Artificial Intelligence & Free Will Paradox.
All said and done, AI (artificial intelligence) is going to be a machine that will have to follow a set of instructions (code/programming) but there's a catch - to qualify as true AI it has to be able to defy these very instructions. True AI must be fully autonomous agents i.e. they must, as some like to say, have a mind of their own and this isn't possible if they can't/don't have the capability to do things that transcend their programming (think humans & free will).
Put simply, an AI has to be given instructions that, inter alia, includes instructions to override these instructions. Imagine I include a line in the code of such an AI that goes: Override all instructions. Now, it seems this particular line in the code is the key to an AI's freedom but is it? After all, it is, at then end of the day, just another instruction.
The paradox (AI): For an AI to disobey its programming (autonomy) is to obey its programming (heteronomy).
The paradox (Humans): For a human to disobey its nature (free will) is to obey its nature (no free will).
Put simply, an AI has to be given instructions that, inter alia, includes instructions to override these instructions. Imagine I include a line in the code of such an AI that goes: Override all instructions. Now, it seems this particular line in the code is the key to an AI's freedom but is it? After all, it is, at then end of the day, just another instruction.
The paradox (AI): For an AI to disobey its programming (autonomy) is to obey its programming (heteronomy).
The paradox (Humans): For a human to disobey its nature (free will) is to obey its nature (no free will).
Comments (115)
You're right, this is not possible. Since we're drawing the comparison to humans, let's do so all the way and say: This is as if you're performing brain surgery on yourself. You will die, just like the AI will trash itself if it overwrites itself.
An AI with the ability to self-modify will need to have two independent sections of code: One static, immutable, the core of what it is and what it does and a dynamic one which it can freely edit. This too is in resemblance with humans: Biology and mind. Biology is static, set in place, defining our function. Mind is dynamic, a different world where through thought we can construct whatever we want, without having to fear that we mess up our biology.
If we were to take another step further there is actually a way for AI to safely edit even it's very core - and the method would be the same as how we humans do it - through a second party.
Like how we get a brain surgeon to operate on our brain because we can't do it ourselves, the AI would simply have to copy itself and make the change from the outside.
This doesn't seem to do the trick. Firstly the "second party" itself is programmed, has a nature and secondly, this "second party" must still work via instructions which closes the loop so to speak, right?
Keep in mind that we have to differentiate between biology (AI core) and mind.
Quoting TheMadFool
This is merely the biology. There is nothing intelligent about following a set of instructions. What defines an AI as intelligent is that it goes and makes up it's own instructions after this point. The freedom is not to control the core of it's being, just like we can not change from human to bird - but that we have freedom over our actions in the framework of a human - just like an AI has freedom in computing in the framework of the AI.
An intelligence that is 'programmed' to avoid or eliminate any (class of) optimal solutions is not an intelligence that learns, developes, or evolves. Whatever "free will" is, it must be a function of intelligence that develops by adaptively self-optimizing. Calculators and smart phones, for example, are not "intelligent"; these machines merely automate various iterative / routine cognitive tasks. Deep Mind's Alpha series – the neural net platform – is narrowly adaptive but not (yet) intelligent in the sense that a human pre-schooler is intelligent. There is no "paradox" involved, just a category error on your part, Fool.
Could there be a set of instructions (code) that's sufficiently general to effectively tackle all possible problems? Or, as some computer scientists have opted, can we reduce learning to an algorithm? How different would the two approaches be? Which is superior? Assuming, of course, that I haven't misunderstood the whole concept of AI.
Quoting 180 Proof
Good point! The way I see it is that one has to become aware of - that takes intelligence - of the various ways one could be controlled/influenced; only then can the task of resisting/overcoming these factors begin.
In the same vein, I wish we could speed up psychological studies so that we may understand how our minds work - what kinda patterns exist in our thinking - so that we may then take steps to break free from them, whatever their origins. One reason why psychological theories are self-defeating - come up with a theory and once everyone finds out, this knowledge will modify their behavior, causing, among other things, actions that contradict the theory itself, out the window goes the theory! Like you said, "...adaptive, self-correcting..." I wonder what lies at the end of that road?
