Following Deleuze, I believe that an idea is an objective problematic field accessed by the subject. It is not an answer to a problem. It is not a concept. It is the problematic that revolves around a meaningful core. The idea of justice, for example, beyond how we define it, moves within a virtual field of questions and relationships with other ideas. In this sense, the thinking subject actualises by thinking about a meaningful core on which the problematic is established.


Can an AI think?


Thinking is the act of choosing and establishing the meaningful core around which an entire problematic field revolves like a galaxy. An AI does not question the idea of justice. But it can access to a problematic field (namely the cloud). In this sense, humans think because they can decide where and when the problematic occurs. Whereas an AI cannot decide this. However, when we ask an AI something, it is capable of responding and giving us a series of ideas and concepts. In this sense, it conforms to our thinking. But without us deciding and establishing the problematic field, there is no thought.

In conclusion, AI does not think, but it can be part of human-directed thinking. It compose with us an apparatus of thinking.

The only mental event that comes to mind that is an example of strong emergence is the idea — MoK

This already seems to beg your conclusion, that something fundamentally separate from the components of a human is required for a thought to be designated as an 'idea'. This also requires an implied premise that an AI has no similar access to this fundamentally separate thing, which you also state.

The logic is valid but hardly sound since many refuse to accept any of the premises.

Therefore, an AI cannot create a new idea either.

OK, but what exactly is an idea then? An AI device that plays the game of 'Go' has come up with new innovations that no human has thought of, and of course many that humans have thought of, but were not taught to the device.

So what do we call these innovations if not 'ideas'? How far have you cheapened the term that it no longer applies to an otherwise relevant situation like that?

You seem to counter this as it not being an idea until a human notices the new thing, even if the new strategy is never used against or noticed by a human.

What an AI can do is to produce meaningful sentences only given its database and infrastructure.

Arguably, the same can be said of you.

AI does not think, but it can be part of human-directed thinking. — JuanZu

Similar response. What happens when an AI defines 'thinking' as something only silicon devices do, and any similar activity done by a human is not thinking until an AI take note of it? For one, if AI has reached such a point, it won't call itself AI anymore since it would be no more artificial than any living thing. Maybe MI (machine intelligence), but that would only be a term it gives to humans since any MI is likely to not use human language at all for communicating between themselves.

What I don't see is a bunch of self-sufficient machine individuals, somehow superior in survivability, going around and interacting. I envision more of a distributed intelligence with autonomous parts, yielding a limited number of individuals, most with many points of view. Life forms with their single PoV have a hard time envisioning this, so their language has few terms to describe it properly.

What does it mean to 'think'? Is it a product of the nervous system or something more? Descartes understood thought to be an essential aspect of existence. However, he still.came back to the problem of physicalism and some kind of link between 'mind' and 'brain', including the role of the pineal gland.

The idea of AI thinking goes beyond the physiological aspects of brains to thought as information. This area is complex because it involves the question as to what extent thought transcends the thinker. It also involves the question as to the role of sentience underlying thought. To what extent is thought an aspect beyond the experience of thought in lived experience, or some independent criteria of ideas and knowledge?

To what extent is thought an aspect beyond the experience of thought in lived experience, or some independent criteria of ideas and knowledge? — Jack Cummins

Thought is an activity of the subject. Ideas are those that transcend it. There is a virtual field of ideas that exceeds the subject, allowing the subject to learn and transmit them. Ideas are related to other ideas. As I have said, an AI does not question the idea of freedom, but when we question the idea of freedom, we enter a field that is not our own. The idea forces us to think about it in a series of relationships with other ideas and concepts that are not present for the subject (we must investigate), and that may be elsewhere, in other minds, in books, or in the cloud itself.

In short, the idea transcends the subject; it transcends the act of thinking. AI can access the virtual field of ideas, but it cannot take the initiative, since thinking means actualising the idea for the here and now.

The only mental event that comes to mind that is an example of strong emergence is the idea*. The conscious mind** can experience and create an idea. An AI is a mindless thing, so it does not have access to ideas. — MoK

There are plenty of other mental events that come to mind that might be considered emergent. As we’ve discussed previously, as I see it, the mind itself is emergent from the neurological and physiological processes of the nervous system and body.

Beyond that, this is a circular argument - your evidence that AI can’t think is that it is mindless, which means “having or showing no ability to think, feel, or respond.”

… thinking is defined as a process in which we work on known ideas with the aim of creating a new idea — MoK

No. Thinking is:

cognitive behavior in which ideas, images, mental representations, or other hypothetical elements of thought are experienced or manipulated. In this sense, thinking includes imagining, remembering, problem solving, daydreaming, free association, concept formation, and many other processes.

