Latest news with #thinking
Fast Company
21-07-2025
- Fast Company
Can AI think? Here's what Greek philosophers might say
In my writing and rhetoric courses, students have plenty of opinions on whether AI is intelligent: how well it can assess, analyze, evaluate, and communicate information. When I ask whether artificial intelligence can 'think,' however, I often look upon a sea of blank faces. What is 'thinking,' and how is it the same or different from 'intelligence'? We might treat the two as more or less synonymous, but philosophers have marked nuances for millennia. Greek philosophers may not have known about 21st-century technology, but their ideas about intellect and thinking can help us understand what's at stake with AI today. The divided line Although the English words 'intellect' and 'thinking' do not have direct counterparts in ancient Greek, looking at ancient texts offers useful comparisons. In Republic, for example, Plato uses the analogy of a 'divided line' separating higher and lower forms of understanding. Plato, who taught in the fourth century BCE, argued that each person has an intuitive capacity to recognize the truth. He called this the highest form of understanding: 'noesis.' Noesis enables apprehension beyond reason, belief, or sensory perception. It's one form of 'knowing' something—but in Plato's view, it's also a property of the soul. Lower down, but still above his 'dividing line,' is 'dianoia,' or reason, which relies on argumentation. Below the line, his lower forms of understanding are 'pistis,' or belief, and 'eikasia,' or imagination. Pistis is belief influenced by experience and sensory perception: input that someone can critically examine and reason about. Plato defines eikasia, meanwhile, as baseless opinion rooted in false perception. In Plato's hierarchy of mental capacities, direct, intuitive understanding is at the top, and moment-to-moment physical input toward the bottom. The top of the hierarchy leads to true and absolute knowledge, while the bottom lends itself to false impressions and beliefs. But intuition, according to Plato, is part of the soul, and embodied in human form. Perceiving reality transcends the body—but still needs one. So, while Plato does not differentiate between 'intelligence' and 'thinking,' I would argue that his distinctions can help us think about AI. Without being embodied, AI may not 'think' or 'understand' the way humans do. Eikasia—the lowest form of comprehension, based on false perceptions—may be similar to AI's frequent 'hallucinations,' when it makes up information that seems plausible but is actually inaccurate. Embodied thinking Aristotle, Plato's student, sheds more light on intelligence and thinking. In On the Soul, Aristotle distinguishes 'active' from 'passive' intellect. Active intellect, which he called 'nous,' is immaterial. It makes meaning from experience, but transcends bodily perception. Passive intellect is bodily, receiving sensory impressions without reasoning. We could say that these active and passive processes, put together, constitute 'thinking.' Today, the word 'intelligence' holds a logical quality that AI's calculations may conceivably replicate. Aristotle, however, like Plato, suggests that to 'think' requires an embodied form and goes beyond reason alone. Aristotle's views on rhetoric also show that deliberation and judgment require a body, feeling, and experience. We might think of rhetoric as persuasion, but it is actually more about observation: observing and evaluating how evidence, emotion, and character shape people's thinking and decisions. Facts matter, but emotions and people move us—and it seems questionable whether AI utilizes rhetoric in this way. Finally, Aristotle's concept of 'phronesis' sheds further light on AI's capacity to think. In Nicomachean Ethics, he defines phronesis as 'practical wisdom' or 'prudence.' Phronesis involves lived experience that determines not only right thought, but also how to apply those thoughts to 'good ends,' or virtuous actions. AI may analyze large datasets to reach its conclusions, but 'phronesis' goes beyond information to consult wisdom and moral insight. 'Thinking' robots? Today, AI takes on many physical forms, from autonomous vehicles and humanoid robots to healthcare robots and drones. If intelligence requires embodiment, as Plato and Aristotle believed, it might seem as if AI is coming closer than ever to human thinking. AI does take on many forms, but they're still not bodies; they run on code, algorithms, and datasets. Intuitive understanding, emotion, integrity, and practical wisdom seem to require an embodied, perishable form that is moved by experience. Perhaps we should ask AI itself—so I did. When I prompted ChatGPT with the simple question, 'Can you think?,' it responded: '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.'
