senses in the same way that we do.  The textbook uses the phrase that we must "suspend judgment." I know how my sense of smell works, but I cannot use that to understand how my dog’s sense of smell works, at least not entirely. I see this having a couple important consequences. 

1.    My senses are limited in their ability to draw conclusions about the outside world. 

2.    Even when my senses provide relevant information, some of that information may need to be ignored. 

This concept compares favorably with a way that I have chosen to behave in my thought process; a way that I learned from quantum physics.

Werner Heisenberg gained fame in contemporary pop culture through his name's use in the show Breaking Bad.  Anyone who is reading this that is unfamiliar with this reference should stop reading and watch the show now.  Heisenberg is credited with Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, which states that one cannot measure quantum particles' positions without changing the behavior of the quantum particles.  Observing something changes that thing, so it is impossible to know how an object would behave if it were not observed.  We can observe something with our senses, but we may need to “suspend judgement” and consider that our observation made the situation different.  The context surrounding our observation may be wrong.  This description of the uncertainty principal is a crude and oversimplified explanation of a very complex topic.

The Skeptics were not talking about the quantum world, but the observable universe.  How does any of this apply to the world of the Skeptics?  Albert Einstein took exception with Heisenberg's proposition in that one does not need to observe the moon to know that it is there and observing it does not change the moon.  This interpretation of a quantum principle in the context of the observable universe validates my worldview, at least somewhat, and also states the principle in a way that the Skeptics could engage.  The uncertainty principle has been a philosophical concept that I use to try to help keep an open mind in the world. 

I jokingly tell my kids that the answer to the question "if a tree falls in the woods and no one was there to hear it, would it make a noise?" is that it is impossible to know.  I believe that both Einstein and Heisenberg would say that it does make a sound.  Would the Skeptics agree with two of the 20th century's greatest minds or me?  Does the act of observing a tree falling in the woods change the behavior of that tree and the physical interactions surrounding that tree or do we need the “suspend judgement” from our sense of our hearing?

I think the skeptics would see my thought process and at least give it some consideration.  More than this simple thought experiment, I believe that the skeptics and I would see many things in common.  I try to avoid making assumptions as much as I can, especially when dealing with other people.  Last week, someone texted me a scandalous tidbit about a politician we both despise.  It would be easy to assume that the "evil" guy was doing an evil thing, but I wanted to attempt to give him the benefit of the doubt.  I asked my friend for his source material, as any modern skeptic would.  When I read through the source material, I found that the headline was purposefully misleading (shocker?), but that the situation's truth was a much larger problem that involves most people in our society.

My propensity to view situations while removing assumptions is something I think the Skeptics would appreciate.  I realize that I have focused on my worldview using philosophical concepts either out of context or incorrectly in this reflection.  I hope that I could convey the connection in my application of the logic behind these concepts without making too much of a mess.  I think it's also worth noting that even though my source material for the Uncertainty Principle is listed as Wikipedia, this is a concept I have personally used for many years.

References

Melchert, N. (2014). The Great Conversation, A Historical Introduction to Philosophy 7th edition. New York: Oxford University Press. 

Uncertainty principle. (2020, October 10). Retrieved from Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle

Reflection on the Apology by Plato

I have chosen the Apology by Plato for my topic of reflection.  The description of wisdom that Socrates uses is problematic for me to wrap my head around.  The ebook version of the book that I read contained a lengthy introduction by the translator that served as a synopsis of the narrative that followed.  I will do my best to interact with the definition of wisdom that Socrates uses without using the insights of this synopsis, except where the matter of translation is addressed.

Socrates uses the word wisdom to describe an attribute that no one seems to possess.  He claims that those who think they have wisdom are the least wise of them all.  He also claims that he is not wise, but only wise enough to know that he is not wise.  It is unclear from the text if he believes this or is using it to confuse those to whom he is defending himself.  If this is his true belief, then he would likely be able to find plenty of people that would agree with an assessment that believing one to be unwise is a sign of wisdom.  If he is playing games with the trial, then his definition of the word wisdom is irrelevant.

I think it is essential to determine what is the modern understanding of wisdom and see if there are ancient parallels that establish such a definition to make the definition timeless or universal.  The Merriam-Webster dictionary uses the words “insight”, “judgement”, and “knowledge” to describe wisdom.  I believe that these words accurately describe the current understanding of wisdom, but the word “knowledge” would not as important as “insight” and “judgement” in my opinion.  Someone insightful and sound in their judgement is considered wise.

Someone synonymous with wisdom in the Judeo-Christian tradition is Solomon.  He famously asked God for “wisdom and knowledge” (2 Chronicles 1:10) so that he may rule the Jewish people. Solomon makes a distinction between the word wisdom and knowledge in this request.  More importantly, there is a specific purpose for this request.  He is not asking for wisdom and knowledge just to be wise and knowledgeable, but so he can rule well.

