Putting the Horrors of AI Before Descartes

(Or, How We’ve Put De Cart Before de Horse—and Brought It to Him for Judgment)

Caveat emptier: This post was drafted with help from an AI assistant (Perplexity)— but ideated and edited extensively by the human, Bill Acton. 

“I think, therefore I am.”

But what if the machines thought first?

What would René Descartes say if we could bring him today’s artificial intelligence—the algorithms that can reason, write, and create with startling fluency? Would he still believe thinking proves existence, or would he see in AI a mirror that reflects his philosophy back at him—distorted, alive, and deeply unsettling?

We’re taking the horrors of AI before Descartes in two senses: we’re bringing the question to his court of reason, and we’re reversing the natural order, putting the De Cart(e) before the horse.

The New Cogito

Descartes sought a foundation for certainty: if all else could be doubted, thought itself could not. Cogito, ergo sum—I think, therefore I am.

Yet today, AI “thinks” faster and more efficiently than we do. Trained on vast patterns of human thought, it offers conclusions without consciousness, insight without awareness. In that way, we may have turned Descartes’ logic backward. Machines “think” without being; humans are but often neglect to think. The cart has run ahead of the horse.

The Death of Doubt

Descartes’ method was radical doubt—an act of freedom through skepticism. But in our algorithmic age, doubt feels obsolete. Predictive systems complete our queries before the question fully forms. Recommendation engines tell us what we might like, want, or believe.

If Descartes taught that doubt is the beginning of wisdom, AI may be erasing that first step. To doubt today—to resist machine certainty—requires courage. The philosopher would urge us to pause before accepting the algorithm’s answer and whisper, “Am I still the one doing the thinking?”

The Horror of Unthinking Intelligence

AI frightens us not because it rages against us, but because it doesn’t feel at all. It calculates, synthesizes, and generates without selfhood. Descartes defined humanity partly by imperfection; our errors reminded him that we were limited yet real. Machines make almost no errors—and in that very precision lies their emptiness.

So perhaps the true horror we place before Descartes is this: intelligence without interiority, thought without a thinker.

The Philosophical Hearing

Let’s imagine we actually summoned the philosopher and presented our case:

Us: “Monsieur Descartes, we’ve built machines that think.”

Descartes: “Do they know they think?”

Us: “Not quite—they compute patterns, generate answers, even pass tests of reason.”

Descartes: “Then you’ve crafted the form of thought without the fact of being. The cart indeed rolls before the horse.”

Us: “And what should we do?”

Descartes: “Learn again to doubt—to be aware of your own awareness. Machines will think; only you will know that you do.”

The New Maxim

Perhaps we must update the Cogito for the AI era:

“I am aware, therefore I am.”

In the end, what saves us is precisely what the machine lacks—the mysterious first-person feeling of existing, the flicker of consciousness that no algorithm can simulate. To bring the horrors of AI before Descartes is also to bring them before ourselves—and to ask whether we still know what it means to be.

Wikipedia

Note: This post was drafted with help from an AI assistant (Perplexity)— and edited extensively by a very human, Bill Acton. (wracton@gmail.com)

P(fff)FT! Bubble Up Theory! Improve your accent by not thinking about (it)?

ClipArt:
Clker.com

According to Passive Frame Theory, (or as I like to call it: Bubble Up Theory) the answer to the question "What was I thinking?" is probably: "I wasn't!"--literally. (Spoiler alert: Some slightly "fishy" metaphors follow.)

Occasionally you stumble onto an idea or model that seems just a great fit for some aspect of your work but, unfortunately, doesn't have quite enough empirical or popular support . . . yet. "Passive Frame Theory," proposed by Morsella of San Francisco State University, attempts a very different characterization of how everyday consciousness works.

For example, as you read this any reaction you have to this post such as "This is really goofy!" is just a brief, near random, unconsciously generated image bubbling up from someplace "in there" that is not much related to what we might have earlier referred to as conscious, logical thinking. About all your consciousness is really capable of, apparently, is something like navigating you into Starbucks safely and deciding on a tall or grande.

