Search results

The Artificial Intelligence systems have already become a reality. The work on their development is going very successfully, and therefore this reality requires monitoring and reflection, moreover, understanding not only how artificial intel­ligence can be developed, but also what the price can be, the consequences of the widespread use and applying of such technology. In the article, this theme is considered in the context of the work of K. Schwab, who put forward the idea that a new, Fourth, industrial revolution is beginning today. It is in this context that the phenomenon of AI and its applications is being raised and considered to­day. Therefore, the Fourth industrial revolution itself is considered in the row with other industrial revolutions that are singled out today. In the course of re­viewing the history of industrial revolutions, the author shows that now Schwab's concept looks somewhat unfinished. The first three industrial revolutions have some main distinguishing features, the Fourth industrial revolution so far looks like it consists of equivalent components. In accordance with this, it is shown that the dominant discovery in the Fourth industrial Revolution is still present, and these are developments in the field of AI. An important question of the arti­cle is how to save people in the context of the industrial expansion of AI. In this regard, the theme of universal basic income discussed today is considered. Ac­cording to the author, this tool alone is not enough for people to go through the introduction of robots and AI painlessly. The author draws attention to the fact that people who are unemployed, but at the same time have a basic income, will be threatened by an overly comfortable home environment, leading to degradation.

The conflict with the appointment of an interim leadership at the Institute of Philosophy of the Russian Academy of Sciences is seen as both situational and systemic. The problem corresponds to the main topics of the author's research: 1) modern and postmodern; 2) general theory of ideology and analysis of spe­cific ideological processes; 3) problems of intellectual, political and institutional freedom. Attempts to discredit the activities of the Institute of Philosophy of the Russian Academy of Sciences in terms of format and style fit, on the one hand, into the traditions of the well-known "doctors' plot", and on the other hand, into the experience of the latest extreme postmodernism with its most open ec­lecticism and disconnection from external reference. At the same time, there is an implicit attitude towards ideology not as a system of ideas, but as a system of institutions. This allows us to talk about analogies with the practice of raider capture. Philosophy is considered as a self-sufficient and at the same time prac­tically oriented type of intellectual activity. This self-sufficiency brings it closer to art, in which, starting from a certain level of masterpieces and geniuses, gen­eral value hierarchical comparisons are considered not quite correct.

The stage of world civilization, into which humankind entered and within which it is developing today, was called the information society, then the knowledge society. Today, more and more people are talking about digital civilization. Of course, there are differences between information and knowledge, and digitaliza­tion speaks not about the information itself but about the ways of encoding it. However, it must be admitted that all these names are essentially related to one phenomenon. The point is that the production, dissemination, and use of knowl­edge (and it is, of course, information, although not every information is knowl­edge) began to play a new and exclusive role in all forms of human life. The author has analyzed three types of relations between philosophical and sci­entific study of cognition and mind: 1. Philosophy ignores the results of cogni­tive disciplines, as it deals with meanings and norms of cognition in distinction from cognitive sciences which study the mechanisms of cognitive processes; 2. Philosophy is considered as a general part of cognitive science: "naturaliza­tion" of philosophy; 3. Philosophy and cognitive sciences are in a constant dia­logue which presupposes cross-fertilization and mutual criticism. Philosophy holds its normative role, as it analyzes the presuppositions of conceptions in cog­nitive sciences and evaluates them. The author argues the thesis that it is the third type of such relations that is the most fruitful.

The key feature of human consciousness is our ability to access and practice svyaznost' (coherence, connectivity) grounded in tselostnost' (wholeness). This ability is common to humans and animals in one of its aspects (comprehending the world as an order of things), though animals do not share its other core mani­festations (coherent speech and thought as a practice of svyaznost'). The com­monplace understanding of language as a sign system falls short of grasping the development of svyaznost' and therefore needs to be reconsidered. Though universal for humans in its unfolded state, svyaznost' ability may be practiced only in one the few variant versions and never as an invariant universal. Any of its variant versions lays down the foundations of one of the big cultures which are re­flected upon in its philosophical tradition. Plato's and Aristotle's teachings mark major milestones of elaborating the substance version of svyaznost'. The founda­tions of Arab-Islamic big culture, its autochthonic philosophy included, were laid down by elaboration of the process version of svyaznost'. Tkachenko paradox (any big culture cannot be described and analyzed using the theoretical means of a different big culture) and Jullien paradox (foundations of any philosophical tra­dition cannot be grounded and justified by the means of that tradition) are ana­lyzed. Only the logic of sense is capable of finding the way around both para­doxes by elaborating on svyaznost' and tselostnost' through their variant versions to escape the limits of the initial circle of logical laws and basic categories that form the basis of any philosophic tradition in this or that big culture.

Defining ideology as an interindividual system of stereotypes, which appears in the form of mimicry as a universal requirement of being, the author considers it to belong to people who show the ability to reason. A person, consciously car­rying out an act, at the same time does not realize all of himself in it, much of what he does, he does not consciously, does what is hidden from him. The es­sence of man and the essential things that are or are not realized in him are not explicitly represented in the consciousness of man. Often a person quite con­sciously applies certain given regulations in practice, without subjecting them to critical analysis. By carrying out this implicit, or not realizing what is accepted without reasoning and doubt, a person loses not only the philosophical pathos given to him by nature, but also his human nature, for he is called homo sapiens. Since "thinking" presupposes at the same time "acting", then handing over an action to another person means a philosophical desertion committed by both those who act without thinking and those who think without acting. "Thinking" implies, at the same time "acting". Refusal of action or its delegation to others (transferring the action to another person) destroys thinking. This is the destruc­tion of the thinking ability, this is a philosophical desertion committed by those whose thought flows only into action and by those who do not act and therefore do not think