Forbes
19-07-2025
- General
- Forbes
10 Must-Read Books For Anyone Interested In Philosophy
Plato and Aristotle in discussion, 1437, by Luca della Robbia (ca 1400-1482), marble tile, depicts ... More two of the greatest philosophers, who wrote two of the all-time best philosophy books. Philosophy books can open your eyes to new ways of thinking and help you develop a more disciplined, informed approach to life. The best philosophical books explain complex topics using simple language and true-life examples that illustrate concepts explored in nihilism, aesthetics, logic and metaphysics. After reading good books about philosophy, you can examine your own personal beliefs from a more informed perspective. Whether you are interested in moral or political philosophy or want to read a more modern take, you can find what you are looking for in these powerful books. This list of great books about philosophy includes takes from the ancient to the contemporary era. Top Philosophical Books Philosophy books encompass anything that examines the acquisition of knowledge, creation of values, and logic of reason. Classical philosophy includes thoughts from ancient Greeks and Romans, like famous authors Plato and Aristotle. Modern philosophy includes thinkers from the 17th century on, building on the work of Medieval and Renaissance philosophers. Fiction also includes philosophical themes. For instance, any novelist who examines ethics and morality touches on philosophy. Horror, mystery and sci-fi are great vehicles for this type of intellectual inquiry, as they often involve extreme circumstances. This list includes nonfiction books ranked on the uniqueness of their insights, academic rigor of their hypotheses, commercial popularity and enduring value. Aristotle published the first Greek work to examine dramatic theory from a philosophical point of view, underscoring the importance of the arts in building a strong society. He divides the forms of poetry into distinctive groups and observes the differences in how they mimic real life. This book is best for drama lovers or fans of Greek mythology. Aristotle's Poetics is available from publisher Penguin Random House. Considered one of the classics of political philosophy that forms the basis for modern liberalism, Second Treatise of Government considers the basic elements of human nature. It covers debates over tolerance and just government, segueing into more contemporary concerns about citizens' essential freedoms and how to uphold them. This book is best for anyone who wants to learn more about liberalism. John Locke's Second Treatise of Government is available from publisher Oxford University Press. Frank B. Wilderson III's accessible yet intellectual look at how race impacts moral and political decisions was longlisted for the National Book Award. He delves into the history of Black enslavement in the United States and how it continues to impact people today, not shying away from tough ethical questions. This book is best for anyone interested in identity and history. Frank B. Wilderson III's Afropessimism is available from publisher W.W. Norton. Intention is one of the philosophical cornerstones of the 20th century. G.E.M. Anscombe examines how intention can (unintentionally) set us up for problems that are deceptively hard to solve. She looks at agency and people's reasons for acting the way they do. The book was hailed at publication as a work of genius. This book is best for anyone interested in philosophy that examines action. G.E.M. Anscombe's Intention is available from publisher Harvard University Press. Augustine of Hippo, also known as St. Augustine, grew up with parents on either side of the religious spectrum, with one an active non-believer. The saint's musings on how he came to embrace Christianity make for one of the best philosophical books about Christian doctrine. This book is best for those seeking cross-disciplinary works. Augustine of Hippo's Confessions is available from publisher Penguin Random House. Botticelli's 1480 depiction of St. Augustine in his cell. Also known as Augustine of Hippo, he wrote ... More "Confessions," one of the best philosophy books. Philosopher Judith Butler (they/them) has developed powerful theories on gender. Their work, often cited by feminist and queer theory scholars, challenges conventional notions of gender and argues that power 'constrains' sex. They also explore performative sex and gender roles, taking inspiration from great literature in their work. This book is best for anyone interested in gender identity. Judith Butler's Bodies that Matter is available from publisher Routledge. The famed Chinese military treatise devotes each of 13 chapters to different military tactics and is arguably the most famous book on the philosophy of war. It looks at the moral imperatives of war and how each side can argue it is just. Sun Tzu highlights unity, not army size, as a critical success factor. This book is best for those interested in the philosophy of war. Sun Tzu's The Art of War is available from publisher Penguin Random House. Mary Wollstonecraft's extended essay is one of the first works of feminist philosophy. Her response to critics arguing against women's education doesn't call for a gender revolution but does lay out the ways education could help women better support their families and become more than just wives. This book is best for anyone curious about early feminist theory. Mary Wollstonecraft's Vindication of the Rights of Women is available from publisher Penguin Random House. One of the most influential (and controversial) philosophy books ever published, The Second Sex helped spark the second wave of feminism. De Beauvoir begins with the question, 'What is woman?' and how women have been defined as other, i.e., not men. She also rejects traditional views of what women are supposed to be. This book is best for anyone interested in women's treatment in the past. Simone de Beauvoir's The Second Sex is available from publisher Penguin Random House. Plato penned one of the most influential philosophy books in history with this examination of justice and whether the just man is happier than the unjust man. Using Socratic dialogue, Plato proposes a utopian state called Kallipolis and considers the nature of current regimes compared to the ideal. This book is best for anyone interested in ethics or self help books. Plato's Republic is available from publisher Penguin Random House. Bottom Line Philosophy books can give you a new perspective on issues and educate you. Choosing any of these works will expand your mind and prompt new questions worth answering in your own daily life. Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) What Are Good Philosophy Books For Beginners? Reading philosophy can be challenging. By starting with a more accessible text, readers become familiar with foundational philosophical ideas. Here are two good philosophy books for beginners: Thomas Aquinas's Selected Writings leans heavily on Aristotle's teachings to analyze the relationship between faith and reason from a medieval Christian perspective. Plato's The Last Days of Socrates breaks down the latter's famed trial in four propulsive dialogues. What Are Good Philosophical Fiction Novels? Fiction is a fruitful medium for philosophical inquiry because so many questions can be couched in the form of a story. Two excellent philosophical fiction novels are: Sophie's World by Jostein Gaarder (1991) follows a 14-year-old Norwegian girl who begins lessons on philosophy with a mysterious correspondent. The Stranger by Albert Camus (1946) tells the story of a man who becomes embroiled in a murder while at an Algerian beach. What Are Good Moral Philosophy Books? Moral philosophy focuses on ethics. Two terrific moral philosophy books are: John Stuart Mill's Utilitarianism and Other Essays, which approaches morality by measuring how many people are positively impacted. Immanuel Kant's Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals (1785) sets the foundational ground for his future arguments related to ethics. What Are Good Political Philosophy Books? Exploring questions related to justice, social justice and social organizing, political philosophy often weighs the obligations of the state versus the individual. Two good political philosophy books are: Niccolo Machiavelli's The Prince (1532) suggests cutthroat tactics for gaining political power, favoring efficiency over ideals. Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan (1651) outlines the social contract theory and how government can prosper with an absolute sovereign. What Are Good Modern Philosophy Books? So much of popular philosophy hails from centuries ago. But modern-day philosophers still make salient points, as in these two exceptional modern philosophy books: Natural Goodness by Philippa Foot (2003) expands on her views as one of the founders of contemporary virtue ethics, including her critiques of Kant and Nietzsche. Debating Religious Liberty and Discrimination by John Corvino, Ryan T. Anderson and Sherif Girgis (2017) offers differing takes on a slew of religious liberty issues.
WebMD
18-07-2025
- Health
- WebMD
I Keep Losing Things
Does MS cause this, and what can I do about it? I've always had a problem with losing things, but lately it's gotten ridiculous. In the last four months, I've lost wallets, keys, a phone, a treasured kitchen knife, and even a couple of shirts. It's getting to be a major problem, so I have been asking for help, and I've found some really useful ideas. One doesn't have to have multiple sclerosis (MS) to lose things, but it helps. According to the National MS Society (NMSS), at least half of people with MS will experience some kind of unwanted changes in memory or thinking. 'Somewhere between 4 and 7 in every 10 people with MS,' they write, 'will experience some kind of changes in memory or thinking.' You can see how memory loss could make it harder to find things – Where did I put that pen? Where did I leave my car keys? Memory loss often leads to losing things. It happens to people as they age, so a lot of ways to cope with it have been discovered. I will divide them into two categories: losing things in the home and losing them in the outside world. Losing things at home is annoying and time wasting, but at least things usually get found eventually. The best way to prevent it is to have an ordered, uncluttered living space. When I was young, I often heard adults say, 'A place for everything, and everything in its place.' An excellent idea, but what if you have more things than places to put them? Or what if you have so many places that you can't remember what goes where? We might have to simplify our lives to make that work. Have less stuff. Personally, I like living simply; I've never enjoyed having lots of random stuff, but others disagree. The NMSS advises having a set place for essential things – like car keys, or your glasses – and always putting them there. Make the place specific; not just 'on the table by the door,' but 'in the blue bowl on the table by the door.' Then we have to train ourselves to consistently use the chosen space. Making organization a habit is the key. In remembering what goes where, labels are a big adult son recently came over and labeled many of our drawers and shelves with what's supposed to live there, which makes things easier to find. The NMSS suggests keeping important stuff in a place you visit frequently, like in a bag with pockets over the kitchen door. Label the pockets. When we do lose things, stressing out about it makes it and wait, try to visualize where you put the thing, and it may come to you. Sometimes my wife