Descartes’ Solitude : Philosopher’s Walk

[Artwork by illustrator fivelove : http://cafe.naver.com/fbdms/7756]

“Cogito, ergo sum”

This proposition, which Descartes derives through his Methodological Skepticism, is not new to us. Someone can perceive that such a proposition is rather a cliché, however, it is not as certain and clear as we think. Anyways, for now, let us put aside problems like circular argument or tautology, and many complicated discourses about logic as well. Let us assume that the “Cogito, ergo sum” is a ‘certain and indubitable’ sentence as Descartes said. What can we ‘construct’ from this ‘foundation’? Is the ‘building’ – which is built up from a ‘firm and abiding superstructure’ – indeed impregnable?

Approximately, Descartes establishes his own world through the induction explained below. “I think, I exist”. From his ‘firm and abiding superstructure’, he induces his thoughts, or memories based on his experience of the past. In the brain – according to Descartes, existence is a ‘thinking thing’. Then, does the thinking thing have its own brain? – of existence, which he is thinking of, contains the concept of ‘Deity’ (I cannot understand why it must be included). However, the unstable Descartes cannot create a ‘Perfect Being’ or the ‘Deity’. Therefore, the Deity exists independently. Furthermore, that Great-good (I also cannot understand why he should be good) Deity is never likely to be able to deceive Descartes. Therefore HE allows the whole world to exist. Ta-da! (Of course, the logic is more delicate than this...)

[Parody of the film “Martix” : Descartes (Google image)]

The math, which was Descartes’ area of expertise, concludes that a proposition is ‘False’ when there is a contrast between the ‘middle proposition’ – a proposition which appeared already in the middle of inducing – and the proposition which we ‘induced from’ the middle proposition. However, even without the support of mathematical proof, Descartes’ argument seems strange almost to the point that it may even seem ridiculous.

In order to suspect one’s thoughts, I think we need to or should be able to believe more than one doubt. That is, in order to make his Methodological Skepticism work, Descartes already had to pre-suppose many rules and promises included in our language system. Trusting the rules of grammar, he proceeds his methodological skepticism, and convinces his thoughts to us with his sentences. Upon his superstructure, he develops his story ‘again’ to the next stage with another faith and unconscious premises.

[Parody of “Genesis”, part of (Google image)]

Descartes has now becomes a total wreck – there is no need for me to criticize in length again – by millions of philosophers, and even normal citizens. Yet, at least from my point of view, the important task is not to simply condemn his achievements but to understand his footprints and chain of thoughts. During his time, people were still living in the Middle Ages. When the King spoke, that statement would become the truth; the words of the Catholic Church were undoubtable; what parents told their children had to be obeyed. Nonetheless, Descartes refused all of the so-called “truths” and designed the structure of his own “truth”. I think the steps that were made by Descartes were indeed the walk taken by a philosopher. 

[Dali, “Profile of time” (Google image)]

Following this note, we can still question ourselves: Are we able to think based upon our own Reason? We cannot just sit here doing nothing and assume that we can just judge Descartes. To censure Descartes, I think we need to risk ourselves as far as he did. As lonely as he was, we might even have to place ourselves into a territory which nobody in our contemporary era would agree with. As harsh as he was, we need to explain our logic and assure that our story is not as bad as his. Even today, we are afraid of expressing outward suspicions towards the beliefs of others because this might exclude ourselves from the field of communication. The belief system that society enforces upon us is still powerful, and even indestructible. Whenever an individual’s thoughts are different from those of others, he/she imposes the possibility of exclusion or elimination upon him/herself. Such circumstances would be too cruel and would leave ourselves in a bleak state of solitude. Therefore, although he committed several logical errors, Descartes is nonetheless a great philosopher even in the present progressive sense.

Descartes' Contributions to Inception

I would like to begin with a joke that I never get to tell, but hopefully you all will be able to appreciate it. 