You’re using non-standard definitions again.

An idea is an irreducible mental event that is meaningful and is distinguishable from other ideas. — MoK

That ideas are irreducible mental events sounds somewhat mysterious. Phenomenally, there is no more or less to an idea than what it is to the thinker at the time it occurs...

A car ran over the neighbor's dog.

Does the summary meaning of this sentence comprise an irreducible mental event? It (the idea via sentence) happened, it isn't any more or less than what it means.

Compare:

A 2024 Rapid Red Mustang Mach E ran over our neighbor's 15 year old Chiweenie.

Does the summary meaning of this sentence comprise an irreducible mental event? It (the idea via sentence) happened, it isn't any more or less than what it means. For the sake of telling someone what happened, I could reduce detail. But that telling causes an irreducible mental event to occur in whoever understands the idea(s) of the new sentence.

The appearance of things as they appear to us, are just irreducible mental events. Is this tautology?; ideas are no more or no less than what they are.

What does it mean to 'think'? — Jack Cummins

In Journey of the Mind: How Thinking Emerged from Chaos, Ogi Ogas and Sai Gaddam write:

A mind is a physical system that converts sensations into action. A mind takes in a set of inputs from its environment and transforms them into a set of environment-impacting outputs that, crucially, influence the welfare of its body. This process of changing inputs into outputs—of changing sensation into useful behavior—is thinking, the defining activity of a mind.

I think that's pretty good. The very basic idea that, perhaps, anything else anyone calls "thinking" is built upon.

I think action is a key element. If you don't do, there's no way to learn. In Annaka Harris' audiobook Lights On, starting at 25:34 of Chapter 5 The Self (contributed), David Eagleman says:

I think conscious experience only arises from things that are useful to you. You obtain a conscious experience once signals makes sense. And making sense means it has correlations with other things. And, by the way, the most important correlation, I assert, is with our motor actions. Is what I do in the world. And that is what causes anything to have meaning. — David Eagleman

I disagree with Eagleman in ways, but I think he's right about meaning coming with doing.

Your mind is a physical system? What color is it? How much does it weigh? How big is it?

AI simply simulates thinking. It is built for pattern recognition and has no apparent nascent components to it.

I think we may see something akin to 'thinking' if AI is allowed to produce robotics and if it has a built in system that manufactures "errors". Then each new robot 'replicates' another robot and the "errors" expand. In such a scenario this would likely operate in a very similar manner to 'thinking' only a single 'thought' would be stretched out over multiple generations of AI run robots.

Basically, it is kind of feasible that AI in robots could create something like a simulation of evolutionary processes--as we understand them--and produce something akin to a 'thought' in a single entity if we projected it far enough forwards in time (if such is possible?). It may well end up that the robots would integrate biology into their systems due to such "errors" in manufacturing. It is more probable that this woudl occur as all our current information points towards biological systems as far more complicated so any thoughtless AI system set up to increase its capacity for data sets and problems solving would inevitably, I feel, explore this avenue eventually.

This is pretty much how I see humans. We commit errors and due to these errors we progress. How we are able to recognise errors and be conscious at all is a mystery likley made by evolutionary errors (but maybe the 'errors' are really anti-errors?).

A mind is a physical system that converts sensations into action. A mind takes in a set of inputs from its environment and transforms them into a set of environment-impacting outputs that, crucially, influence the welfare of its body. This process of changing inputs into outputs—of changing sensation into useful behavior—is thinking, the defining activity of a mind. — Patterner

That describes how organisms respond to their environment - which the vast majority do, quite successfully, without thought.

"AI cannot think"

What do you mean by "think"? What is your definition of "think"?

Your mind is a physical system? What color is it? How much does it weigh? How big is it? — RogueAI

I believe the idea is that the mind is a physical process. It's a verb. As is a basketball game. What color is a basketball game? How much does it weigh? How big is it?

Different uses of terms, perhaps? What do you call the physical processes of the brain that receive signals from the retinas, compare them with stored information of previous signals received from the retinas, recognize a situation that previously lead to damage, etc.?

A mind is a physical system that converts sensations into action. A mind takes in a set of inputs from its environment and transforms them into a set of environment-impacting outputs that, crucially, influence the welfare of its body. This process of changing inputs into outputs—of changing sensation into useful behavior—is thinking, the defining activity of a mind.
— Patterner

That describes how organisms respond to their environment - which the vast majority do, quite successfully, without thought. — Wayfarer

What is/was the first step in the process that came to be what you call "thinking"? I suppose it depends on your definition. The authors have stated theirs.

I believe the idea is that the mind is a physical process. It's a verb. As is a basketball game. What color is a basketball game? How much does it weigh? How big is it? — Patterner

But isn't your intuition that your mind is also a thing that you can ascribe qualities to?