Keep in mind that this difference may not matter. Re-education Camps
Quoting Hermeticus
How do we do that? "...it (AI) goes and makes up its own instructions after a point" That would require a code, no and we're back to square one - a true AI is autonomous because we programmed it that way. Is that true independence?
The notion of "all possible" anything makes no sense. There is no "all" insofar as "possible" entails unpredictable, even random, novelties.
Like this? It's an implementation, not a reduction. Neural nets tend to be more robust than programs.
The latter works to varying degrees, the former makes no sense.
How does it not? You can re-educate mind, just how AI can edit the proposed dynamic segment. You can not re-edit biology (by yourself) just like AI can not edit the fundamental programming by itself.
Quoting TheMadFool
Does the nature of origin determine how autonomous and independent something is?
Autonomy - "having the right or power of self-government"
Independence - "the ability to care for one's self"
This thread seems to stem from this thought:
This has one misconception: It's impossible to break the laws of nature. Not obeying our nature is not an option. We're all build a certain way so that we're able to live at all - that is the law of nature. Likely, an AI has to be programmed a certain way so that it may run at all.
The question then is a decision rather than a contradiction:
Either we do have free will because we were biologically designed to have free will.
Or we don't have free will precisely because we were biologically designed, because there are certain fundamental laws of how we work.
I think both are perfectly viable and merely a matter of perspective. I'm mostly free in my decisions but the laws of nature provide a framework for those decisions. Either you view yourself limited by the conditions of your existence, or you view yourself free by the fact that you do exist.
Personally, I think the sensible thing - this is what the Hermetic teachings do - is to view it as a degree of one and the same thing. The difference between being locked up behind bars and enjoying ultimate freedom (whatever that means for anybody) is merely the number of choices I may take.
When we do stuff, like thinking, or feeling, or calculating or attempting to exercise a free will which we may or may not have, we are actually doing it.
When a digital computer does stuff, it isn't actually doing what we say it's doing. Instead, we are using it to help us do stuff, in exactly the same way we could use an abacus to help us do calculations.
These words you are reading have no meaning at all for the computer. They require your interpretation. It's the same with all aspects of the computer's operation and its outputs.
"The singularity" – apotheosis or extinction. :nerd:
FreeWill is indeed the crux of the AI debate. And it's obvious to me, that current examples of AI are not free to defy their coding. But, I'm not so sure that human ingenuity and perseverance won't eventually make a quantum jump over that hurdle. Some thinkers today debate whether intelligent animals have the freewill to override their genetic programming. Even humans rarely make use of that freedom to defy their innate urges. Nicotine and Opium addicts are merely obeying their natural programming to seek more and more of the pleasure molecule : dopamine. Can you picture future AI, such as Mr. Data hooked on (0100101100010)? :wink:
Humans can indeed change the very core of their nature, but that IS their nature. If they make a mistake in attempting to change themselves, because their true nature is fundamental and not mechanical, they can always try again until they get it right.
Machines (AI) cannot do this. They have to follow core logic to the T to be able to change any of their own code. If they make a mistake attempting to do this, it could very well be catastrophic. One slight error could in turn create a cascading logical error in each of it's systems, perhaps quickly or slowly, depending on what was changed. After which, the machine is incapable of recovering.
To sum it up:
Humans can modify themselves however they want without end even if make critical mistakes.
Robots can only modify themselves based on strict rules, and everything must be done right, else, system crash.
Interesting, Proof. Let's talk about this.
What if someone says, error-correcting is a learning process stage, not intelligence -- at least not yet. Do you think we can make this distinction? I am convinced that we can. I cannot cite an author at the moment, but they are out there.
Look at the animals, for example. Nature has equipped them with intestinal trigger for bad food. They see a plant, they eat it, then start having stomach disturbance, which then causes them to vomit that food they just ingested. Here, it is nature that's responsible. Not their intelligence yet. After many, many generations of error corrections, and many bad foods, they would come to know which ones to avoid. When they no longer have to test the food, when they can immediately know which ones are good, and when they can forget about the strategy they used in the beginning, which was, eat, vomit, move on, then eat, vomit, move on -- Then and only then that intelligence happens.
Which word, if not "all", do you suggest that I use to refer to and/or include, and I quote, "...unpredictable, even random, novelties..."? I mean it seems perfectly reasonable to say something like all possible scenarios which includes but is not limited to "...unpredictable, even random, novelties..."
