This is an ancient philosophical problem, the solution of which we owe to the observation of Descartes " dubito, ergo cogito, (cogito) ergo sum ". Although many have tried to challenge this claim, all these attempts, extremely sophisticated, were definitely easier to disprove than the axiom of Descartes.

All attempts to undermine the "cogito" were based on a more or less left-wing ideological foundation. The average person only managed to stick the shortened form "cogito" or its second part " cogito ergo sum " >> "I think, therefore I am" which allowed machines to be considered intelligent >> the so-called. "artificial intelligence".

Omitting the first part "cogito" >> " dubito, ergo cogito " >> "I doubt, therefore I think" allowed not only to attribute "intelligence" to machines, but also to instil in the masses a belief in the computer's infallibility, i.e. getting rid of the moral responsibility of the rulers for the consequences of decisions made by artificial intelligence.

And most importantly, the creators of "artificial intelligence" claim divine rights! This is how the circle of contradictions of philosophy based on atheism closes. Those who do not believe in God consider themselves gods. Therefore, it is to them that the mob is to submit, and they will be able to do whatever they want with the simpletons.

Contrario (to Descartes) it can be observed that if I do not doubt, then I do not think, and since I do not think , I am not a homo sapies sapiens man.

Human thinking is derived from analog doubt and AI is derived from digital certainty.

Pertimbangan vs Orang - Apa yang membuat seseorang menjadi pemikir?