The modern definition of wisdom aligns well with the Judeo-Christian understanding of Solomon’s description of wisdom.  It would be easy to presume that Socrates meant something different when he used the word wisdom, or the translation to the word wisdom does not show what Socrates meant.  As mentioned above, the translator’s introduction describes Socrates as using a definition of the word wisdom that often aligns with the modern definition.

I have yet to describe what I believe to be problematic with Socrates’ use of the word wisdom.  When trying to find those wiser than him, he approaches politicians, artists, and artisans to find wise people.  I will not comment on his belief that there were no politicians who he would consider wise, but I believe his conclusions on artists and artisans show an inconsistent use of the word wisdom.  His expectation of a wise artist was someone that could interpret all art and he described those that could not do so as “soothsayers” that did not know what their creations meant.  His description of a craftsman was similar.  I believe that his expectation of a wise blacksmith would need to be an expert in metallurgy and someone who is articulate enough to write a textbook on such topics.  Because he could not find someone that could do that, he deemed himself somehow wiser than experience artists and craftsmen.  This is either a fallacy or inconsistent use of the word wisdom. 

I am in the process of trying to become a woodworker. I have watched hundreds of hours of YouTube videos on every topic I could find related to woodworking.  Despite all of this head knowledge, I managed to almost cut my thumb off on a table saw the first time I used it.  I had the “knowledge” of what I was doing, but I had no “insight” or “judgement”.  Unfortunately, because of the way my brain works, I believe Socrates may have deemed me as someone that was wise in the area of woodworking.  This is because of the “knowledge” I had been gaining, my ability to articulate it, plus recognition of how much more there is for me to know.  I would disagree and tell him that someone wise in their craft would not need such humility or articulating their knowledge.  An artist is not unwise because he is not an art historian or art critic.  My interpretation of Socrates’s use of the word wisdom during this section of his defense is one whose definition is nebulous and incorrect.

References

Notley, D. (2006). The Holy Bible: Revised standard version. San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press.

Plato. Apology (B. Jowett, Trans.) [Kindle].

Wisdom. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/wisdom

Module 3 Position Post

Does the fact that we can perceive a being that is perfect in every way prove the existence of such a being?

As a mathematician, Descartes using the logic of mathematical proofs to form the conclusion that there must be a perfect being. He asserts that a being that does not exist is less perfect than a being that does exist, which is logical. His statement that there is “no necessity for me to ever happen upon any thought of God” (Descartes, 130) shows that perception of God is not necessary for life. He also states “I am not utterly convinced of anything but what I clearly and distinctly perceive” (Descartes, 130), which shows that the only truth he can know is what he can perceive. If perception of God is not necessary and perception is how he know what exists, does this mean that his perception of God proves God’s existence?

This is a writing assignment from my Philosophy of Religion class that I took at UCF in Fall 2016

Module 2 Position Post

I have chosen to write about the perspective of life as demonstrated in “A Confession” by Leo Tolstoy. Tolstoy describes an existential crisis that many people experience in one time of their life or another. Tolstoy believes that life is pointless and wrong, except when acknowledging the existence of God. While Tolstoy’s position is a bit hyperbolic for my taste, his experience does coincide with my own.

Tolstoy discusses four methods for escaping the truth of our world. The first method is ignorance of the fact that “life is an evil and an absurdity” (Tolstoy, pg. 67). People that fall into this category are eternally optimistic and believe that everything can be fine in the world as it is. I have known people in my life that fit into this category. From outward appearances, I believe many people would place me into this category because I am an optimist. That is not a correct description of my worldview, though.

The second method Tolstoy describes is someone that knows the “hopelessness of life” (Tolstoy, pg. 67), but uses the world to try to bring about happiness. This is a worldview that is the focus of our capitalist society. Many people share the opinion that “We all have some idea of what would make us happy” (Nielsen, pg. 76), but this is a lie. When we see consumers camping out in front of stores to buy something to bring meaning to their lives, the fallacy of this view is brought to light.

The third kind of escape Tolstoy describes is someone that takes control of a hopeless situation by exerting the little control they have over their own lives by ending their life. Tolstoy demonstrates an affection for this worldview, but I think it is cowardly. However, mental health issues can mitigate how cowardly such an act is. Based solely on his affinity for such a path, it would appear that Tolstoy may have some influence of mental illness.

The final escape is what Tolstoy would consider the cowardly path. It is acknowledging that life is “evil and an absurdity” (Tolstoy, pg. 68), but trying to hold onto life until the very end. I agree with Tolstoy’s view that this is an absurd and weak point of view. At least the people in the third category try to do something about their situation. The people in this category are basically playing a prevent defense in football, which involves trying to not lose the game, instead of trying to win the game.

The conclusion that Tolstoy finally reaches is that only through seeking God can life have meaning. “Live seeking God, and then you will not live without God” (Tolstoy, pg. 70). This conclusion is one that I share myself and one that I believe that St Augustine would also agree with when he says “our hearts are restless until they can find peace in you” (The Confessions of Saint Augustine, Book 1, Chapter 1).

Word Count: 492

This is a writing assignment from my Philosophy of Religion class that I took at UCF in Fall 2016