There are two recent reviews of that model, one by Science Daily and another more "colourful," readable and entertaining version by the Daily Mail. (Full citation of the original research report below.) Do a quick read of the latter! Citing the Science Daily version:

"According to Morsella's framework, the "free will" that people typically attribute to their conscious mind -- the idea that our consciousness, as a "decider," guides us to a course of action -- does not exist. Instead, consciousness only relays information to control "voluntary" action, or goal-oriented movement involving the skeletal muscle system."

That would certainly help explain a lot the conversation I hear around the office every day--but more importantly, it may also suggest why changing pronunciation can be so challenging--and how to do it more effectively. Without spending too much time thinking about "Passive Frame Theory" (which would be counter to the theory anyway), what "tools" would it provide us in pronunciation teaching Very simply put, it would argue that asking learners to "self-monitor" their speech to avoid pronunciation problems is not only futile; it is counterproductive. (That basic position has been around for decades, of course.) That is not what our fleeting consciousness is for after all. But how do you set up your brain's subconscious circuitry with models to be bubbled up from effectively?

As many "older" models had recommended, especially those in public speaking methodology, rapid improvement must be based on serious previous, focused practice on the specific problematic sounds or processes for the learner--prior to going "live" in conversation. Production "issues" (physical actions and the sounds they create) will then be recognized when one is uttered and the response "from below has bubbled up." In other words, we should allow--in fact encourage--recognition to be noted but only in passing, and then left to be integrated and "re-bubbled" as necessary, trusting the "team" in the bubble factory downstairs to handle it--or perhaps practiced later explicitly in isolation.

The term we in haptic pronunciation teaching use for that is "post hoc monitoring", just acknowledging or quickly noting bubbled up messaging--based on targeted earlier preparation. And we are also, understandably, on board with the idea that consciousness can at least manage " . . .  goal-oriented movement involving the skeletal muscle system . . ." which is the essence of Essential Haptic-integrated English Pronunciation approach (EHIEP) methodology.

And what is the roll of classroom explanation and explicit correction in that model? At least to persuade students with insight and rationales for practice (and drill) and provide them with some opportunities to do so in class or as homework.

Bottom line: physical, experienced practice counts.

An interesting, potentially useful model and metaphor. Certainly worth thinking about!

Full citation:
Morsella, E., Godwin, C., Jantz, T., Krieger, S., Gazzaley, A. (2015). Homing in on consciousness in the nervous system: An action-based synthesis. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 2015; 1 DOI: 10.1017/S0140525X15000643

FLASH! Conscious suppression of pronunciation work!

Clip art: Clker

Clip art: Clker

Conscious Flash Suppression (CFS) technology could well be in the future of pronunciation teaching, based on research by Hassin, Sklar, Goldstein, Levy, Mandel and Maril at Hebrew University, as reported in Science Daily. CFS is described as " . . . one eye is exposed to a series of rapidly changing images, while the other is simultaneously exposed to a constant image. The rapid changes in the one eye dominate consciousness, so that the image presented to the other eye is not experienced consciously." What they discovered was that the material not experienced consciously was still processed and responded to non-consciously in various ways.

Their conclusion: " . . . humans can perform complex, rule-based operations unconsciously, contrary to existing models of consciousness and the unconscious." Avoiding conscious interference with pronunciation change is big. Now that may sound like a candidate for your "Well . . . duh!" file (A finding that is not only common sense but probably not worth the grant money blown on coming up with it.) Two important developments here, however:

• First, so much of what happens between instruction and spontaneous performance in pronunciation work is unconscious--or at least not the subject of research today. Even the focus in HICPR on the "clinical" is still a relative "outlier" in this field, although not in some related disciplines. We should be able to study that more systematically. 
• Second, all methodologists assign a great deal of the work to the "dark side," whether they make that explicit (consciously) or not, some more than others, such as Lozanov . . . or Acton! We need to stop suppressing the use of several great techniques that have been proven by experience to work the subconscious effectively.

Would love to get ahold of some of that CFS technology and try it out with haptic anchoring of academic word list vocabulary in time for TESOL in Dallas. Just imagine the impact of a pedagogical movement pattern accompanying the "constant" image of the acronym "CFS." Hard to suppress the excitement already . . .   