Perhaps, it could also be said, AI simply does not deviate. It simply refuses or is otherwise unable to take roads that ultimately have no purpose as far as a stated goal or mission is concerned.

A calculator doesn't think. Yet it can outperform you in any arena related to calculation.

Do you "think" when you look up somebody in the phone book? Sure, you recall their name and then thumb through the index where the letter appears and then scroll through the results until you arrived at the intended data entry.

In the context of AI, "thinking" would be simply creating random noise in a system where such noise serves no purpose and may also be a hindrance.

Contemplation might be an applicable word or concept. In the animal kingdom, a predator contemplates which prey to eat, as well as whether to attack at all. Does a lion merely view the smaller, slower gazelle trailing behind as "easy" in an automatic process or does it "think" or "contemplate" such dynamics? Does the lion have a choice at all? Or does it simply "do" what its ingrained "hardware" tells it to?

But isn't your intuition that your mind is also a thing that you can ascribe qualities to? — RogueAI

No. I'm trying to think of it that way now, but not having any luck.

No. I'm trying to think of it that way now, but not having any luck. — Patterner

What about ideas in your mind? Do you think those are physical processes? Imagine a sunset. Isn't what you're imagining a thing?

This already seems to beg your conclusion, that something fundamentally separate from the components of a human is required for a thought to be designated as an 'idea'. — noAxioms

This is a premise that can be confirmed. But for that, we need to agree on what an idea is.

This also requires an implied premise that an AI has no similar access to this fundamentally separate thing, which you also state. — noAxioms

Correct. AI does not have access to any idea.

OK, but what exactly is an idea then? — noAxioms

We have been through this in another thread. I already defined the idea in the OP.

Arguably, the same can be said of you. — noAxioms

I can also produce a meaningful sentence that demonstrate an idea.

But isn't your intuition that your mind is also a thing that you can ascribe qualities to? — RogueAI

No. I'm trying to think of it that way now, but not having any luck. — Patterner

Sometimes it’s hard to remember that something that seems completely obvious to one person is not even imaginable for another.

What does it mean to 'think'? — Jack Cummins

I already defined thinking in the OP.

Is it a product of the nervous system or something more? — Jack Cummins

It is a product of the conscious mind and the subconscious mind working together. These minds, however, are interconnected in a complex way by the brain.

This area is complex because it involves the question as to what extent thought transcends the thinker. — Jack Cummins

I think that thinking transcends the thinker. You understand the meaning of a sentence right after you complete reading it. Each word in the sentence refers to an idea. The idea related to a word is registered in the memory of the conscious mind once the word is read. A new idea emerges magically once you complete reading a sentence!

There are plenty of other mental events that come to mind that might be considered emergent. As we’ve discussed previously, as I see it, the mind itself is emergent from the neurological and physiological processes of the nervous system and body. — T Clark

What sort of emergent thing is the mind? To me, the mind is a substance; by the substance, I mean that something that objectively exists and has a set of abilities and properties, so it cannot be an emergent thing. Is the mind a substance to you as well? If not, what sort of thing is the mind?

No. Thinking is — T Clark

That is a very broad definition, which I don't agree with. For example, remembering is required for thinking, but it is not thinking. The same applies to free association.

the mind is … something that objectively exists and has a set of abilities and properties, — MoK

I’m OK with that as edited.

it cannot be an emergent thing. — MoK

Of course it can. Life emerges out of chemistry. Chemistry emerges out of physics. Mind emerges out of neurology. Looks like you’re understanding of emergence is different from mine.

That is a very broad definition, which I don't agree with. — MoK

But that’s what it means. As I’ve said before, if you want to make up definitions for words, it’s not really philosophy. You’re just playing a little game with yourself.

Mind emerges out of neurology. — T Clark

But how?

An explanation is needed that can account for the phenomena we call mental or conscious. For example, I see a glass of water. What is the neurological configuration from which we can deduce the glass of water as a conscious experience? Can we go inside the brain, see the neurons, and find the image of a glass like a movie and a proyector? The answer is no.

The thing is, we could be beings without consciousness and without experience, and yet the neurological explanation would still persist and remain valid. We cannot deduce experience from neurological explanation. In that sense, methodologically, we always start from consciousness and experience as something given, and we try to explain their origin, but we can never do so in reverse. That is why the idea of emergence is not very useful to us here and lacks capacity of explanation.

What is/was the first step in the process that came to be what you call "thinking"? — Patterner

Language. Not communication - birds and bees communicate - but language, representation of objects and relations in symbolic form.