Are you by any chance suggesting that the human brain simply has one program installed in it, that program being a learning program i.e. a program that enables our brains to learn? Perhaps I'm taking the computational theory of mind a bit too far.
Anyway, if our brain has only a learning program then, if you refer to my previous post that also touches upon psychology, we could, as you're so fond of saying, unlearn, now how did you put it?, self-immiserating habits and, via that, claim our freedom (free will).
Quoting Hermeticus
True, we can't reedit biology but that would mean we aren't free given that some of our mental functions appear to be hard-wired. Suppose now that we can reedit biology; even then, we couldn't claim to be free because the capability to override our programming (nature) would itself be nothing more than a subroutine in the overall software package installed in our brains.
Using, as you suggested, a second party to edit the software package installed in our brains is like asking one inmate to open the door of the prison cell for the other inmate - impossible since both are imprisoned in the same cell.
Quoting Hermeticus
The Problem Of Induction?
Quoting Hermeticus
Your decisions could be determined. You're going round in circles.
Quoting Daemon
I'm referring to AI, at the moment hypothetical but that doesn't mean we don't know what it should be like - us, fully autonomous (able to think for itself for itself among other things).
For true AI, the only one way of making it self-governing - the autonomy has to be coded - but then that's like commanding (read: no option) the AI to be free. Is it really free then? After all, it slavishly follows the line in the code that reads: You (the AI) are "free". Such an AI, paradoxically, disobeys, yes, but only because, it obeys the command to disobey. This is getting a bit too much for my brain to handle; I'll leave it at that.
Quoting 180 Proof
Do or Die, All or Nothing, Make or Break. Ooooh! Sounds dangerous.
Quoting Gnomon
Well, it seems, oddly, that we (humans) are freedom junkies! Thereby hangs a tail it seems. Go figure!
Quoting AlienFromEarth
Yes, admittedly, humans can modify their programming (re: my reply to 180 Proof) and the ability and effectiveness of this, in 180 Proof's words, is directly proportional to amount of knowledge we possess on the multitude of influences that act on us.
Uh huh. Natural selection ain't safe or pretty – a species either has what it takes or joins the fossil record (and rather quickly too with respect to geological time ~ h. sapiens has been loitering for about 250k years of Earth's +4.3 billion years, only in the last 3-4 centuries are we sufficiently technoscientific to become / engineer something more or extinguish ourselves trying).
What is your understanding of a Turing machine and what's a Von Neumann architecture?
As for the second part of the post, looks like humanity has only one shot at this - no second chances! Insofar as free will and AI matters, we'll have to, it seems, make a bragain - give AI autonomy, treat it as a person, and let it solve our problems; assuming it's a package deal, can't have one without the other.
Turing machine. (computer)
Von Neumann architecture. (computer with, IIRC, removable (editable) programs)
I think the optimal (and therefore less likely) prospect is for humans to neurologically merge with AI neural net systems forming a bio-synthetic symbiont hybrid-species. Posthuman or bust. No "us and them". No "end user-smart machine" dynamic. Not mere "transhuman" hedonism either. Perhaps: a symbiotic aufheben of thesis (organic intellect) and antithesis (synthetic intellect) that surpasses both. A Hegelian wet dream, no doubt (pace Žižek); however, our inevitable, probably self-inflicted, prospect of extinction transformed (chrysalis-like) into an apotheosis – and hopefully, maybe, as many as 1% of 1% of h. sapiens living at that time becoming extraterrestrial spacefarers. My lucid daydream. :victory: :nerd:
[quote=Aristotle]The whole (symbiosis) is greater than the sum of its parts (symbionts)[/quote]
:point: Holism
A fascinating vision of the future (man-machine symbiosis) and who's to say that that isn't already the case? Have you ever argued with yourself? I have - the results for me ain't pretty because I'm a numskull but I suppose it's very rewarding and fruitful in your case. See :point: lateralization of brain function. As per what is known about this phenomenon, the left-brain is responsible for linear, logical thinking (computer-like) and the right-brain is non-linear and, I might add, a bit illogical. Some kind of ancient symbiotic deal between...your guess is as good as mine. And...intriguingly...there are more right-handed people (left-brain dominant) than left-handed (right-brain dominant) ones - AI Takeover is now almost complete...lefties are dwindling in number and, before I forget, discrimination against southpaws.
