{"id":3,"url":"https://pm.philipcastiglione.com/papers/3.json","title":"Principles of Philosophy","read":true,"authors":"René Descartes","year":2017,"auto_summary":"René Descartes' \"Principles of Philosophy\" is a foundational text that aims to establish a comprehensive philosophical system integrating metaphysics, epistemology, and natural philosophy. The work is divided into four parts, each addressing different aspects of philosophy and science.\n\n**Part 1: The Principles of Human Knowledge**\nDescartes begins by advocating for a method of radical doubt, suggesting that one should doubt everything that can be doubted at least once in their life to achieve certainty. He argues that the only indubitable truth is the existence of the self as a thinking entity (\"Cogito, ergo sum\" - I think, therefore I am). From this foundational certainty, Descartes distinguishes between the mind (a thinking substance) and the body (an extended substance). He posits that knowledge of the mind is more certain than knowledge of the body. Descartes also introduces the concept of God as a perfect being whose existence is necessary and who is not a deceiver, thus ensuring the reliability of clear and distinct perceptions.\n\n**Part 2: The Principles of Material Things**\nIn this section, Descartes explores the nature of the physical world, arguing that the essence of matter is extension in space. He rejects the existence of a vacuum and asserts that space and matter are indistinguishable. Descartes also discusses the impossibility of atoms, as all matter is divisible. He introduces the idea of vortices to explain the motion of celestial bodies, suggesting that the universe is filled with a fluid medium that carries the planets around the sun. This mechanistic view of the universe is grounded in the laws of motion, which Descartes derives from the immutability of God.\n\n**Part 3: The Visible Universe**\nHere, Descartes applies his principles to explain astronomical phenomena. He critiques Ptolemaic and Tychonic systems, favoring a Copernican-like model where the Earth and planets move around the sun, though he refrains from asserting this as absolute truth. Descartes hypothesizes about the distances and sizes of celestial bodies, the nature of light, and the structure of the heavens. He explains the apparent motions of planets through the concept of vortices and suggests that the fixed stars are incredibly distant, which accounts for their lack of observable parallax.\n\n**Part 4: The Earth**\nIn the final part, Descartes focuses on terrestrial phenomena, discussing the formation and structure of the Earth. He divides the Earth into three regions and explains geological and meteorological phenomena through his mechanistic philosophy. Descartes addresses the nature of elements, the causes of tides, and various physical processes such as the formation of minerals and the occurrence of earthquakes. He also explores the nature of fire and magnetism, attributing their effects to the motions and interactions of particles.\n\nDescartes concludes by emphasizing that his explanations are hypothetical and should be regarded as models that fit observed phenomena. He submits his work to the authority of the Catholic Church and acknowledges the limitations of human understanding. Throughout, Descartes maintains that his philosophy is grounded in clear and distinct ideas, aiming to provide a unified scientific framework based on mechanical principles.","notes":{"id":3,"name":"notes","body":"\u003ch1\u003eNotes\u003c/h1\u003e\u003cdiv\u003e\u003cbr\u003eDoubt is fundamental to knowledge.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv\u003e\u003cbr\u003eKnowledge from our senses and perceptions must be suspect. Think also of the reality of dreams when experienced.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv\u003e\u003cbr\u003eEven in things that seem completely certain there can be room for error. A mathematical proof can have an error in it that we missed or don’t understand. Or we might be deceived.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv\u003e\u003cbr\u003eImagine an all powerful god created us specifically to always be wrong, regardless of our degree of certainty. How would we disprove this?\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv\u003e\u003cbr\u003eI think therefore I am - I can doubt everything but the fact that I exist, on the basis that in doubting that, I am in fact existing.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv\u003e\u003cbr\u003eDescartes expounds on duality.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv\u003e\u003cbr\u003eThought is defined as awareness. This is juxtaposed against bodily activities, about which my beliefs may turn out to be wrong.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv\u003e\u003cbr\u003eObscure logical definitions of self-evident concepts can obscure them.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv\u003e\u003cbr\u003eKnowing P is true is distinct from knowing why P is true.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv\u003e\u003cbr\u003eDescartes posits common notions (from the technical term \u003cem\u003ecommunis notio\u003c/em\u003e) which supports the view that god comes before all, then elementary knowledge, upon which other concepts are constructed. He asserts that the concept of god (perfect and eternal), implies its existence.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv\u003e\u003cbr\u003eOther attributes of knowledge are posited:\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cul\u003e\u003cli\u003eeg. essence (What makes a thing a triangle?) vs existence (Are there any triangles?)\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ul\u003e\u003cdiv\u003e\u003cbr\u003eKnowledge can have higher forms (abstraction? hierarchy?)\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv\u003e\u003cbr\u003eThere’s some funny stuff about infinity that Descartes finds boring and wants to avoid bothering with. However it raises some interesting questions. How should a concept be considered impossible? A measurable infinity. Is an infinite number odd or even? When did the horse open its beak? Likely trivialities we can ignore or something that would be wrapped into the logical primitives of reasoning.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv\u003e\u003cbr\u003eSomething’s purpose is different to its cause.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv\u003e\u003cbr\u003eSome unfortunate conclusions resultant from particular assumptions. “god gave us reason → god is not a deceiver → using reason properly means we must get truth”\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv\u003e\u003cbr\u003eThinking is not always correct; it falls into error.