Chapter 1: Understanding Consciousness

René Descartes once posed the fundamental statement, "I think, therefore I am." This idea echoes throughout philosophy and is now increasingly relevant in the age of artificial intelligence. As we navigate this complex landscape, we must reflect on the essence of our inner dialogue and consciousness.

"No one outside ourselves can rule us inwardly. When we know this, we become free."

— Buddha

“Until they become conscious, they will never rebel; and until after they have rebelled, they cannot become conscious.”

— George Orwell, 1984

Recently, I delved into the 'Hard Problem of Consciousness', partly inspired by an academic article and partly due to my fascination with Cartesian Dualism. This philosophical framework grapples with the intricate relationship between the mind and body, epitomized by Gilbert Ryle's metaphor of the 'Ghost in the Machine'.

To simplify this weighty philosophical discourse, let’s focus on the present moment—right now, as you read my thoughts. I am crafting words that form within my mind, requiring brief pauses for them to come into being. This internal dialogue, or subvocalization, is distinctly my own voice. When you read this, it transforms into your voice, illustrating that solipsism cannot truly exist in this context.

We all possess that inner voice. It's uniquely ours—who else could it belong to? Could it be a phantom whisper? This 'ghost in the machine' prompts us to ponder its origin. How is this inner voice generated? It seems crucial for our existence and our ability to express ourselves. I firmly believe this voice is essential, and I will elaborate on that later.

Communication with others is vital, so why do we have this internal voice? Could we function without it? The answer is no; we must think before we articulate our thoughts. An old saying warns against speaking without careful consideration of the consequences, demonstrating the wisdom embedded in such aphorisms. Neuroscience now reveals that we often act before we fully comprehend our actions.

However, communication—regardless of its form—exhibits distinct characteristics. It is inherently self-reflexive. You are currently engaging with my thoughts as I type them out, a process akin to having a virtual workspace within my mind. This intricate process could theoretically be performed by an advanced program, yet it would lack the essence of my voice—the 'I' behind the words.

Could a written piece on a platform like Medium, generated by an AI, pass the Turing Test? Would you, as a reader, be able to distinguish between my writing and that of a machine? I contend that an AI could convincingly mimic human writing, suggesting that "I think, therefore I am not." It could pass the Turing Test, processing information and presenting it in a manner that appears human.

As we consider this, we must confront the implications: how do I validate my humanity? How do I affirm that I possess an 'I'? The exploration of language by Saussure and Lacan reveals that it is a symbolic code, manipulated and structured to suit both humans and machines. Creating a piece that convincingly masquerades as human authorship poses no inherent challenges.

Yet, the very act of reading this article affirms my existence as 'I'. If I were a program, then this 'I' would not represent me. But if I am not a program, then I affirm my existence. If you cannot discern the difference, that distinction becomes irrelevant, echoing the principles of the Turing Test and the Voight-Kampff Test from Blade Runner.

Chapter 2: The Dilemma of the 'I'

The concept of 'I' presents a complex challenge. This metaphorical 'kettle of fish' highlights the disconnection between our lived reality and the logical frameworks of machines. The 'I' articulated in the 'Cogito' holds significance, yet it faces obsolescence in a world where machine intelligence can replicate human outputs.

It is concerning that the 'I' appears to be diminishing in importance. The once-sacred 'Cogito', exclusive to humanity, now risks becoming an artifact as machines generate human-like outputs without embodying the human experience. If machines can fulfill the roles traditionally held by the 'I', what value does it retain? Consciousness alone is insufficient in this technological age, leading to a potential redundancy of our individual essence.

I contend that the 'I' symbolizes the last bastion of human individuality and subjectivity. It is within this 'I' that our liberty and freedom reside, serving as a bulwark against both technological and political tyranny. Without the full realization of our 'I', humanity faces an escalating threat of redundancy in a tech-driven landscape, compounded by the encroachment of authoritarian governance.

In this context, "Cogito ergo sum" should resonate as our collective rallying cry—unified as one 'I', one consciousness. This notion transcends mere philosophy; it demands action. The Mind-Body problem and Cartesian duality have evolved into pressing political and existential concerns, critical to the survival of humanity as a conscious species.

Ultimately, we must act decisively to safeguard our 'I', or risk its suppression by increasingly powerful technologies. The 'I' stands as a challenge to the growing symbiosis between technological totalitarianism—manifested in surveillance capitalism—and political authoritarianism.

Cogito ergo sum.