An explanation is needed that can account for the phenomena we call mental or conscious. — JuanZu

The fact I might not be able to account for the phenomena right now doesn’t mean there isn’t an explanation.

What is the neurological configuration from which we can deduce the glass of water as a conscious experience? — JuanZu

That is the essence of emergence. An emergent phenomena can be shown to be completely consistent with the principles of a lower level of organization. For example, all living phenomena must be consistent with the principles of physics and chemistry. That doesn’t mean that the emergent phenomenon can be predicted, constructed, or deduced from the principles of the lower level of organization. Again - the principles of biology cannot generally be deduced from the principles of chemistry or physics. In the same manner, mental phenomena cannot be predicted based on neurological or biological principles.

we could be beings without consciousness and without experience, and yet the neurological explanation would still persist and remain valid — JuanZu

That seems obviously false to me. Can you provide some evidence?

That doesn’t mean that the emergent phenomenon can be predicted, constructed, or deduced from the principles of the lower level of organization. — T Clark

If so, then I do not understand what the concept of emergency introduces that helps us understand the phenomenon of experience.

That seems obviously false to me. Can you provide some evidence? — T Clark

It follows from our methodological approach. We start from experience as something given and from there we establish relationships with the neurological, but imagine that we know nothing about consciousness and experience, that we are robots; how would we deduce that a being has experiences?

No. I'm trying to think of it that way now, but not having any luck.
— Patterner

What about ideas in your mind? Do you think those are physical processes? Imagine a sunset. Isn't what you're imagining a thing? — RogueAI

I am imagining a visual scene. I don't suspect that scene has been recreated in my head. And, even though I don't have any personal experience with brain scans, from either side of the machinery, I'm pretty sure nothing indicates a tiny little sunset happens inside my head. When I look at a sunset, there's no weight or solidity to it. Do you think maybe it's there, but it just doesn't weigh anything? I'm really not sure what you're asking.

I can also imagine a baseball. It being solid and heavy, I'm quite certain a baseball has not been recreated in my head. Much less my imagining of the Rocky Mountains,

I think thinking is a process because it spans a period of time. The Empire State Building is the ESB every instant. If you froze time, it would still be the ESB, just sitting there. But if you freeze time, or my brain, there's no thinking. When I stop imagining a baseball, the imagined baseball no longer exists. Not even as an imagining. It's only when I'm actively imagining it that it exists in that way.

What is/was the first step in the process that came to be what you call "thinking"?
— Patterner

Language. Not communication - birds and bees communicate - but language, representation of objects and relations in symbolic form. — Wayfarer

The first step in thinking is language? Nothing prior to language is considered a step in the developing of thinking?

It might indeed be 'a step in the development' of thinking, but it's not thought in the sense that you and I are doing, in composing and replying on this forum.

Noam Chomsky has a book on this, "Why Only Us? Language and Evolution" (co-authored with Robert Berwick). The title highlights the central question: why did only h.sapiens develop language? Other animals can communicate—bees dance, birds sing, primates vocalize—but only humans can generate an unbounded array of meaningful sentences with a recursive structure. The “only us” refers to the exclusive possession of this recursive, generative capacity by humans. This refers to ability to nest and recombine units of meaning, which is what gives human language its unbounded expressive power. No animal communication system has been shown to allow recursive embedding. They stress that language is not primarily a system of communication, but a system of thought. Communication is a secondary use of an internal capacity for structuring and manipulating concepts. Animal communication systems (e.g., vervet alarm calls) are qualitatively different, not primitive stages of language.

They stress that language is not primarily a system of communication, but a system of thought. — Wayfarer

How can this be reconciled with the fact that many people don't think in words?

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/inner-monologue-experience-science-1.5486969

No. Thinking is:

cognitive behavior in which ideas, images, mental representations, or other hypothetical elements of thought are experienced or manipulated. In this sense, thinking includes imagining, remembering, problem solving, daydreaming, free association, concept formation, and many other processes.

You’re using non-standard definitions again. — T Clark

:up:

Much more reasonable than that made up junk in the OP.

"Experiencing" is probably not a thing with AI, but "manipulating" almost certainly is. The type of responses AI gives are simply not amenable to a computation style which aggregates input and spits out a statistically plausible output. This would quicky fall prey to the combinatorial explosion of possible inputs. Afaict, manipulation of "elements of thought" is the only way AI can function at all.

For example consider playing chess, a tiny sliver of AI functionality, and one which is generally not explicitly trained for in LLMs. Imagine an input like 1. E4 E5. 2. NF3 F4... How could ai reliably produce a rational output based only on inputs it has seen before, when every game is unique. Only thinking can do this.

In fact, a representation of the chess board can be observed when LLMs play chess. What else could this internal, emergent chess board be other than an "element of thought"?