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv\u003e\u003cbr\u003eDescartes distinguishes thinking between perceiving (perception from senses, imagination, understanding) and volition (desire, aversion, assertion, denial and doubt). This seems pretty arbitrary to select as a categorisation, but we can vibe the difference approximately.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv\u003e\u003cbr\u003eErrors occur as a result of judgement in the context of inaccurate perception.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv\u003e\u003cbr\u003eJudgement is a combination of perception and will.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv\u003e\u003cbr\u003eThere is something there - if we look at LLMs as perception; judgement is something they lack, makes sense. However the terms are a bit random. We don’t get much insight from this.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv\u003e\u003cbr\u003eWill and perception are somewhat orthogonal; will has a larger scope than perception → we get things wrong.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv\u003e\u003cbr\u003eDescartes asserts that it is self-evident that we have free will. He then also asserts that it is certain and evident that everything was preordained by god. He then gets himself in a knot about how to reconcile these. He then bullshits his way out of it.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv\u003e\u003cbr\u003eThoughts can be strong (”vivid”) eg. pain and they can be clear.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv\u003e\u003cbr\u003eThoughts can be strong but not clear (eg. pain ?) but not clear without strong.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv\u003e\u003cbr\u003eIdk about all this. He goes off the rocker on a bunch of crap. Let’s see if there’s anything useful in the rest of this.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv\u003e\u003cbr\u003eOur senses can lead us astray. Eg. air appears not to exist because we can’t see it.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv\u003e\u003cbr\u003eIt’s hard to think clearly in the face of information that subverts preconceived notions. (We should update priors based on the strength of new information and certainty it comes with).\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv\u003e\u003cbr\u003eError can come from inaccurate world models.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003ch1\u003eQuestions\u003c/h1\u003e\u003cdiv\u003e\u003cbr\u003eHow do we know what we know?\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv\u003e\u003cbr\u003eDoes knowledge have other attributes than the certainty/basis etc?\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv\u003e\u003cbr\u003eWhat is an opinion vs a belief?\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv\u003e\u003cbr\u003eWhat is the impact of awareness? Do we want intelligent systems that have such a thing? Is it necessary?\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cblockquote\u003e\u003cbr\u003eDescartes means by ‘Idea x contains perfection P representatively’ exactly the same as ‘Idea x represents something as having perfection P’.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/blockquote\u003e\u003cdiv\u003e\u003cbr\u003eThe terminology of adverbly \u003cem\u003econtaining\u003c/em\u003e P is potentially misleading; but we’ll see in a moment that Descartes needs it for the claim he is making here to be plausible.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv\u003e\u003cbr\u003eIs this an example of epistemology? Should I learn it? Will it be relevant to construct, or should it emerge from a system definition?\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv\u003e\u003cbr\u003eI’m entirely unpersuaded by the arguments about knowledge coming from god → god exists because something must be the source → a perfect idea → a perfect source. For our purposes, the concept of an accurate world model extracted from data is sufficient for a grounded reality. Ideas and concepts and thoughts are more murky. “Where” the thoughts come from \u003cem\u003eis\u003c/em\u003e a good question. The most direct answer is something like… from within, based on our world model. For example, someone who has never travelled and only speaks english, who has never heard Chinese, does not ever think in Chinese. Does this imply no thoughts are truly novel? On the face of it that would seem to be incorrect. Deserves further interrogation.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv\u003e\u003cbr\u003eDescartes suggests some in-built knowledge of the concept of god, and a fairly complete one at that. Weird product of the times I guess. However, the concept of in-built knowledge is interesting. How would that differ from attained knowledge? Could this be important for values? (don’t hurt people etc)\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv\u003e\u003cbr\u003eConsider perception via senses vs propositional thinking. Connect this to experience (awareness).\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003ch1\u003eTakeaways\u003c/h1\u003e\u003cdiv\u003e\u003cbr\u003eAn intelligent system should have an \u003cstrong\u003eopinion\u003c/strong\u003e on \u003cstrong\u003ewith what certainty it knows something\u003c/strong\u003e (from where the information was obtained, on what bases of what strength it exists, and why it is likely or not to be true).\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv\u003e\u003cbr\u003eEverything is a resource tradeoff. Infinite certainty would require infinite validation. This is not required for acting.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cbr\u003eConscious thought\u003c/strong\u003e is a complex process powerfully inherent to our experience of existence. Without it, we wouldn’t even be \u003cstrong\u003eaware\u003c/strong\u003e that we exist.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv\u003e\u003cbr\u003eError detection, handling and correction is integral to reasoning.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cul\u003e\u003cli\u003eError correction in the context of sensory perception is different to reasoning.\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ul\u003e\u003cdiv\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/div\u003e","record_type":"Paper","record_id":3,"created_at":"2024-12-10T03:50:02.576Z","updated_at":"2024-12-10T04:09:22.841Z"},"created_at":"2024-12-10T03:49:40.490Z","updated_at":"2024-12-10T04:09:22.842Z"}