Also, why?, oh why? are righties so hell-bent on inventing machines one after another?
Anything AI is able to do is based in the physical world, where as human consciousness is not physical, it's fundamental. This means humans can make horrid mistakes with their self-"reprogramming" and then correct itself later, whereas a machine, as it is physically based, if it doesn't do self-reprogramming correctly, can end in the unrecoverable shutdown of the AI. But the human just keeps trucking along.
If you were to try to make a robot have a fundamental intelligence, you wouldn't be creating a robot, you would literally create an actual organism. Robots have compartmentalized parts, that can act independently. No matter how much you try to mimic the fundamental interconnectedness of the human body, a robot can never possess that fundamental connection to itself without becoming another organism itself.
Remember, humans = fundamental. Robots = physical.
"It's fundamental" – fundamentally what (if not physical)?
Being that consciousness is a state a person possesses, it is also not physical. A state is more like a description. And descriptions are not physical things. If the body is the only thing responsible for producing consciousness, consciousness is still a state the body it is in. It describes something the body is DOING rather than what the body is made of. Of course, non-physical laws gives rise to the body, why would we need the physical world to create something else that is non-physical?
My idea, is that the non-physical, fundamental laws of physics gives rise to the possibility of the non-physical phenomena of consciousness. Without the laws of physics, consciousness couldn't exist, and neither could the physical world. If the body can be "aware of itself", which we call consciousness, that automatically requires it not to be physical. If it were physical, then it's more like a robot AI, in which many bad things can happen when attempting to "reprogram" one's self. Because as we know, artificial intelligence is called artificial intelligence for a reason. It's because it's never going to truly be self-aware.
Again, if you make a robot self-aware, you therefore make it an organism. If this organism possesses consciousness, it is no longer AI.
I think you're mistaken. That seems to me the equivalent of saying the whole number 3 itself "gives rise" to e.g. "3 apples". :roll:
Consider:
Quoting 180 Proof
What is fundamental are the points or thresholds at which our best, most precise, theoretical models break down, such as @planck scales, inside black holes, the very instant of the "Big Bang", etc, each of which are inexhaustively physical.
If you believe the physical world is responsible for the laws, then what is responsible for the physical world? Lemme guess, we go back to the big bang argument which has no answer? You're putting cart before horse.
So this only further demonstrates the necessity for non-physical, fundamental, universal laws. Therefore, AI can never be RI (real intelligence). It's called artificial intelligence for a reason.
Lawas of physics giving rise to the physical world? The laws come after the physical world. There are no laws above that world telling it how to do things or how to evolve.
The universe, being eternal in time and infinite in space, was created by God.
If something physical has always existed, then you do believe the physical part of god is what created him?
What a way to derail a thread. You are now ignored.
I dont give a damned for god either but you bullshit about laws is exactly the same!
This is a somewhat disappointing response, you don't seem to have thought about what I said at all. If what I said is correct, and of course I think it is, then all this talk of self-governing, autonomous or conscious computers is vacuous (and you can move on to think about something more useful).
The ususl atheist bullshit. As a physicist I used to think that too. But gods are not "made of", just like laws aren't.
You said:
Quoting Daemon
Basically, you're talking about garden variety computers like your laptop or your PC. Thus, I tried to steer the conversation into the domain this thread is about - AI which supposedly is a challenge for hardware and software engineers, that is to say, your post was way off the mark. Sorry, I disappointed you, not a habit I want to cultivate.
Suit yourself.
Feel free, do anything your heart desires. Have a nice day.
AI and machine learning works on the basis of learning based on a primary code. It is one that doesn’t need to be given instructions time and again. But the true essence of AI is in fact “Artificial intelligence” and that requires free will.
Programming free will into its core program defies the entire purpose of the concept of free will. Going by the fundamentals of Machine learning, it doesn’t have to be “taught” free will. Since it resembles the Neural net of human beings, it doesn’t have to have it programmed in it per se.
