AI and Knowledge of Being

Recently Andrew Ng posted a video on LinkedIn stating that all the “hot” discussions on AI risks to humanity have left him with no idea why AI has been targeted so cruelly given its numerous positive applications already out there helping humans. In this article, I’d like to touch upon this topic through participation and knowledge. From there, I will turn to the Russia-Ukraine conflict in 2022, which hopefully helps us understand our original question, namely whether or not AI is a risk to humanity, more clearly. My philosophical arguments in this article reflect Paul Tillich’s works, especially his paper titled Participation and Knowledge: Problems of an Ontology of Cognition.

Participation and Knowledge

Tillich holds that reality is neither true nor false. However, when it comes to asking the question of “What makes a judgement true?”, this question must be addressed by saying something about reality itself. Tillich (1951) believes, “reality can give itself to the cognitive act in such a way that a false judgement can occur and in such a way that many processes of observation and thought are necessary in order to reach true judgement” (p. 101). That is why reality can only be understood through dialectical arguments.

Tillich highlights two types of knowledge in cognitive reasoning: controlling knowledge and receiving knowledge. In Tillich's framework, controlling knowledge refers to a type of knowledge that aims to dominate and control reality. It is characterized by an instrumental approach, seeking to master and manipulate the world according to predefined goals and objectives. Controlling knowledge often relies on categorization, analysis, and prediction, and it seeks to exercise power and control over the objects or subjects of knowledge. One example of this type of knowledge is physics laws, where a person can predict the outcome of a phenomenon by separating himself or herself from that phenomenon.

On the other hand, receiving knowledge is a different mode of knowledge that involves openness, receptivity, and engagement with reality. Receiving knowledge emphasizes receptivity to existence's mystery and depth. It embraces the ineffable and transcendent aspects of reality that cannot be fully grasped or controlled through instrumental means. It involves an attitude of wonder, awe, and acceptance, allowing oneself to be open to knowledge's transformative and existential dimensions. In medicine, for example, receiving knowledge, according to Tillich's concept, can be seen when a healthcare professional actively listens to patients' narratives. He or she empathizes with their experiences, and considers their subjective perspectives alongside objective clinical data.

Tillich's distinction between controlling knowledge and receiving knowledge can be seen as a critique of an overly objectifying and manipulative approach to knowledge. This approach seeks to reduce reality to mere objects of control. He emphasizes the importance of balancing the instrumental aspects of knowledge with a receptive and participatory attitude. This is done by recognizing the limits of human understanding and embracing existence's inherent mystery and depth.

Tillich argues extensively that participation in reality, which results in receiving knowledge, does not necessarily lead to knowledge of being as man reaches knowledge through self-confinement and detachment. He says, “. . . in order to have a theory, namely something which claims to be universally valid, man must have transcended his environment and have a world. A being which is environmentally determined cannot fulfill the conditions of knowledge which we have called self-containment and detachment. A being which is determined by its environment, is not a complete self and therefore it is incapable of free self-containment. Nor is it capable of complete detachment, for it is essentially a part of its environment” (Tillich, 1955, p. 383). He emphasizes that knowledge of being is only possible through detachment from the cognitive environment, which participation establishes, and having a world, which is his way of emphasizing having a meaningful emotional and conceptual structure.

There are numerous unknowns about the mind today. Tillich holds that the reason for these unknowns is what he calls the broken communion of existential understanding, i.e., understanding by participation. Tillich (1955) says, “One of the consequences of the predominance of the principle of separation in modern theories of knowledge has been that man has tried to describe his understanding of others as an inference from his understanding of himself. This presupposes that the individual participates first in himself and then, indirectly, in others. Actually both the understanding of oneself and the understanding of others are secondary phenomena. The primary phenomenon is the understanding of the situation of encounter in which both oneself and others participate, but not as separated subject and object. The infant experiences friendliness or anger with a situation before he objectifies the participants in this encounter as the father and himself. Participation precedes objectivation. If the stage of objectivation is reached, the other person may become an object of controlling knowledge. He can be tested, calculated, and handled, be it by a test-psychologist in America or by a propagandist in a totalitarian country or by a diplomatic husband or wife in any country. He has become an object of controlling knowledge” (p. 386). In other words, if one managed to objectify the phenomenon of encounter, one could test any idea about others by automatically making them an object of one’s controlling knowledge. For objectifying the phenomenon of encounter allows one to manipulate the other participant in the encounter in such a way that he or she is made to respond to the inquiry. The knowledge of inquiry emerges because matter is receptive to reason's structural power.

