The Institute of Culture and Thought (CIP) held its second interdisciplinary seminar on thought of the 2025–2026 academic year on 12 February, under the title “What is thinking?”. Held online due to a civil protection alert, the session brought together members of the university community interested in exploring the meaning and limits of thinking in the current context.

The seminar featured contributions from Dr Raül Garrigasait, writer and doctor in Classical Philology from the University of Barcelona and, since 2017, president of the Casa dels Clàssics; and Dr Pep Martorell, graduate in Physical Sciences from the University of Barcelona and doctor in Computer Science from Ramon Llull University. The session was moderated by Dr Begoña Díaz, an expert in cognitive science and language, and deputy director of the Department of Psychology at UIC Barcelona. The director of the CIP, Dr Andrea Rodríguez, opened the meeting with a thought-provoking quote, “Thinking intensifies living.” With this idea, she positioned the central theme – what it means to think – as a vital, contemporary question filled with uncertainties.

Thinking beyond limits

In his presentation, Garrigasait suggested that the question “why think?” already assumes that thinking is optional or requires an external purpose. For the philologist, he argued that thinking is part of the human condition and needs no prior justification. The essential question, therefore, is not why we think, but what thinking actually means.

He recalled that defining thought has been a persistent challenge throughout the European philosophical tradition. Referring to Heraclitus, he emphasised the idea that human reason has no fixed boundaries and observed that thought unfolds historically, in constant dialogue with reality and with earlier generations.

In this concise overview, he referred to the modern shift introduced by Descartes, who located the first indubitable certainty in the “I that thinks”, and Hegel’s view that truth is not a fixed reality but a historical process in which thought develops. In both cases, thinking appears as a means of correcting error or restoring meaning.

Garrigasait concluded that thought is neither a closed system nor a mere accumulation of data, but a living activity rooted in experience and open to reality – a quality that may well set it apart from artificial intelligence.

Thought in the face of artificial intelligence

Martorell focused on how the emergence of artificial intelligence is forcing us to reconsider our understanding of thought. He explained that current systems rely on algorithms trained on enormous quantities of data and are capable of producing sophisticated responses in areas that until recently seemed uniquely human.

While acknowledging the remarkable progress of these technologies, he stressed that processing data is not the same as understanding. He also highlighted AI’s growing impact on the labour market and education, where it is already transforming how people learn and conduct research.

A central question in the discussion concerned the place of human thought in a context where the cost of human intelligence may approach zero. Martorell argued that AI, rather than replacing us, can serve as a tool for examining ideas and improving the quality of our thinking, as long as it is used with care and personal discipline.

In the final discussion, moderated by Dr Díaz, the speakers addressed issues such as the relationship between consciousness and intelligence and whether AI can help us make sense of reality. Audience contributions demonstrated both the interest in, and the complexity of, a debate that spans philosophy, psychology and technology.

With this second seminar, the Institute for Culture and Thought strengthens an interdisciplinary space that encourages rigorous, critical and responsible reflection at a moment in history when asking what it means to think is more pertinent than ever.