Against Descartes and Artificial Intelligence

[Anonymous No.21871598]

Sick of seeing the Internet ranting and raving about AI. In my opinion what currently exists and what is possible with this technology will never come close to the behavior of real organisms. It will never act according to its own will. I use the word behavior here because I don't believe in the concept of intelligence at all, nevermind artificial intelligence. For me all of human activity is explained by behaviorism, and it is a grave anthropological error to think that humans are objectively in any way different from any other species on Earth.

I am not a dualist and I disagree that there exists the Cartesian ego, a concept which our entire modern civilization takes to be a self evident truth. From the most dedicated scientist to the most illiterate street thug, all believe "I think, therefore I am". Enlightenment philosophy especially always loved to stroke its own ego by bloviating on the virtues of rationality and how man is a godlike being endowed with superior powers of reasoning and awareness compared to his bestial brethren. Hence the modern misguided and pointless discussions on philosophy of mind, consciousness, and so-called artificial intelligence. These are "problems" of the Cartesian ego which the narcissist and the dualist find impossible to abandon. They are trying to research something that doesn't exist. Thus, the term artificial intelligence is attempting to describe something that exists as a philosophical concept only. What I want to reach is the objective phenomenological value of this technology, free of the assumptions and bias of Cartesian dualism.

Does Heidegger touch on this topic? I do know he rejected Descartes and rationalism outright which is already drawing me toward him. I have studied Husserl a bit but again, I found him too much of a Cartesian for my liking.

[Anonymous No.21871603]

>Cartesian dualism
There is no such a thing

[Anonymous No.21872346]

bump for interest

[Anonymous No.21872454]

I think your position is fatally flawed, but for more sophisticated elucidations read hobbes or paul churchland

[Anonymous No.21873738]

>>21871603
Source?

[Anonymous No.21874203]

>>21871598
You absolute failure. The Cogito is apodictic.

[Anonymous No.21874226]

>>21871598
Read the philosophy books on my to read list. This is literally the topic I've just started reading about, and why you want to read what I have added is because you'll want to avoid the Phenomenological Illusion (see Searle) of Heidegger and other phenomenologists. Wittgenstein, Searle, Hacker are good starting points.

[Anonymous No.21874240]

>>21874226
I forgot my Goodreads is goodreads.com/stop. You might wonder why Aquinas stuff is there. Eventually you'll find that hylomorphic dualism makes the most sense.
Read
https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2012/07/road-from-atheism.html

[Anonymous No.21874341]

>>21872454
Churchland is kind of an idiot. There is no “physical” consciousness otherwise people would die

[Anonymous No.21874363]

>>21871598
If anything, the cartesian cogito would support your point that AI is unlikely to reach the level of human intelligence, but of course you haven't read Descartes and you just want me to get mad where the fuck do you live

[Anonymous No.21874446]

> From the most dedicated scientist to the most illiterate street thug, all believe "I think, therefore I am".
> These are "problems" of the Cartesian ego which the narcissist and the dualist find impossible to abandon.

dude what?
stop projecting your narcissism onto others lmao

> objective phenomenological value

?

[Anonymous No.21875031]

>>21871598
I have to say I find it baffling that some of the best thinkers on the planet today are calling LLMs (Large Language Models) AI unironically and somehow linking it with bringing a thinking organism into being via a computer (actual AI which thanks to linguistic slippage is now idiotically being termed AGI (Artificial General Intelligence). Almost every other day I see a new substack post on how AI (LLMs) has blown past all sceptics and cynics in its progressive timeline and therefore AGI is surely just around the corner along with the apocalypse.
If the first awakening is atheism the second awakening is surely that nobody - nobody - escapes religious style thinking. It must be absolutely hardcoded into us to believe in something greater than ourselves that can't be explained and then become weirdly illogical and irrational in our defence of it. If you think you've escaped it I offer you my own religious-esque foibles: I treat the truth, freedom and loyalty as sacred and become sickened at things like lying for power and control. If I was a true non-human, emotionless robot, I wouldn't feel this way.
Again, though I want to stress just how bafflingly stupid it is that the world's smartest people are equating ever advancing LLMs with actually creating a thinking organism.
Side note: "I think, therefore I am" doesn't hold up to even the slightest inspection. Ants clearly aren't thinking and still are. Meditators still the flow of thought and still are. It's a strange pronunciation to have taken such hold.