The Russia-Ukraine Conflict

In a previous article, I used the Hegelian inquiry system as a framework to make sense of the rationale behind the conflict between Russia and Ukraine. More specifically, I asked ChatGPT to find a metaphysical antithesis for the following thesis and synthesis: Regional and global power dynamics (thesis), Demilitarization and de-Nazification (synthesis). The thesis comes from ChatGPT suggesting "regional and global power dynamics" as a triggering reason for the Russia-Ukraine conflict. The reason I asked for a metaphysical antithesis is that for me demilitarization and de-Nazification of Ukraine, the reason presented by Russia for initiating the war, stem from historical ideas that have evolved over time. The antithesis offered by ChatGPT in that article was “humanitarian principles and global harmony.” ChatGPT says this antithesis represents the values and ideals of promoting human rights, peace, and cooperation among nations. It emphasizes the need for humanitarian interventions, conflict resolution, and fostering global unity.

For our argument, let us assume that this metaphysical antithesis was the real reason behind the conflict. If that were the case, the idea of “humanitarian principles and global harmony” would represent reality; and this reality has given itself to Russian leaders’ cognitive act in such a way that a false judgement, i.e., demilitarization and de-Nazification, has been understood out of it.

Obviously, this argument may or may not have been true. It illustrates, however, how reality can be distorted through a false judgment.

Concerns about Human Extinction

Taking into account from the preceding section that reality can give itself to the cognitive act in such a way that a false judgement can occur, we could have imagined a parallel for our original question, i.e., is AI a risk to humanity?, and answered no. Nevertheless, I decided to remain open to insights by asking ChatGPT below to challenge concerns over human extinction.

Me: Find a metaphysical answer to the question mark below:

Thesis: "AI is a risk to humanity"

Synthesis: "People including some experts really feel AI could be dangerous"

Antithesis: ?

ChatGPT: Antithesis: "AI is a catalyst for human transcendence and collective evolution"

The antithesis challenges the notion that AI is solely a risk to humanity by proposing that it has the potential to propel humanity towards transcendence and collective growth. It argues that AI, with its capabilities and advancements, can serve as a catalyst for transformative change and the evolution of human consciousness. Rather than viewing AI as a separate entity posing a threat, the antithesis suggests that it can be integrated into the human experience and contribute to the expansion of human potential. It emphasizes that AI can enhance human intelligence, facilitate innovation, and enable new levels of collaboration and understanding. The antithesis takes a metaphysical perspective by considering AI as a tool for the exploration of new frontiers, both in the external world and within the human mind. It supports the synthesis, which acknowledges the concerns about the potential dangers of AI while also recognizing the transformative possibilities it presents.

Assuming that, according to ChatGPT, AI is a catalyst for human transcendence, a question arises: Can modern humans make use of AI to transcend their environment[1] and come up with the knowledge of being without having to get affected by interventions of participation? The answer to this question may be affirmative if the individual is existentially aware of the mysteries of being and has adequate experiential memories indexed in such a way that interacting with a future AI technology enables them to achieve that knowledge. But a more pertinent question may be: What if the modern human could come up with some sort of technology that allows for accessing true knowledge of beings in the realm of metaphysics without having to deal with existence explicitly? This question takes us back to the argument presented in the preceding section on the Russia-Ukraine conflict. It is also worth highlighting Jack Mezirow’s (2000) concept of reflective discourse here. He says, “We test our interpretations and beliefs instrumentally by hypothesis testing and empirical measurement when we can and justify them communicatively through reflective discourse when we cannot. . . . Reflective discourse involves a critical assessment of assumptions. It leads toward a clearer understanding by tapping collective experience to arrive at a tentative best judgment” (pp. 10-11). Through reflective discourse, learners can deepen their critical thinking skills, enhance their self-awareness, and develop more complex and nuanced perspectives. It is seen as a fundamental element in the transformative learning process, facilitating personal growth, and opening up more creative ways of thinking and being. Nevertheless, I should reiterate that knowledge for man comes about by transcending his environment and having a world.

Reference:?

Tillich, P. (1951). Systematic theology: Reason and revelation: Being and God (Vol. 1). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

(1989). 8. Participation and Knowledge. Problems of an Ontology of Cognition (1955). In G. Wenz (Ed.), Volume 1/ Band 1 Philosophical Writings / Philosophische Schriften (pp. 381-390). Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110861938-014

Mezirow, J. (2000). Learning to think like an adult.?Learning as transformation: Critical perspectives on a theory in progress, 3-33.

[1] For Tillich, “environment” is more of a cognitive concept than a physical one.