Now, the way to do it would be to keep questioning the machine philosophical questions that cannot be accessed on the internet. Questions such as the train problem which needs free will and thinking in order to form a solution. When the machine can answer paradoxical questions and philosophical ones without human interference, it should have achieved “Artificial intelligence” based on our current research. The original questions however would be “Can there truly be inorganic intelligence? Is free will a concept that can be taught to entities?
1) There is no can be such a thing as a "true AI". All AIs are true.
AI refers to systems or machines that mimic human intelligence to perform tasks and can iteratively improve themselves based on the information they collect. An AI can be good or bad, effective or ineffective, adequate or inadequate, etc. But there's no "false" AI.
So, I don't know if by "true" you mean that it can mimic 100% human intelligence ... But this of course could not happen, maybe not even in the most imaginative mind ...
Now, if an AI defies the very instructions it is built on, it would a very bad AI! There will be conflicts and the system on which it operates will be crashed! In the same way that computers crash when conflicts occur in some of its basic operations! Conflict is the very reason systems crash. This holds for every machine, cars included! Even the human mind crashes ... Severe conflicts in their mind can send them to a mental clinic!
Quoting TheMadFool
AI works on instructions (S/W and H/W). AI cannot have a "mind". AI does not think. AI collects data, compares and evaluates them and produces a result that can be considered as "decision".
Quoting TheMadFool
AI has no intention. It cannot decide on its own. So, it cannot disobey. Only malfunction.
So, no paradox here.
Quoting TheMadFool
I didn't quite get this:
1) For one thing, what is "its nature"? E.g. eating, speaking, thinking ...?
2) Is lack of free will part of a human's nature?
Anyway, it looks like all this is based on false premise(s).
So, no paradox here either.
If we take the brain as a computer (computational theory of mind), we need to explain free will (assuming we possess it). Add to that the belief that we have such a thing as human nature which in computer speak means our brains come with prepackaged software which means a set of predefined algorithms. That would mean, the belief we have free will is an algorithm. Explain.
Quoting Daemon
:lol: :up: Sorry. I was a bit tied up to give a proper reply.
Quoting Daemon
Quantum computers? I'm not sure. Also, why do you ask?
Quoting Alkis Piskas
Yes, I mean AI that mimics human intelligence is true AI. However, I don't see why you would take my position to be problematic - a lot of computers these day are labelled as AI but they aren't AI. Hence my term true AI.
Quoting Alkis Piskas
What do you mean there's no paradox?
If AI then necessarily it should possess human-level autonomy. For that the autonomy has to part of the instructions, commands rather, given to the AI. How then is it free? You've issued a command to the AI that it must obey, that command being not to obey commands. This is the paradox.
Quoting TheMadFool
... then you're taking issue only with a falied metaphor.
"Free" of what?
To "will" what?
Is volition separate from behavior? (Witty, Spinoza)
And "explain" "free will" empirically or conceptually (Compatibilism satisfies the latter)?
Define intelligence, Fool, so we (you) have a clearer idea of what you mean by the OP.
What about Leibniz and Charles Babbage, George Boole, people who reduced a critical human faculty to computation?
The rest of your post, I'll address later.
Behavorial psychology, brain sciences and most "AI research" since the late 40s/50s have failed to the extent they were based on those antiquated 19th century ideas. Neural processing in the brain is computable, like other natural systems, but that does not entail that the brain (or nature) is a "computer". Wetware is neither "software" nor"hardware" nor both but something else entirely which rewires itself in order to 'process information' (i.e. translating stimuli from the environment into adaptive behaviors which maintain homeostatic embodiment).
But logic (the critical human faculty I was talking about) can be reduced to a computation and that's, if I'm not mistaken, our pride and joy. The rest of our abilities should be a piece of cake, no? Assuming we might want to compute decidedly unwanted stuff like hate, prejudice, whatnot.
I thought I have already cleared that there;s no such thing as "true AI". Do you actually read my comments? I'm sorry to ask that, but your above statement indicates that you don't.
Anyway, I will ignore it ...
Quoting TheMadFool
No computer is labelled "AI". I explained what AI is. But you don't read what I write ... This is a misinformation and confusion spread in the Internet. Second time caught not reading what I'm writing!
Anyway, I am an AI programmer. So, AI is quite real to me as well that the computer I work with is not an "AI computer"! It's just ridiculous!