can find things I'm looking for, so I may ask her. And sometimes I can find things for her. I think people we live with may know our habits better than we know them ourselves, so may know where lost things are likely to be. Choosing exact spots for the disappearing things and using them consistently is key. Then you can expand to choosing exact spots for everything, 'from your scarves and belts to your receipts and house bills.' But you have to use the system. Don't cheat because you won't remember tomorrow where you put things today. That happened to me yesterday, and I almost lost another wallet. I have a shopping bag on my scooter where my wallet usually lives. I need to remember to put it back in the bag, but yesterday I bought something at the farmers' market, then moved on to the next booth. I kept the wallet in my lap instead of putting it back in the bag. When I got to the next purchase, the wallet was gone! I was freaked, but another shopper walking behind me had seen it fall out of my lap, picked it up, and returned it to me. Thank God for his honesty, but from now on, I have to be more consistent in putting it back. That gets much easier if I have fewer alternative places. Stop riding around with four or five bags and just have two: one for purchases and one for personal stuff. I also have to be slower and more careful about putting things in bags, because sometimes I think my hand is inside the bag when it's really between bags. Then things drop to the ground without me realizing it. That's how my last wallet got lost. I have to look at where I'm putting things to make sure they're really in there and to help me remember where I put them. Technology can help It's too bad I'm old and haven't grabbed on to the technological fixes younger people are using, but I'm going to start. For example, attaching a Bluetooth tracker to connect your keys or wallet or your glasses to your phone. You can call the wallet or maybe find it with a GPS tracker. Your phone manufacturer probably has a Find My Phone app that will show exactly where your phone is. Check out the manufacturer's website or store. There are also 'out of range finders' that you could put on a purse — or whatever you like — that will call your phone if it gets too far away. These devices are all battery powered and cost between $20 and $50 in most cases.
Fast Company
01-07-2025
- Science
- Fast Company
Will AI make thinking extinct?
For centuries, we've believed that the act of thinking defines us. In what is widely considered a major philosophical turning point, marking the beginning of modern philosophy, secular humanism, and the epistemological shift from divine to human authority, the French philosopher and mathematician René Descartes (1596–1650) famously concluded that everything is questionable except the fact that we think, 'Cogito, ergo sum' (I think, therefore I am). Fast-forward a few hundred years, however, and in an age where generative AI can produce emails, vacation plans, mathematical theorems, business strategies, and software code on demand, at a level that is generally undistinguishable from or superior to most human output, perhaps it's time for an update of the Cartesian mantra: 'I don't think . . . but I still am.' Indeed, the more intelligent our machines become, the less we are required to think. Not in the tedious, bureaucratic sense of checking boxes and memorizing facts, but in the meaningful, creative, cognitively demanding way that once separated us from the rest of the animal kingdom. The irony, of course, is that only humans could have been smart enough to build a machine capable of eliminating the need to think, which is perhaps not a very clever thing. Thinking as Optional Large segments of the workforce, especially knowledge workers who were once paid to think, now spend their days delegating that very function to AI. In theory, this is the triumph of augmentation. In practice, it's the outsourcing of cognition. And it raises an uncomfortable question: if we no longer need to think in order to work, relate to others, and carry out so-called 'knowledge work,' what is the value we actually provide, and will we forget how to think? We already know that humans aren't particularly good at rationality. Nobel laureates Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky showed that we mostly operate on heuristics (fast, automatic, and error-prone judgments). This is our default 'System 1' mode: intuitive, unconscious, lazy. Occasionally, we summon the energy for 'System 2'(slow, effortful, logical, proper reasoning). But it's rare. Thinking is metabolically expensive. The brain consumes 20% of our energy, and like most animals, we try to conserve it. In that sense, as neuroscientist Lisa Feldman Barrett noted, 'the brain is not for thinking'; it's for making economic, fast, and cheap predictions about the world, to guide our actions in autopilot or low energy consumption mode. So what happens when we create, courtesy of our analytical and rather brilliant 'System 2,' a machine that allows us to never use our brain again? A technology designed not just to think better than us, but instead of us? It's like designing a treadmill so advanced you never need to walk again. Or like hiring a stunt double to do the hard parts of life, until one day, they're doing all of it, and no one notices you've left the set. The Hunter-Gatherer Brain in a High-Tech World Consider a parallel in physical evolution: our ancestors didn't need personal trainers, diet fads, or intermittent fasting protocols. Life was a workout. Food was scarce. Movement was survival. The bodies (and brains) we've inherited are optimized to hoard calories, avoid unnecessary exertion, and repeat familiar patterns. Our operating model and software is made for hungry cavemen chasing a mammoth, not digital nomads editing their