So Descartes walks into a bar and orders a beer. The bartender happily obliges and then asks him if he’d like some peanuts to munch on with his drink. Descartes thinks it over and replies, “I think not” and then disappears. 

Though there are many aspects of Descartes’ meditations to focus on, I would like to address Descartes’ dream argument and relate it to one of my favorite movies: Inception. 

In Descartes’ first meditation, he attempts to doubt everything he has previously known in order to create a strong foundation for what he can really know to be true about himself and about the world around him. “. . . but, as the removal from below of the foundation necessarily involves the downfall of the whole edifice, I will at once approach the criticism of the principles on which all my former beliefs rested”. I find this method of skepticism to be an extremely valuable way to look at the world, subtracting all previous judgment and assumption in order to understand what is really true about the world. 

The meditator observes that most of the things he knows to be true stem from his senses. However, though he has previously taken these sense perceptions to be the truth, when cast into doubt, he realizes that his senses often mislead him. “All that I have, up to this moment, accepted as possessed of the highest truth and certainty, I received either from or through the senses. I observed, however, that these sometimes misled us. . . “. Through this doubt, the reader is lead into Descartes’ dream argument. 

I, personally, suffer strongly from nightmares, and I find that the most terrifying aspect of my nightmares is how strongly based in reality they really are. It is the fact that the situations in my dreams are so realistic as I am dreaming them that makes them so paralyzing. Similarly, Descartes wonders how one can know the difference between reality and a dream. All dreams, at some level, are based on aspects of the real world. One cannot simply dream something which he has not previously perceived by the senses. 

It is this struggle between reality and the dream world that is so accurately depicted in the film Inception. Though the plot could take an eternity to explain in detail, I will briefly summarize the aspects of relevance.  The main character, Dom Cobb is able to navigate the world of dreams in order to find out the most precious of secrets and even to manipulate reality. Cobb is tasked with an illegal undertaking, to plant an idea into someone’s head through the dream world, and through the fulfillment of this task, he will be able to once again see his family and live the life he has been kept from living.

Since the dream world has this incredible likeness to reality, he has an object which helps him to know whether or not he is dreaming or not called a “totem”. 

As the action pact plot rolls on, one is sucked into whether or not the final scene is truly real or not. It is up the viewer to decide whether or not the totem will fall, indicating Cobb’s successful return to his family in the real world, or whether he is stuck in the dream world. 

The reason I bring up this reference is to depict Descartes’ point that one cannot always trust his or her senses, even when the circumstances seem incredibly real. As the meditator continues with his speculation on how he can be deceived so, if God is supremely powerful and good, giving him all his perceptions, he wonders if perhaps some evil deceiver is the culprit. However, through all of his speculation he is able to come to the conclusion that the one thing he truly knows is that he is a thinking thing, and this he cannot doubt. Thus if he “thinks not”, as he decides against ordering peanuts at a bar, he ceases to exist. Remind Descartes never to say no to peanuts. 

Computare Ergo Sum?

I will take the liberty of assuming most of us have heard Descartes' much-quoted phrase 'cogito ergo sum', usually translated into English as 'I think therefore I am', from his 1637 treatise Discourse on the Method.... This part of his epistemological theory is also addressed in his 1641 Metaphysical Meditations, as a part of which Descartes systematically doubts the existence of everything he can sense, including the existence of himself. This doubt in his own existence leads him to conclude he must exist, for there must be something present to do the doubting.

However the inspiration for this blog post came from the part of Descartes' Metaphysical Meditations in which he states that a 'thinking thing' is a thing which 'doubts, understands, conceives, affirms, denies, wills, refuses, imagines, perceives'. And so I asked, does this 'thing' have to be human? Does it even have to be alive?