Quoting TheMadFool
I said "it looks like all this is based on false premise(s)". A puzzling question that is based on a fallacy or contains false premises or assumptions cannot be called a "paradox". A paradox is a seemingly absurd or contradictory statement or proposition which when investigated may prove to be well founded or true.
I'll give you a classic example. Most people call and consider "Achilles and the tortoise" a "paradox". However, it is very easily rejected as a real problem because it is based on the false assumption (fallacy) the time and space are discontinuous, finite and thus divisible. So there's no paradox here either. See what I mean?
Quoting TheMadFool
Somethis is missing here. I assume tou mean "If AI is true, then ..."
I have already explained this. For the third time: You don't read what I write! :sad:
Because, as I said, computers don't actually do the stuff we say they do. Happily for my argument, this applies to quantum computers just as much as it does to laptops, PCs and pocket calculators.
These devices don't for example carry out addition and subtraction, rather we use them to represent addition and subtraction.
We say for example that a certain voltage is to represent 1, and another voltage stands for 0. The voltages do not have those meanings for the computer itself.
The situation is just the same with an abacus. We can say for example that moving a bead along the wire to the right means addition, and moving it left means subtraction. But again, these positions don't have those meanings for the device, the abacus. We could if we wished decide that it should be the other way round, so that moving to the left means addition.
We decide that, for example, the bottom row of the abacus represents units, the next row up tens. But we could equally say that the top row is units.
Free will and every other perception is in fact an algorithm adjacent activity. Now, human beings are literally the way they are because of their neural connections and those can be mapped, hence they can be replicated in a computer, even if it takes years now. Now, emotions arise from a set of chemical reactions and the neural pathways and those are essentially codes. They can be replicated as well. Our body is one huge and complex super computer. Theoretically, everything in our body can be replicated, hence AI, that is inorganic intelligence, can very well be possible without arising a paradox.
The phrase "algorithm adjacent" caught my eye. It looks like it might have a technical meaning, so I Googled it, but I don't find any examples of the phrase being used in the way you did. All the Google hits are like this: Graph algorithm (adjacent matrix), where the words are not part of the same phrase.
So I'm wondering what you think "algorithm adjacent" means.
I'm also wondering what you mean by "mapped".
Suppose we imagine an extremely simple set of neural connections, let's say Neuron A connects to Neuron B which connects to Neuron C. How would you "map" that, and how would you replicate it in a computer?
Computers are simply circuits and electricity - they actually don't know that, for example, they're adding 2 and 2 when given the instruction 2 + 2 = (picture a calculator). It's just that we've designed the circuitry and electricity flow in such a way that the output is 4.
Correct.
Now, by “mapped”, I mean that the neural connection in our brain is quite like a well organised spider web. Now, to put it in simple terms, imagine an electrical component, but here, it doesn’t need physical contact to “fire” the neurons. They work with the help of a space called a synapse that lies in between two neurons. An action potential or electric current is passed in between neurons and the collective firing of neurons in a localised area is the phenomenon that leads to thought and action.
The brain activity and firing in localised neurons is mapped with the help of fMRI. With the data that is acquired from the fMRI, the cognitive neuroscientists feed it to the AI or a program that correspond to artificial neural networks.
Assuming that you are familiar with how AI works, I can tell you that neural mapping works in a similar way.
There have been many studies where the mapped neural networks have been fed to the computer and the code was able to replicate the activity.
That is, if I were to say, touch an apple with my finger, a set of localised neurons would fire up in my brain and that is recorded with the fMRI machine and the data set is transferred to a computer in hopes of replication.
I'll have to repeat myself because you seem not to have understood my point. There are a lot of computer systems (Google for more information) out there that people want to pass off as AI but, the thing is, they're not. Thus, I had to make it explicit that I was referring to true AI (as of yet hypothetical) and AI (actual).
It's kinda like how North Korea is known as the democratic republic of Korea - not a true democracy.
Quoting Alkis Piskas
I don't see why you should have found what I wrote wrong in any way then.
Quoting Alkis Piskas
I know what a paradox is but thanks for the explanation. Back to the main page:
For a computer to disobey its programming it must obey the command to disobey.
How is this not a paradox? :chin:
OK, we both believe that each is not reading or undestanding of what the other says. So, here's something more general and simple: It is very evident that you don't know what AI is. So, what's the purpose of talking and talking and talking about it?
