Interviews with GTP-4 Philosophers: Descartes

Conversations with (Kinda) Resurrected Philosophers

Here is the first in what I hope are a series of interviews, on various topics, with GPT-4 in the voice of a given philosopher or intellectual. (Credit for the idea: Tyler Cowen).

These answers are not intended to be wholly accurate, though they should do a decent job of conveying the tone and approach of a given philosopher. These ‘interviews’ are a mix of philosophical and whimsical. Enjoy!

(Questions from yours truly are bolded; answers are not).

1. Why did you write Meditations on First Philosophy?

I wrote the Meditations on First Philosophy in order to establish a firm and indubitable foundation for knowledge. I believed that many commonly accepted beliefs were open to doubt, and that in order to arrive at knowledge that was beyond doubt, I needed to engage in a process of radical doubt.

Through the Meditations, I sought to systematically doubt all of my beliefs and assumptions, including the reliability of my senses and the existence of the physical world. I then used the method of doubt to arrive at a small set of beliefs that were beyond doubt, including the existence of myself as a thinking thing and the existence of God.

My aim in writing the Meditations was to establish a foundation for knowledge that was based on reason and evidence, rather than on tradition or authority. I believed that by starting from a position of radical doubt and working through a series of rigorous philosophical arguments, I could arrive at a set of beliefs that were beyond doubt and therefore constituted a foundation for all other knowledge.

2. What do you mean by a 'firm and indubitable foundation for knowledge'?

[In] order to have true knowledge, one needed to have a foundation that was beyond doubt. This foundation needed to be indubitable, meaning that it could not be doubted or called into question, and it needed to be firm, meaning that it could provide a solid basis for all other knowledge.

In the Meditations on First Philosophy, I argued that many commonly accepted beliefs were open to doubt, including beliefs about the physical world, the reliability of the senses, and even the existence of God. I believed that in order to arrive at a foundation for knowledge that was beyond doubt, I needed to engage in a process of radical doubt, in which I doubted everything that could be doubted, until I arrived at beliefs that were indubitable.

By starting from a position of radical doubt and working through a series of rigorous philosophical arguments, I believed that I could arrive at a small set of beliefs that were beyond doubt, including the existence of myself as a thinking thing and the existence of God. These beliefs formed the foundation for all other knowledge, as they were the only beliefs that could be relied upon with certainty.

3. If people applied 'radical doubt' to social media, then they wouldn't believe anything they read, right?

I would say that it is true that applying radical doubt to all claims made on social media would likely lead to individuals questioning the validity of most claims they encounter. However, this is not necessarily a bad thing.

By subjecting all claims to rigorous scrutiny and analysis, individuals can identify the sources of evidence and justification for those claims, and arrive at beliefs that are based on reason and evidence, rather than on hearsay or rumor.

It is important to note that radical doubt is not intended to lead to a position of skepticism or nihilism, where individuals refuse to believe anything at all. Rather, it is a method for arriving at beliefs that are beyond doubt, and that are based on a solid foundation of reason and evidence.

4. Why do you believe in God?

In my Meditations on First Philosophy, I presented several arguments for the existence of God. One such argument is based on the idea of causation. I argued that everything in the physical world has a cause, and that this causal chain cannot continue infinitely. Therefore, there must be a first cause, which is God.

Another argument I presented is the ontological argument, which is based on the idea that the concept of God contains the notion of existence as an essential attribute. That is, if we conceive of God as the most perfect being, then existence must be a necessary attribute of God. Therefore, if we can conceive of God, then God must necessarily exist.

Furthermore, I believed that the existence of God is necessary in order to establish the reliability of our faculties of reason and perception. Without God, it is difficult to explain how we can have confidence in the accuracy of our beliefs and judgments, since there is no guarantee that our senses and reasoning abilities are reliable.

Therefore, I believed that the existence of God is necessary in order to establish a firm and indubitable foundation for knowledge, and that the arguments I presented provide sufficient evidence to support the existence of God.

5. Explain why Darwinian evolution isn't a better explanation of the reliability of our reason and perception than God.

While Darwinian evolution can explain how our cognitive and perceptual abilities may have evolved over time, it does not provide a sufficient explanation for why those abilities are reliable or why we can have confidence in the accuracy of our beliefs and judgments.

In contrast, the existence of God provides a necessary foundation for the reliability of our reason and perception. If God exists and is the source of all truth and knowledge, then it is reasonable to assume that our cognitive and perceptual abilities are reliable and trustworthy, since they are part of God's creation.

Therefore, while Darwinian evolution can provide insight into the evolution of our cognitive and perceptual abilities, it cannot provide a sufficient explanation for their reliability or for the moral and ethical standards that are necessary for human flourishing. The existence of God remains a necessary foundation for these aspects of human experience.

