You’ve heard the familiar word “I think, that’s who I am.”
Often written in its Latin form, it is known as ergo cogito, ergo sum.
If you need to write and impress your friends, know that René Descartes in 1637 had expressed the floor in his French treatise Discourse on focus and the words were shown as “I think, that’s who I am.”
Make sure that when you decide to wield this difficult-to-understand fact in your friends’ cutting nose, get the French pronunciation nailed beforehand, in a different way, your attempt to look smarter will be undermined when you are accused of having mispronounced the French version.
There’s an extra twist you’ll also want to know.
The now ubiquitous word omits a vital part, without which the saying is not the same as Descartes originally wanted.
It turns out that a relief for Twitter in the number of characters allowed has inadvertently caused it to lose the meaning it intended.
Here is the passage translated into English that the integrated quotation indicated:
“I assumed that all the elements (presentations) that had once entered my brain when I was awake, were nothing more done than the illusions of my dreams. But without delay in this, I observed that, as I sought to think that everything was wrong, it was surely obligatory for me, who so imagined it, to be something; and as I observed that this fact, I believe, I am, was so sure and of such obviousness that it does not explain why to doubt, so extravagant, it can be simply claimed through the skeptics capable of shaking it, I came to the conclusion that I could, unscrupulously, conform to it as the first precept of philosophy I was looking for.
Well, then, what exactly does this show?
Many philosophers interpret it as an indication that Descartes claimed that his lifestyle in the global genuine is affirmed as a result of his ability to doubt that he existed as a genuine-global entity.
Uh, you could say, something through the obvious riddle.
The fact that he may have doubted his lifestyles is sufficient proof of his lifestyles.
It can simply be said that if he did not doubt his lifestyle, he would recommend that he may not exist and that in this non-lifestyle there is no will or attempt to ask whether he existed or not. You see, not asking about your lifestyles is tantamount to not looking for the fact about your lifestyles and, as such, the way to identify your lifestyles is to challenge the fact of the affirmation of lifestyles.
Due to the point of view, this doubt was a key factor, the most complete and subtle edition of his intended adage is written in Latin as hesitant, ergo cogito, ergo sum, and then indicated in English as this new revisionist proclamation:
· “I doubt, what I think, what I am.”
Some move away from this changed variant and think that the beauty and poetry of their original lyrics have been absolutely usurped and shattered. Meanwhile, others argue that longer editing is more appropriate, and abbreviated editing is nothing less than an out-of-context farce.
I hope you won’t be shaken by the debate and resentment speech that underlies anything you’re likely to think of as an undeniable and settled topic.
Let’s see how the aggregate makes all the difference.
The shorter edition seems to recommend that through the single act of thinking, one will have to exist.
There is an abundant purity in which “I think, that’s how I am” is brief and sweet, allowing us to pronounce the phrase with parsimonious satisfaction.
It is said, however, that the longer edition adds an important preamble, in which first you will have to express a doubt, a type of doubt that possibly underlies your existence, and once you have crossed that bridge, you can say that you can think, and finally, you can put the icing on the cake proverbial by stating that because of those proposals , you’ll have to exist.
That’s a lot of insidious and insidious contortions, far beyond the realm of ease of handling and viewing in any verbal exchange with coffee or tea.
Charles Porterfield Krauth, a traditionally remarkable theologian, possibly would have summed it up well in 1872 by asking the question this way: “You can’t doubt who doesn’t think and who can’t think it doesn’t exist. , I think I exist. Array »
Going back to the preference to know-all with your peers, the ultimate complex and tortuous technique to impress your friends would first ask them if they have any doubts about their existence.
Assuming they say yes, you can share with them that by voluntarily admitting such doubt, it shows that they can think.
And, since they have now shown that they can think, they exist, and through those bratant regulations they are undeniably a cardholder qualified “I” (irreducibly based on “doubt, so I think, that’s who I am”).
This evokes a joke that generates a lot of joy and uncontrollable laughter among passionate philosophers:
René Descartes enters a bar. The bartender asks Descartes if he would like his general drink. In response, Descartes said, “I don’t think so.” Descartes disappears instantly.
Hilarious!
He immediately admitted that he does not think (well, somehow), so if he doesn’t think, he shouldn’t exist, and because he didn’t exist, he wouldn’t be in the bar and miraculously disappears.
There are many ingenious and evil tactics to play with this noble theme.
For example, some try to argue that simply by preventing their brains from thinking, they will cease to exist, like the joke about Descartes. A small challenge with this theory is that perhaps your brain is still “thinking,” adding when you sleep and even when a state of anesthetic meditation enters and you have emptied all your thoughts. Your brain is potentially the engine that will probably not stop.
Of course, when you die, your brain definitely stops, which is also the subject of very attractive studies on the length of time during which the brain continues infrequently, even if the rest of its frame may be legally dead. You may feel uncomfortable in this line of studies and the factor is pretty horrible, but it has desirable implications and stimulates our innate interest in how the brain works.
Let’s speed up on this issue.
A global effort of billions of dollars is being made to build genuine AI-based self-driving cars. Here’s an intriguing question: will genuine AI-based self-driving cars think and, if so, then exist in the same way as humans?
Let’s see what’s going on and let’s see.