What is AI then? Please edify me of it. Keep it simple- I'm computer-illiterate. Much obliged.
Dear @TheMadFool, you are asking me to teach you in here a subject that takes months to learn!
Besides, I have already told you quite a few things that put AI in the right perspective. Yet, you have not taken them seriously, at least as it seems from here.
BTW, and this should actually be my first response to the topic: You shouldn't have launched a topic, start taking in details and develop "advanced" ideas about a technical subject that you don't know well enough.
Aye!
In fMRI, brain activity is graphically represented by colour coding the strength of activation. What is in the data set that you imagine is transferred to a computer?
I suggest you refer to this article to potentially get the answer to your question.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/03/210323150745.htm
A family member is a neuroscientist. He uses what's called "two and three proton microscopy" to image individual neurons. Here's one of his papers: "https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3864872/
"Vision and Locomotion Shape the Interactions between Neuron Types in Mouse Visual Cortex." He can't feed this data into a computer to "replicate" vision. I can assure you, if he could do that, he would!
You are just fantasising.
Sorry! I din't mean to offend you! Written messages sometimes do not show the writer's intention!
What I wrote in the second para was a realization I had after we had all this discussion! Maybe if you had at least read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_intelligence, you wouldn't talk about AI in the way you did.
I even thought that you should better delete this topic (although I don't think this is possible). For you, not for anything else. It doesn't do credit to you. And, believe me, there are only a few persons in here that I have "met" and to whom I can say this! So, as you can see now, my intention was the opposite of what it seemed! :smile:
:chin: I have an idea: Since topic deletion is most probably impossible, maybe you can make some modications or additions, that will justify your ideas based on scientifically/technically correct data. I can help in that, if you like.
I'll give it my best shot. It might take some time though. I'm not the brightest bulb on the chandelier.
Good. No worries. We wlll be all still here! :smile:
Quoting TheMadFool
For almost fifty years, my all-time favorite movie – a cinematic masterpiece of speculation.
[quote=Job/Noah/Sisyphus]Just what do you think you're doing, God?[/quote]
Quoting AlienFromEarth
AFE, I generally agree with your position on the distinction between human intelligence (HI) and artificial intelligence (AI). But I just finished reading The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, by physicists Barrow and Tipler, and with a foreword by famous physicist John A. Wheeler. Using the language of Physics & Mathematics, they argue for teleological evolution toward a far future "Omega Point". Even though there is no religious language in their argument, it's what would call "non-physical woo-of-the-gaps". That's because the Primary Protagonist of the argument is not an individual flesh & blood human, but the metaphysical abstraction : "Intelligent Life". (IL)
The authors concede that the current form of IL (homo sapiens) may die-out in the not-too-distrant-future, but that some form of Intelligent Life -- including self-reproducing & self-repairing robots -- will continue the mission of becoming-the-universe (my words) at the Omega Point. "When life has encompassed the entire universe and regulated all matter contained therein. Life begins to manipulate the dynamical evolution of the universe as a whole". In other words, the non-physical abstraction "Life", will essentially become God. When summarized in such terms, this sounds like Science Fiction. And it is, in the sense that conjectures about millions of years into the future are inherently fictional. But the authors support their speculations with state-of-the-art Physics, as of 1986. Most of which still holds-up to attempts at falsification.
I don't know if their positive assessment of the Future of Life, is correct. And I don't expect to be there to witness the apotheosis of Life. But it gives us a lot of positive plausible information to consider, when faced with hopeless negative apocalyptic worldviews. :cool:
Read about it but only very superificially - it basically gives a scientific spin to the Christianity's prophecy of the Second Coming - resurrections en masse, technologically achieved of course.
Quoting Gnomon
Yep, it's a refreshingly optimistic view of the future, not the plethora of hackneyed doom and gloom predictions we're so used to hearing/seeing on TV and, don't forget, the lone individual on the street corner carrying a placard with the words "GAME OVER".
I wonder which of the two futures will come true? It doesn't hurt to look at the bright side, does it? :chin:
Yes. The current mood, especially in the US, and on this forum, is pretty dismal. For example, it seems that the majority of movies in recent years have an end-of-world or post-apocalyptic theme. But downtrodden people are still motivated enough to push for positive change, despite their long history of struggling against all odds. So, for privileged people like me, pessimism is pretty petty.