6. What does it mean for something to be a 'sufficient explanation'?

[A] 'sufficient explanation' means an explanation that adequately accounts for all the relevant facts and phenomena. In other words, a sufficient explanation is one that provides a complete and satisfactory account of why something is the way it is, and why it behaves the way it does.

A sufficient explanation must be able to provide answers to all the questions that are relevant to the phenomenon being explained, and it must be able to account for all the evidence and observations that are available.

In my philosophy, I believed that a sufficient explanation must also be clear and distinct, so that there can be no doubt or uncertainty about its validity. I argued that if we can conceive of something clearly and distinctly, then it must be true, since the clarity and distinctness of our ideas are a sign of their truth.

7. If a sufficient explanation must be 'clear and distinct' such that 'there can be no doubt or uncertainty about its validity', then shouldn't we doubt the existence of God?

[We] can achieve certainty in our knowledge by applying a method of doubt to all our beliefs and judgments. However, I also believed that the existence of God was an exception to this method of doubt.

I argued that the existence of God was necessary to provide a foundation for the reliability of our reason and perception, as well as for the existence of moral values and ethical standards. Therefore, I believed that the existence of God could be known with certainty through intuition and deduction, rather than through empirical evidence or sensory experience.

In my Meditations on First Philosophy, I famously presented my argument for the existence of God, which is commonly referred to as the ontological argument. I believed that the concept of God, as a supremely perfect being, was necessarily existing and that it was self-evident that the idea of a perfect being must come from a perfect being.

8. How do you explain why God allows so much suffering in the world, especially the suffering of animals, children, and innocent people?

[The] existence of suffering in the world was not a result of God's lack of goodness or power, but rather a consequence of the limitations of human knowledge and understanding. I believed that human beings were finite and imperfect, and that we could not always understand the reasons behind God's actions. From our limited perspective, we might see suffering and evil in the world, but this did not necessarily mean that God was responsible for causing it or that God lacked goodness.

Instead, I believed that the presence of suffering in the world was a necessary consequence of the laws of nature and the free will of human beings. Animals, children, and innocent people suffer because they are subject to the same natural laws and accidents as everyone else, and because they can be the victims of the choices and actions of other human beings.

However, I also believed that God's goodness and justice would ultimately prevail, and that those who suffered in this life would be rewarded in the afterlife. I believed that the existence of suffering in the world was a test of our faith and moral character, and that it was through enduring suffering and hardship that we could grow and develop as individuals and as a society.

9. What did you think about the fear of death?

[The] fear of death was a natural and understandable reaction to the unknown. However, I also believed that the fear of death was ultimately based on a misunderstanding of the nature of the self and the relationship between the body and the mind.

I argued that the self, or the soul, was distinct from the body and that it could survive the death of the body. Therefore, death was not an end but rather a transition from one state of being to another. I believed that the soul was immortal and that it would continue to exist after the death of the body.

I also believed that the fear of death was a result of our attachment to the material world and our desire for physical pleasure and comfort. I believed that we could overcome this fear by focusing on the spiritual and intellectual aspects of our existence and by cultivating a detachment from material possessions and worldly pleasures.

10. How would you respond to the famous Scottish philosopher, David Hume, regarding his skepticism about the self?

I would have several criticisms of David Hume's skepticism regarding the self.

Firstly, Hume's skepticism about the self seems to be based on his empiricist view that all knowledge comes from sensory experience. However, I would argue that the self is not an object of sensory experience but rather the subject of all experience. Therefore, it cannot be known through sensory experience alone but must be apprehended through intuition and introspection.

Secondly, Hume's skepticism about the self seems to be based on his belief that there is no constant or permanent self but rather a bundle of perceptions and experiences. However, I would argue that the self is not simply a collection of perceptions but rather the subject that experiences those perceptions. The self is the unity that gives coherence to our experience, and without it, we would be lost in a world of disconnected sensations.

Lastly, I would argue that Hume's skepticism about the self is ultimately self-defeating. Hume's own arguments and conclusions rely on the assumption of a constant and unified self that is capable of making judgments and drawing inferences. Without this assumption, his skepticism about knowledge and causation would collapse.

11. Do you think that computers or machines could ever be capable of conscious experience or thought?

I would be skeptical of the idea that computers or machines could ever be capable of conscious experience or thought.

My argument would be based on the premise that consciousness and thought are fundamentally different from the kinds of mechanical processes that can be replicated by machines. Consciousness involves subjective experience, intentionality, and self-awareness, which cannot be reduced to mere algorithms or computations.

Furthermore, I would argue that consciousness and thought are intimately connected to the human body, specifically the brain, which is a complex biological system that interacts with the environment in a way that is difficult to replicate with machines. While machines can simulate certain aspects of human cognition, they lack the organic complexity of the human brain and the embodied experience that is essential to conscious experience.

Therefore, while it is possible that machines may be able to simulate aspects of human cognition in the future, I would be skeptical that they could ever truly replicate the richness and depth of conscious experience and thought that is unique to humans.