My Synthetic A Priori
We don’t live in a simulation. AI can never be conscious.
Kant gave us the idea that there are things we might know independent of experience and even logic, prior to science. In this category are the regularities of mathematics and symbolic logic; for these Kant applied the phrase “analytic a priori”. They are indeed facts that are independent of all experience, but they are abstract facts, not concerning the particular universe in which we abide.
Are there facts about the universe, concrete, substantive statements, that I know innately, prior to experience? This is the realm of the synthetic a priori, as Kant bequeathed us the concept. Kant offered us a list of his synthetic a prioris. I don’t necessarily agree with the things he claims to know with an inner certainty. Synthetic a prioris are of necessity subjective and don’t seem to have the universality that Kant claimed. This is an interesting fact, certainly a warning, but I don’t think it negates the basic notion that there is such a thing (Ding an sich is another Kantism) as a synthetic a priori.
Here’s a list of my own a priori convictions. It would be absurd for me to try to “convince” you they are true. I only may ask if they are equally part of your own personal synthetic a priori.
I exist
I have free will
Commentary: (1) leaves open the nature and definition of myself. By “I” I mean my stream of subjective experience. (2) is something I instinctively know is true, even as I recognize the limitations of my freedom. I can direct my attention, but that capacity is undermined by distraction and what Buddhists call the “monkey mind”. I can control my breathing within limits, but I can’t breathe faster than about 5 breaths per second and I have never succeeded in holding my breath more than 4¼ minutes. I can resolve to recall my dreams, but I fail more often than I succeed. (I value willpower as a virtue to be cultivated, but I don’t reckon this value judgment as part of my synthetic a priori bequest.)
I realize as I am writing this that I address you as another self. I do think that I come into this world knowing not only that I exist but that I am not the only locus of subjectivity, but one point of light among many. Therefore…You exist
Like me, you have subjective experience and free will
(Kant went on to say that the existence of space, time, and matter are (for him) synthetic a prioris). I think I agree. He also said that the existence of God was a synthetic a priori. I think I disagree. But in what follows, I’m taking this discussion in another direction.)
Maybe you’re with me so far. Probably you believe that I exist and that I have an inner life parallel to your own. Maybe you think that what I’ve said is useless discussion of angels on the head of a pin. So I ask you to follow me into a realm of current controversy.
For me, a consequence of #1 “I exist” is that we are not in a simulation. I may not be able to define with precision what I mean by my subjective self, but I know that my existence is not bounded by a range of subroutines in a machine made of large numbers of electronic switches.
The Matrix, with its red and blue pills, is a metaphor for a world bounded by narratives that are carried in the print and broadcast media and lived out in three dimensions by people who believe those narratives. It is not a possibility — it is not conceivable — that we literally are disembodied brains, artificially fed with nerve impulses that simulate a real life experience. I know this with an inner knowledge. I am sure Kant would agree. What about you? Do you have an inner conviction that you are not in a computer simulation?
A consequence of #2 “you exist” is that I will never say these words to a deterministic, programmed entity such as a robot or an AI. Computer programs can presently emulate a range of human expressions and bodily behaviors, even animal behaviors. They will undoubtedly become even better at these feats. But they do not have and will never have subjective experience, free will, feelings, desires, aspirations.
Kant taught us never to regard another human as merely a means to an end, but always as an independent end. I am sure he would agree that this categorical imperative does not apply to robots. What does your inner voice say about this?
Although I've thought about it and read on the topic quite a bit, I really don't know what "free will" is. If it's some kind of uncaused cause within me, then I don't believe I have it. If it is taken to mean that I am a causal agent, then I have it. I don't find it a very useful concept. Being a causal agent comes in degrees and in some ways we clearly are not fully free.