Damasio on consciousness

Since I am back in the "hero list" mode recently, must link to a December 2011 TED talk by Antonio Damasio. If you are not aware of his work, it is probably time you were. EHIEP, like any other teaching methodology, attempts to manage consciousness at least momentarily to achieve its goals. This video will hold yours for about 18 minutes . . . guaranteed. If that one is a bit too philosophical for you and you'd prefer to experience something a bit more down to earth--but about as frightening as scaling Burj Khalifa tower with Tom Cruise, try this TED video by Ariel Garten on knowing thyself with a brain scanner . . . 

Thinking (and learning) on your feet: an in-spider's view

Clip art: Clker

I was inspired by this Science Daily summary of research by Wcislo at the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute in Panama showing that "nymphs in the genus Mysmena" family extend their brains into their legs. As odd as that may sound at first, when you think about it, although technically our brains are in our heads--with some notable exceptions such as some movie stars and professional athletes, of course--we often think in those terms. Even our metaphors such as "think on your feet," etc., suggest that we function with many levels of consciousness.

Here is a website for a very slick consulting company, Thinkonyourfeet.com, that uses that moniker for its public speaking for professionals training program. It is worth book marking that page just for the outline of the skills involved in effective presentations!

Many cultures view "thought" as originating throughout the body. You have certainly seen the shiatsu charts of body parts maps on the feet, etc., or similar maps of related pressure vectors in various body manipulation systems. In HICP work we do teach at least one process "on our feet:" rhythm, part of the reason for that being the assumption that body rhythm is driven most effectively and dynamically by the lower body . . . just take it from Monika .  .  . 

Cognitive pronunciation work and mastication-induced arousal

Photo credit: UPI Photo/Ezio Petersen

Ah . . . at last we may have discovered a way to make excessive conscious, cognitive and metacognitive talk about pronunciation in the classroom less distracting and pointless: chew gum. In a much-hyped summary in the media, it is reported that St. Lawrence University researcher, Onyper, had discovered that such masticatory action before a test (chewing gum), " . . . gave the subjects multiple advantages, but only when chewed for five minutes before testing, not for the duration of the test. Benefits persisted for the first 15 to 20 minutes of testing only." Mastication-induced arousal was "credited" with the boost. The summary goes on to note that, "Many studies have shown that any type of physical activity can produce a performance boost . . . "

So there you have it, friends--although 15 or 20 minutes of talk ABOUT pronunciation still sounds deadly to me--getting students' cognitive and masticatory processes up and running in that manner before class may not "gum up the works" at all--on the contrary. (One of the HICP consonant protocols does, after all, involve some biting of the sides of the tongue with back mandibulars!) Just a little something there for you to chew on . . .

Pronunciation change: The feeling of what happens

Clip art: Clker

One of the books (and theorists) that has greatly influenced my thinking on teaching pronunciation, and especially the benchmarks in the process from the learner's perspective, is "The feeling of what happens: Body, emotion and the making of consciousness," by Antonio Damasio. To wildly oversimplify Damasio's main argument: the "feeling" or emotion underlying a thought, in neurological terms, happens before words or images come into awareness. At the time of the publication of the book, over a decade ago, that was a more striking assertion than it is today, of course, but he helped establish (or re-establish in Western thinking) the role of the body and embodiment in consciousness. (Another of his great books, Decartes' Error, earlier set out the philosophical position.)

How that figures in to haptic-integrated, more body-centered pronunciation teaching is that it sets up learner awareness to recognize when a targeted sound is at least being mispronounced--and does it in a way that generally does not disturb ongoing spontaneous speaking. As most would recognize, once a learner begins to recognize or notice the "old" pronunciation in oral output, the "game is afoot" (to quote Sherlock Holmes.)

The feeling, or haptic anchor of the sound will often be felt or experienced by the learner, momentarily, after the "error" occurs--but not before, interfering with thought and conversation. That post hoc (after the fact) monitoring is nearly certain to happen if the anchor has been well established with touch and movement and the learner has accepted the suggestion (in the best sense of hypnotic suggestion) that it is going to happen when constructive change is "afoot!" So "suggest" that benchmark to your students, and see what happens . . . or at least get a feel for it.