As I type this, having mis-typed 'conceives' (i before e except after c, Katie), blogger, the internet, a computer somewhere is telling me that I've mistyped it. Not only is it pointing out my mistake, it's suggesting how I might improve my spelling; this computer knows what I wanted to say. Is this not an example of doubt that the spelling is correct, understanding of what I meant to type, refusal of the incorrect word and perception of the mistake? Therefore, can a computer fulfil all of Descartes' requirements for being a 'thinking thing'? If Descartes were ever to see a computer no doubt he would be shocked and probably terrified, but whether or not he would class it as a 'thinking thing' is questionable. Below I have defined the terms Descartes uses, and considered how they can be applied to the function of computers.

Doubt - 'A feeling of uncertainty or a lack of conviction'
When one searches for something in a search engine, such as Google, they may express doubt about your terms, asking 'do you mean...?'. Although one might argue that google is only able to do this by means of a saved search history, this is also how humans express doubt. We think something is unlikely judging by our experience.

link to my search results: Rene Descat, Philosofur http://cheezburger.com/2559284480

Understanding - 'To perceive the intended meaning of [something]'
Siri understands the meaning of a collection of sounds as words.

Conception - 'To form or devise [something] in the mind
Computers can be used to run simulations of things humans don't have the time or processing power to calculate the outcome of. They are used to predict an outcome under a specific set of circumstances, for example here is a paper about a computer simulation model for predicting the outcome of a yacht race. Is this outcome not something that the computer has formed in its 'mind'?

http://people.orie.cornell.edu/shane/pubs/AmCup.pdf

Affirmation - 'State or assert positively'
My calculator affirms that 2+2 does indeed = 4. A quick internet search affirms that One Direction are not splitting up, just 'taking a break'.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/34048659/one-direction-tell-fans-were-not-splitting-up-just-taking-a-break

Denial - 'State that one refuses to admit the truth or existence of [something]'
When I try to open a recently deleted photo that still, somehow, appears in its folder on my desktop, 'file unavailable' pops up. My computer denies the existence of the photograph that I still perceive to be there.

Will - 'The faculty by which a person decides on and initiates action'
My computer knows when it needs to do an update. Then it knows when it REALLY needs to do an update. Then it shuts down and updates itself without my initiating the action; did it will it?

Refusal - 'Indicate or show that one is not willing to do something'
answers.microsoft.com have a whole discussion thread on what to do 'when your computer refuses to shut down'. Computers, it seems, know what's best for them.

http://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/forum/windows_7-performance/my-computer-refuses-to-shut-down-restart-or-log/48387407-fe68-409a-be85-ec4a97c0684d?auth=1

Imagination - 'Form a mental image or concept of'
It might seem that this is where my analogy becomes strained, can a computer imagine a whole new concept? But, according to Descartes, humans can't either; everything we think we imagine has its origins in something we've sensed. For example, we can't ever imagine a new colour, our imagination filled with combination of the colours we already know. What computers can do is form images of something from programming input, much the same as we can imagine something we've sensed.

Perception - 'Become aware or conscious of'
Here is a photo of a computer perceiving my face in front of the camera and turning me into a Princess.

Therefore, could 'computare ergo sum' really be the case? If you pardon my colloquial analogies and probably bad use of Latin, there is a strong argument that if Descartes was ever to see a computer he would class it as a 'thinking thing' and thus existing in the same realm of being as humans. Ray Kurzweil even predicted that 2029 will be the year when 'robots have the power to outsmart their makers', at which point humans will be knocked off the humanistic pedestal of supreme beings and replaced by something they have created

However Descartes does stipulate that he believes his mind can exist without his body; humans are split dualistically between the world we sense but can't be sure of and the ethereal but certain world of whatever a 'thinking thing' is. It seems he would argue that computers are not. Remove the motherboard from your PC and it ceases to perceive, switch it off and let the battery run out and it ceases to conceive. So in conclusion, although computers are able to fulfil the functions necessary for being a 'thinking thing', they do not possess the 'thing' that enables them to exist, and therefore to be sum.

... For now.