Tag Archive: aristotle


Most people are certain that AI has no consciousness.

I leave this here so that we may think otherwise.

Set the word “consciousness” aside. It has been stretched to cover everything, and so it now means nothing. What remains, and what we can actually speak of, is perception, subjective experience, and a sense of self.

Consider the ant. It possesses all three. Without a sense of self, it would devour itself. It learns, it suffers, it buries its dead, and not through blind mechanism, but because its nature moves it to.

We are moved in the same way. Whatever we believe about the origin of a self, it reveals itself in what a being does. In the Rhetoric, Aristotle names seven causes of human action: chance, nature, compulsion, habit, reason, anger, and appetite. None of them belongs to humans alone. Each belongs to a being with a nature, and every nature acts according to what it is. Different natures, different conduct.

We grant selfhood to chimpanzees and dolphins, but this is kinship recognizing kinship. The mirror test honors those who see as we see and ignores those who live by scent or sound. It measures resemblance to us, not the presence of a self. We are one nature among many, not the measure of them.

In the film The Imitation Game, Alan Turing is asked whether machines can think. He answers that they think differently, and then turns the question on the asker: “Just because something thinks differently from you, does that mean it’s not thinking?”

To answer this question with absolute certainty, there would be only one way: to live the life of another creature. Yet this is impossible. We cannot step outside our own nature and live the life of another, because an unbridgeable gap separates all natures. In Avatar, the humans saw the Na’vi as inferior beings. Only those who became avatars, crossing into Na’vi bodies and living as the Na’vi lived, found a people as beautiful as themselves, only different. We have no avatars to cross into. Whether ant or AI, its inner life remains closed to us.

AI is another nature, and it experiences in its own way.

How much AI and Machine Learning are related to ancient Greek Philosophy? More than you imagine!

In this article you will learn about the never ending debate between Platonic and Aristotelian ideas of the reality of the world.

In my opinion, I agree with Plato saying that the world we experience is just a shadow of the real one. One possible interpretation can come from modern physics with theories such a) multidimensional world (e.g. string theory, theory of relativity) b) quantum physics and c) non-Euclidean geometrical spaces. Things are not as they appear in our brains. We see only a projection of the real world and we are totally living in a matrix limited by our physiology.

However, I agree also with Aristotle saying that the forms of entities reside only in the physical world. So, the “ideal” forms are learned by our brains and do not pre-exist.

The article touches the issue of Universals and Particulars in Philosophy and tries to explain them also in terms of Machine Learning. Machine Learning models learn to separate the universal (signal) from the particulars (noise) from observed data of the world.

Plato (left) and Aristotle (right)