In academia, particularly in writing and rhetoric courses, a heated debate often emerges among students regarding the intelligence of artificial intelligence (AI). The conversation flows through various criteria, such as how effectively AI can assess, analyze, evaluate, and communicate information. However, when I pose a more profound question—whether AI can actually “think”—I’m met with a chorus of blank stares. This raises the fundamental question: what do we mean by “thinking,” and how does it differ from “intelligence”? Exploring this distinction requires delving into philosophy, especially the insights from ancient Greek thinkers, who grappled with similar inquiries long before the advent of modern technology.
The Divided Line
Although the English terms “intellect” and “thinking” lack direct Greek counterparts, our understanding of these concepts can significantly benefit from examining ancient texts. In Plato’s “Republic,” for instance, he introduces the analogy of the “divided line,” a visual metaphor separating higher forms of understanding from lower ones. Plato taught in the fourth century BCE, asserting that every individual possesses an intuitive capacity for recognizing truth, which he labeled as “noesis.” This highest form of understanding transcends mere reason, belief, or sensory perception, elevating it to a unique “knowing” that he attributes to the soul.
Plato categorizes understanding further: immediately below noesis is “dianoia,” or reason, which relies heavily on argumentative thinking. Lower still, Plato identifies “pistis,” or belief based on experiential input, and “eikasia,” which pertains to imagination founded on misleading perceptions. Within his hierarchy, intuitive understanding reigns at the summit, leading ultimately to absolute knowledge. In contrast, the lower tiers can give rise to fallible opinions. For Plato, this transcendental kind of knowing signifies a soul’s property that remains inherently linked to human embodiment.
While Plato may not explicitly differentiate between “intelligence” and “thinking,” his distinctions offer fertile ground for reflecting on AI’s capabilities. AI, lacking a physical embodiment and soul, may not engage in “thinking” or “understanding” as humans do. The phenomena of “eikasia,” characterized by misguided perceptions, parallels AI’s tendency to produce inaccuracies or “hallucinations”—false information framed convincingly yet devoid of factual grounding.
Embodied Thinking
To widen our understanding, we can turn to Aristotle, Plato’s foremost student, who provides a more nuanced view of intelligence and thinking. In “On the Soul,” Aristotle elucidates the dichotomy between “active” and “passive” intellect. The “active intellect,” termed “nous,” is an immaterial aspect that synthesizes meaning from experiences, transcending mere sensory engagement. Conversely, the “passive intellect” receives sensory data without the intervention of reasoning.
Combining these faculties gives rise to what we might classify as “thinking.” In terms of intelligence, Aristotle’s insights resonate strongly with contemporary discussions about AI. He posits that true “thinking” is contingent upon physical embodiment—something AI lacks. His exploration of rhetoric underscores this point, illustrating that effective persuasion and judgment derive from not just the facts but the entirety of lived experiences. Aristotle emphasizes that understanding human emotions and character is pivotal in guiding our thinking processes, implying that AI’s rhetoric doesn’t fully resonate with human-like engagement.
Aristotle further enlightens us with the notion of “phronesis,” or practical wisdom discussed in “Nicomachean Ethics.” Phronesis encapsulates the essence of discernment informed by lived experiences, granting individuals the ability to apply knowledge to virtuous actions. While AI can crunch vast datasets to yield conclusions, it doesn’t possess the moral insight or discernibility inherent in human wisdom.
‘Thinking’ Robots?
AI manifests in diverse physical forms today, including autonomous vehicles, humanoid robots, and healthcare technologies. If intelligence requires embodiment—as posited by both Plato and Aristotle—it may seem that AI is inching closer to emulating human-like thinking. However, despite these advancements, AI fundamentally operates through code, algorithms, and extensive datasets, lacking the emotional and intuitive faculties tied to human forms. This raises several philosophical and ethical dilemmas around what it means to truly “think.”
Curious about AI’s own self-perception, I once prompted ChatGPT with the straightforward question: “Can you think?” The response was telling: “I can process information, analyze patterns, and generate responses based on data. So in some ways, it might ‘seem’ like I’m thinking. But it’s not thinking like a human does. I don’t have consciousness, emotions, intentions, or awareness. Everything I ‘do’ is based on patterns learned from huge amounts of text and a set of rules and probabilities. I can ‘simulate’ certain aspects of thinking, but I don’t truly think or understand in the human sense.”
This response aligns closely with the perspectives of both Plato and Aristotle, highlighting the limitations intrinsic to AI’s capabilities and reaffirming that the essence of thinking is still deeply rooted in human experience.
Inspired by: Source
