by In my writing and rhetoric courses, the students have many opinions about whether AI is intelligent: how well they can rate, analyze, evaluate and communicate.
When I ask whether artificial intelligence can “think”, I often look at a sea of empty faces. What is “thinking” and how does it differ from “intelligence”?
We could treat the two as more or less synonymous, but the philosophers have honored nuances for thousands of years. Greek philosophers may not have known about the 21st century technology, but their ideas about intellect and thinking can help us understand what is at stake today with AI.
The shared line
Although the English words “intellect” and “thinking” have no direct colleagues in ancient Greek, viewing old texts offers useful comparisons.
In “Republic”, for example, Plato uses the analogy of a “shared line” that separates higher and lower forms of understanding.
Plato, the fourth century BC BC teached, argued that every person has an intuitive ability to recognize the truth. He called this the highest form of understanding: “Noesis”. Noesis enables concern about reason, faith or sensory perception. It is a form to “know” something – but in Plato’s view it is also a characteristic of the soul.
Lower, but still above its “dividing line” is “Dianoia” or reason, which is based on argument. Below the line are his lower forms of understanding “piston” or faith and “Eikasia”, imagination.
Pistis is the belief that is influenced by experience and sensory perception: input that someone can critically examine and justify. Meanwhile, Plato defines Eikasia as an unfounded opinion that is rooted in incorrect perception.
In Plato’s hierarchy of mental skills, direct, intuitive understanding above and momentary physical entries are down. The top of the hierarchy leads to true and absolutely knowledge, while the soil is suitable for false impressions and beliefs. But according to Plato, intuition is part of the soul and is embodied in human form. The perception of reality transcends the body – but still needs one.
While Plato does not distinguish “intelligence” and “thinking”, I would argue that his distinctions can help us to think about AI. Without embodied, AI cannot “think” or “understand” the way people do. Eikasia – The lowest form of understanding is based on false perceptions – can be similar to AI’s frequent “hallucinations” if it makes information that appears plausible but is actually inaccurate.
Embodied thinking
Aristotle, Plato’s student, throws more light on intelligence and thinking.
In “On The Seele” Aristotle differentiates “actively” from “passive” intellect. The active intellect that he called “Nous” is irrelevant. It makes meaning from experience, but exceeds physical perception. The passive intellect is physically and receives sensory impressions without reasoning.
We could say that these active and passive processes put together, form “think”. Today the word “intelligence” contains a logical quality that may be able to replicate the calculations of AI. Aristotle, however, suggests that it requires a embodied form to “think” and go beyond reason.
Aristotle’s views on rhetoric also show that advice and judgment require a body, feeling and experience. We may introduce rhetoric as a conviction, but it is actually more about observation: observation and evaluation of how evidence, emotions and characters shape the thinking and decisions of the people. Facts are important, but emotions and people move us – and it seems questionable whether AI uses rhetoric in this way.
After all, Aristotle’s’ concept of the “Phronesis” continues to think about the ability of AI. In “Nicomachean Ethics” he defines Phronesis as “practical wisdom” or “cleverness”. “Phronesis” includes a lived experience that not only determines the right thought, but also how these thoughts can be applied to “good goals” or virtuous actions. AI can analyze large data records to reach their conclusions, but “Phronesis” goes beyond information to consult wisdom and moral insights.
“Think” robot?
Today AI takes on many physical forms, from autonomous vehicles and humanoid robots to robots and drones in healthcare. If the intelligence requires embodiment, as Plato and Aristotle believed, it could look as if AI would come closer to human thinking than ever before.
AI accepts many forms, but they are still not bodies; They are carried out on code, algorithms and data records. Intuitive understanding, emotion, integrity and practical wisdom seem to require embodied, perishable form that is moved by experience.
Maybe we should ask Ai ourselves – so I did it. When I spoke to Chatgpt with the simple question: “Can you think?” It replied: “I can process information, analyze patterns and generate reactions based on data. In a way, it seems as if I think. But it’s not the way a person does. I have no awareness, emotions, intentions or awareness.”
This reaction is aimed at the views of Plato and Aristotle. Currently.
This article will be released from the conversation, a non -profit, independent news organization that brings you facts and trustworthy analyzes to help you understand our complex world. It was written by: Ryan Leack, USC Dornsife College for letters, art and sciences
Read more:
Ryan Leack does not work for a company or an organization that benefits from this article and have not published any relevant affiliations about their academic appointment.
