Is
philosophy undergoing a radical transformation? In recent times, this question
has been very fashionable especially after the novel development that has been
happening in machine learning and AI . Whether this radical development and
application of such knowledge in machine learning and AI is setting off a
radical transformation of traditional philosophy?
What
is philosophy?
The
discipline concerned with questions of how one should live (ethics); what kinds
of things exist and what are their essential natures (metaphysics); what counts
as genuine knowledge (epistemology); and what are correct principles of
reasoning (logic)?Wikipedia
Some
definitions:
Investigation
of the character , causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values,
supported logical reasoning instead of empirical methods (American Heritage
Dictionary).
The
study of the last word nature of existence, reality, knowledge and goodness, as
discoverable by human reasoning (Penguin English Dictionary).
The
rational investigation of questions on existence and knowledge and ethics
(WordNet).
The
look for knowledge and truth, especially about the character of man and his
behavior and beliefs (Kernerman English Multilingual Dictionary).
The
rational and important inquiry into basic principles (Microsoft Encarta
Encyclopedia).
The
study of the foremost general and abstract features of the planet , the grounds
for human knowledge, and therefore the evaluation of human conduct (The
Philosophy Pages).
If
we glance at the definitions we will find the foremost underlying principle of
philosophy is questioning. The questioning of what's life? How one should live?
What kind of things do exist and what are their natures? What are correct
principles of reasoning? What are the principles of reality, knowledge, or
values?
Finding
the answers or solutions to questions or problems through the appliance of the
principles of reasoning is that the aim of philosophy. In short, look for
knowledge and truth. The search doesn't necessarily end in finding the reality
. However, the method employed find the reality is more important. History
tells us that wisdom of humans (the body of data and knowledge that develops
within a specified society or period) changed and has been changing
continuously. Humans are in pursuit of wisdom (the ability to think and act
using knowledge, experience, understanding, sense , and insight)
Blind
beliefs are the most important obstacles that arrest our thinking process.
Philosophers question these blind beliefs or rather question every belief.
they're skeptical on everything. In fact, it's one among the philosophical
methods (Methodic doubt) they employ so as to seek out the reality .
Philosophizing begins with some simple doubt about accepted beliefs. They apply
methodic doubt and knowledge to check the functional, dysfunctional, or
destructive nature of an accepted and prevailing belief during a society. Wait
a moment! we've a drag that's to be addressed first. once we say ' knowledge',
it doesn't necessarily lead us to the truthfulness of the conclusion they reach
. the prevailing knowledge isn't complete. Therefore, there's an opportunity of
fallacy of conclusion. A conclusion could also be valid but it needn't be a
truth. With the introduction of a further premise or deletion of an existing
premise, the character of the conclusion will undergo a change.
Fallacies
The
other common obstacles to logical and important thinking are a) Confirmation
bias, b) Framing effects, c) Heuristics, and d) Common fallacies like fallacies
of relevance, the Red Herring fallacy, the Strawman fallacy, the personal
fallacy, fallacious appeal (to authority), the fallacy of composition, the
fallacy of division, equivocation, appeal to popularity, appeal to tradition,
appeal to ignorance, appeal to emotion, begging the question, false dilemma,
decision point fallacy, the slippery slope fallacy, hasty generalizations,
faulty analogies, and therefore the fallacy of fallacy. and that we can add the
2 formal fallacies a) affirming the resultant , b) denying the antecedent.
We
humans make mistakes. It's often said that to err is attribute . Having known
the myriad fallacies of logical arguments, we've been developing certain
methods or models to avoid such errors. The philosophical methods are our
carpenter's kit that when employed reduces our mistakes.
Apart
from these obstacles, we've certain other human limitations like limitation of
long-term & STM capacity and limitation of our sensory capacity. of these
limitations are obstacles to our philosophizing. Therefore, we make mistakes
knowingly and unknowingly. However, we've never stopped our endeavor to become
the best species on earth.
On
the opposite hand, machines though not the right species can avoid certain
human limitations while performing the philosophizing. If they're given two
logically supporting propositions they will deduce an ideal conclusion.
However, if they're given randomly selected propositions will they be ready to
pick the proper propositions that are logically supporting the conclusion? It
depends upon the algorithm that we feed to the machine. But then, we aren't
perfect. we've not yet completely understood how the human brain functions. the
most purpose of employing a machine for philosophizing is to avoid errors. The
machine might imitate the human errors, a humiliating human characteristic that
we fervently wanted to avoid.
One
approach is to permit the machine to find out thinking and take decisions on
its own. within the process, the machine could also be ready to develop its own
brain which will surpass the power and capacity of human brain. that would be
an opportunity . This approach is already in trial.
Human
wisdom is that the ability to think and act using knowledge, collective
experience, understanding, sense , and insight. Will the machine be ready to
attain and surpass the human wisdom?
The
machine are often fed the knowledge accumulated by humans. However, the
challenge is how the machine will devour the proper knowledge for a right
claim. The machine doesn't have experience of human life. that's actually a
blessing in disguise. If we feed all our experiences to the machine it'll be a
mere cocktail of beliefs and concepts that are different and mostly diagonally
opposite to at least one another. the simplest thing is to feed information as
little as possible and leave the remainder to the machine to possess the
first-hand experience with humans. meaning the machine will accept citizenry
and interact with humans in order that they develop knowledge of human behavior
and hopefully the opposite human characteristics like emotional understanding,
sense , etc.
Most
probably, the philosophical methods which include the principles of reasoning
to form right conclusions are going to be greatly useful to the machine. It can
take decisions minus the logical fallacies that we commit knowingly and
unknowingly. Such a machine could really immensely be helpful to humans
especially as a guide or guard which will work without succumbing to emotions
and biases.
Apart
from philosophical methods, the machine also can be fed with super sensory
powers without which human intelligence is restricted . Humans might take a
extended time to develop such built-in extra sensory powers. Such a machine
would be a wonderful piece of art.
Therefore,
the philosophical methods will transform the character of machines instead of
the machines setting off radical transformation of philosophizing. The machines
would assist humans to require right conclusions. The machines would devour the
proper propositions from the big data and supply us a legitimate conclusion
which may be a tiresome, time-consuming task of humans. The machines can work
continuously without boredom unless they develop their own human-like emotions.
Hope, the machines understand human emotions and at an equivalent time don't
have emotions.
0 Comments