Understanding self-driving cars
To clarify, genuine self-driving cars are the ones that AI drives all alone and that there is no human assistance for the driving task.
These cars without driving force are considered grades four and five (see my explanation in this link here), while a car that requires a human driving force for a percentage of the driving effort is considered point 2 or point 3. Cars Percentage Driving tasks are described as semi-autonomous and typically involve a variety of automated add-ons called Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS).
There is still a genuine self-driving car at point 5, which we even know if this will be possible or how long it will take to get there.
Meanwhile, Level Four efforts gradually seek to gain some traction by conducting very narrow and selective tests on public roads, there is controversy over whether such evidence deserves to be allowed according to it (we are all guinea pigs of life and death indies in a (some point out, see my indication in this link here).
Since semi-autonomous cars require a human driver, the adoption of such cars will not be very different from driving traditional vehicles, so there is not much new in itself on this subject (however, as you will see in a moment). , the following issues apply).
In the case of semi-autonomous cars, it is vital that the public be aware of a disturbing facet that has happened in recent times, namely that despite those human driving forces that continue to publish videos of themselves falling asleep at the wheel of one point. 2 or 3 cars. Array will have to prevent us from deviating ourselves thinking that the driving force can divert its attention from the task of driving while driving a semi-autonomous car.
You are to blame for driving the vehicle, regardless of the automation point that may be thrown at point 2 or 3.
Autonomous and if AI is Am
For the true autonomous vehicles of point four and five, there will be no human driving force involved in the task of driving.
All occupants will be passengers.
The AI is driving.
Let’s focus first on the AI aspect of things, despite the automotive aspects, to which we will return.
Despite the exaggeration around AI, there is still no AI that is sensitive. We’re not even at the sensitivity level. Some strongly argue that there will be a moment of singularity that will suddenly and perhaps hastily cause AI to outbreak vigorously through intelligence generation with more intelligence (see my comments on this disputed issue on this link), and eventually become sensitive. Do not hold your breath for this to happen.
Okay, if you settle for this premise, it means that if we’re going to talk and discuss the topic “I think I am” in the context of AI, then we’ll have to do it for now without going through a rounding. around the corner (this seems like a day, in a long time).
Does the act of thinking require sensitivity?
If thinking does not require sensitivity, you may find yourself in a less volatile floor to claim that AI, as we can conceive of it, may also be able to think, in a shorter time frame, perhaps through the creation of synthetic materials on a large scale. neural networks (EPs) using device learning (ML) and in-depth learning (DL) techniques and technologies. Optimists might argue that in such a device that is able to necessarily simulate a human brain, sensitivity will naturally seem, without necessarily a capacity created through humanity and even more so as a synergistic effect that we have not directly guessed.
In any case, think that we have managed to transfer the AI of this taste for thought to a check by Turing, a type of check procedure named after its author, the celebrated mathematician Alan Turing, which is made up of facing the AI opposed to a human. in a series of intellectual challenges, and the result was that we simply cannot discern any difference between the two (see my detailed explanation in this link). Then, you would think of AI as the equivalent of demonstrating human intelligence, no matter how we accomplish it, either through a smart computer or through Lego toys and a pile of duct tape.
Put yourself in a position for plot rotation.
Would this AI, the substance that passed the Turing test, qualify to be known as an “I” in the appearance of the respected context “I think, then I am”?
Well, of course, some will say, this will have to be so, since we agreed that AI can think, and by the act of thinking exists in the sense of “I am” that turns out to involve the Rule rule. As we reflect on this mind, we may resurrect the question of doubt. Remember, the Discard rule that is presumed to be total is “I doubt, so I think, that’s who I am.”
Conclusion
A real self-driving car with AI goes down your street.
Is this car “thinking” realistically or is it simply a very confusing PC programming?
Some other people think we may not succeed at point five of self-driving cars if we can’t create a thinking AI. Others argue that requiring the act of thinking is an incredibly higher bar, higher than that required for the act of driving.
Maybe we’re going to end up with an AI that’s characterized this way: “I think, then I’m not.” Or, for clarity: “I think, but not like you, apparently, so I guess I’m not one.” “
One thing we have just learned from Descartes is that if the AI begins to doubt its existence, we realize that the concert is over and we run into the hills or manage to befriend our new “I Am” member. Club.
Dr. Lance B. Eliot is a world-renowned synthetic intelligence (AI) expert with over 3 million perspectives accumulated in his AI columns. As an experienced high-tech executive
Dr. Lance B. Eliot is a world-renowned synthetic intelligence (AI) expert with over 3 million perspectives accumulated in his AI columns. As an experienced executive and high-tech entrepreneur, he combines industry hands-on experience with in-depth educational studies to provide cutting-edge data on the long-term supply and long-term supply of AI and ML technologies and applications. Former USC and UCLA professor, and director of a pioneering AI lab, speaks at primary events in the AI industry. Author of more than 40 books, 500 articles and two hundred podcasts, he has appeared in media such as CNN and has co-hosted the popular radio show Technotrends. He has served as an advisor to Congress and other legislative bodies and has won quite a few awards/recognitions. He is part of several director forums, has worked as a venture capitalist, angel investor and mentor of marketing founders and startups.