I do not know that I'm not living in a simulation. I do not buy the argument that I probably am. I don't any particular reason to believe it but neither can I disprove it. I agree with David Chalmers that it doesn't really make a difference. Even if this universe is a "simulation", it's real from our point of view. I recommend his book, Reality+.
https://www.amazon.com/Reality-Virtual-Worlds-Problems-Philosophy-ebook/dp/B098TY2C1C
I'm sure that current computers do not have consciousness but I see no reason to declare that they never will regardless of physical instantiation. It really seems odd that we are able to think using three pounds of meat.
https://www.mit.edu/people/dpolicar/writing/prose/text/thinkingMeat.html
What do I say about this? Rather, allow me to say what Nietzsche says. Or more honestly, my interpretation of that.
First, a disclaimer: I have no formal training in philosophy. What I DO have, however, is extensive reading of one philosopher, Nietzsche. Even granted that, I don’t have final knowledge. But I do feel qualified to pass on some of his teachings.
He questioned everything, to include the commonly held beliefs that free will exists. He distrusted “immediate certainty” such as that one. Further, his criticism of philosophers extends far beyond Kant. He skewers diverse thinkers and their beliefs.
I share some of Nietzsche’s opinions, such as that A Priori Synthetic Knowledge should not be possible. Why did Kant propose this? I’m reading just a bit in here, but only some: Kant and the 18th century “romantic” German philosophers were aware that earlier dreams of philosophy – the claim that extant philosophy could PROVE the existence of God, of the Soul, and the "World Whole" [which is???] – were under attack by enlightenment science in general and in particular by newer philosophy (Pragmatism? Empricism?) of English thinkers such as Locke and Hume.
If you learn nothing else from Nietzsche, it should be this: Philosphers (and anyone else) are vulnerable to "prejudices" -- that is, preconceptions about what should be true. Instincts and subconscious forces are always operative and drive even apparent disciplined rational thought. As a result, Nietzsche argues that we should not ask (for example) whether A Priori Synthetic Knowledge is possible. We should ask why we (or Kant) believes it ought to exist. What unacknowledged or otherwise hidden physiological and/or psychological needs are trying to be answered? Yes boys and girls, it turns out that we humans like to make up our own fantasies and use any tool at hand to justify them.
One of many pithy quotes attributed to Einstein is (approximately): "Science is not finding the answer you want to be there. It's finding the answer that is there."
Kant’s contribution, argues Nietzsche, was that he essentially constructed an elaborate, apparently thorough, but ultimately fraudulent edifice that appeared to validate these earlier theological beliefs. Not only Kant, but much other human wisdom is built upon sand, so to speak. I don’t even claim to “understand” Kant’s arcane arguments; I only have a few secondhand summaries, no doubt biased ones. But I’ve grasped a few key concepts, and I reject them as nonsense. Now, it’s possible I misunderstand them, but here are my interpretations.
The existence of a priori synthetic knowledge. Basically if you analyze the meaning of the component terms, the claim is that it's possible to have access to knowledge that's only knowable by investigation, without having to do the investigation. Color me just a bit skeptical.
[Rather than quote, click on the link and search for “11.” This key passage trashes Kant quite handily. Kant not only is guilty of circular argument, he also “discovered” (or did he “invent” – quite a difference!) not one, but two “faculties” of the human intellect. Sure he did!
https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/4363/pg4363-images.html
]
The Universal Imperative: I’m a bit fuzzy on this one; Kant seems to be arguing that there is a universal standard, that all human beings hold the same values. Now let me see if I get this: billions of autonomous human beings, each with unique experiences and minds, and yet they all hold some core values, shared by all? That is such a silly idea; I will leave it for others to dissect.
The Thing-in-Itself which I think is similar to Plato’s “Forms”. Do pure concepts exist? Sure they do, as abstractions in the mind. But we rapidly wade into troubles if we think these have independent existence on their own. Again, I’m foggy on these aspects and leave the arguments to the propeller heads.
For the interested, probably his best single book is Beyond Good and Evil, although you can find bits of it in his many other books. It’s not easy reading; some points I was only able to grasp with a commentary/study guide.
All that said, I realize that Kant is one of the major “modern” philosophers. But that by no means exempts him – or any other thinker – from self-delusion and promoting ideas that don’t’ hold up to scrutiny.