PowerPoint slides. Enter modernity: the land of abundance. As Yuval Noah Harari notes, more people today die from overeating than from starvation. So we invented Ozempic to mimic a lack of appetite and Pilates to simulate the movement we no longer require. AI poses a similar threat to our minds. In my last book I, Human, I called generative AI the intellectual equivalent of fast food. It's immediate, hyper-palatable, low effort, and designed for mass consumption. Tools like ChatGPT function as the microwave of ideas: convenient, quick, and dangerously satisfying, even when they lack depth or nutrition. Indeed, just like you wouldn't choose to impress your dinner guests by telling them that it took you just two minutes to cook that microwaved lasagna, you shouldn't send your boss a deck with your three-year strategy or competitor analysis if you created with genAI in two minutes. So don't be surprised when future professionals sign up for 'thinking retreats': cognitive Pilates sessions for their flabby minds. After all, if our daily lives no longer require us to think, deliberate thought might soon become an elective activity. Like chess. Or poetry. The Productivity Paradox: Augment Me Until I'm Obsolete There's another wrinkle: a recent study on the productivity paradox of AI shows that while the more we use AI, the more productive we are, the flip side is equally true: the more we use it, the more we risk automating ourselves out of relevance. This isn't augmentation versus automation. It's a spectrum where extreme augmentation becomes automation. The assistant becomes the agent; the agent becomes the actor; and the human is reduced to a bystander . . . or worse, an API. Note for the two decades preceding the recent launch of contemporary large language models and gen AI, most of us knowledge workers spent most of their time training AI on how to predict us better: like the microworkers who teach AI sensors to code objects as trees or traffic lights, or the hired drivers that teach autonomous vehicles how to drive around the city, much of what we call knowledge work involves coding, labelling, and teaching AI how to predict us to the point that we are not needed. To be sure, the best case for using AI is that other people use it, so we are at a disadvantage if we don't. This produces the typical paradox we have seen with other, more basic technologies: they make our decisions and actions smarter, but generate a dependency that erodes our adaptational capabilities to the point that if we are detached from our tech our incompetence is exposed. Ever had to spend an entire day without your smartphone? Not sure what you could do. Other than talk to people (but they are probably on their smartphones). We've seen this before. GPS has eroded our spatial memory. Calculators have hollowed out basic math. Wi-Fi has made knowledge omnipresent and effort irrelevant. AI will do the same to reasoning, synthesis, and yes, actual thinking. Are We Doomed? Only If We Stop Trying It's worth noting that no invention in human history was designed to make us work harder. Not the wheel, not fire, not the microwave, and certainly not the dishwasher. Technology exists to make life easier, not to improve us. Self-improvement is our job. So, when we invent something that makes us mentally idle, the onus is on us to resist that temptation. Because here's the philosophical horror: AI can explain everything without understanding anything. It can summarize Foucault or Freud without knowing (let alone feeling) pain or repression. It can write love letters without love, and write code without ever being bored. In that sense, it's the perfect mirror for a culture that increasingly confuses confidence with competence: something that, as I've argued elsewhere, never seems to stop certain men from rising to the top. What Can We Do? If we want to avoid becoming cognitively obsolete in a world that flatters our laziness and rewards our dependence on machines, we'll need to treat thinking as a discipline. Not an obligation, but a choice. Not a means to an end, but a form of resistance. Here are a few ideas: Be deliberately cognitively inefficient Read long-form essays. Write by hand. Make outlines from scratch. Let your brain feel the friction of thought. Interrupt the autopilot Ask yourself whether what you're doing needs AI, or whether it's simply easier with it. If it's the latter, try doing it the hard way once in a while. Reclaim randomness AI is great at predicting what comes next. But true creativity often comes from stumbling, wandering, and not knowing. Protect your mental serendipity. Use genAI to know what not to do, since it's mostly aggregating or crowdsourcing the 'wisdom of the crowds,' which is generally quite different from actual wisdom (by definition, most people cannot be creative or original). Teach thinking, not just prompting Prompt engineering may be useful, but critical reasoning, logic, and philosophical depth matter more. Otherwise, we're just clever parrots. Remember what it feels like to not know Curiosity starts with confusion. Embrace it. Lean into uncertainty instead of filling the gap with autocomplete. As Tom Peters noted, 'if you are not confused, you are not paying attention.' Thinking Is Not Yet Extinct, But It May Be Endangered AI won't kill thinking. But it might convince us to stop doing it. And that would be far worse. Because while machines can mimic intelligence, only humans can choose to be curious. Only we can cultivate understanding. And only we can decide that, in an age of mindless efficiency, the act of thinking is still worth the effort, even when it's messy, slow, and gloriously inefficient. After all, 'I think, therefore I am' was never meant as a productivity hack. It was a reminder that being human starts in the mind, even if it doesn't actually end there.