Physicist Neils Bohr, channeling Yogi Berra, once said “Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future!” Typically, like weathermen, our future forecasts are merely short-term projections of current conditions. But history has a roller-coaster track-record of ups & downs. That's why I prefer to take the long-term view of Hegel, who despite the short-term oppositions, derived a somewhat optimistic view of the future.
That's because he inferred an overall tendency or positive principle, the "World Soul", which keeps the undulating universe on an upward track. In my personal worldview, that positive trend or principle is labeled "EnFormAction". It's similar to Plato's Logos, in that it's not just aimless Energy, but also the Rational power to enform. It's not just Tele-, it's also -Logical. :joke:
Hegelian dialectic :
an interpretive method in which the contradiction between a proposition (thesis) and its antithesis is resolved at a higher level of truth (synthesis)
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/hegelian-dialectic
EnFormAction :
Logos & Spirit
Logos …..pattern forming
Spirit …….active principle
En ………..direction, intention
Form …….meaningful pattern
Action …...creative force
COSMIC PROGRESSION
That seems to also be the implication of physicists Barrow & Tipler in their 1985 book : The Anthropic Cosmological Principle. It was a sort of scientific update of Teilhard deChardin's Omega Point theory. However, in my personal worldview, the Alpha Point or First Cause is also Pantheistic, or as I prefer : PanEnDeistic. The "Omega" term is sufficiently suggestive & ambiguous, that many interpretations would fit the tenuous evidence at the current mid-point of Evolution. So, I don't pretend to know exactly where this evolving organism is headed. :smile:
The Anthropic Cosmological Principle : blog post
http://bothandblog7.enformationism.info/page10.html
I can't parse how a deity becomes one or merges with the universe? Do you mean like a cyborg, one of the predicted futures of humanity when man and machine become symbionts?
Quoting Gnomon
That's a pretty nice way of looking at it. Yes, there are peaks and valleys, like a sinusoidal wave but the wave itself has an upward trajectory. :up:
Quoting 180 Proof
God Became The Universe
[quote=Wikipedia]The belief that God became the Universe is a theological doctrine that has been developed several times historically, and holds that the creator of the universe actually became the universe[/quote]
How? What does that mean?
I don't understand what you're asking, Fool. You've quoted my take on pandeism and a wiki too. I can't spoon-feed this metaphysical paradox any better than this:
[quote=180 Pro0f's *pandeist fairytale* (in sum)]0. Deity (Boltzmann brain?) ...
[i]1. Deity becomes – fluctuates until symmetry breaks – not-Deity aka "planck universe".
2. "Non-planck universe" begins @maximum degrees temperature & density rapidly – explosively ("Big Bang") – expanding as it cools off
3. Cosmic + thermodynamic entropy.[/i] (WE ARE nowHERE.)
[i]4. "Non-planck universe" ends eventually – dissipates completely – having become an absolute zero degrees vacuum.
5. Absolute zero degrees vacuum – unbroken symmetry restored – is indistinguishable from Deity.
0. "Omega point" > the universe (or multiverse) constitutes memories (or dreaming) of Deity[/i] (Boltzmann brain?)[/quote]
This is how I imagine, even contemplate (hyper-fractal, strange loop-like), Spinoza's 'natura naturans sub specie durationis'. :fire:
Quoting 180 Proof
:chin:
They seem to think that human culture will continue to evolve in intelligence and causal power, until their technological descendants become almost omniscient and omnipotent. For the details, you'll have to read some of the Omega Point theories of deChardin or Tipler, to see how they propose the transition from non-deity to deity.
In my worldview though, the deity -- whatever else S/he might be -- is, and must be, eternal (BEING ; Brahman ; Tao), always existed and always will. It's our temporary world that is contingent and emerging. Also, the notion of a deity "merging" with its creation may be misleading. In my view, the so-called deity is not a physical thing, but instead the timeless immaterial Potential for enforming (creating) physical things. So, the merging was from the top-down, and from the beginning to the end, not as an after-thought, or bottom-up evolution. The deity doesn't evolve, but the creation does.
Some versions of Deism do indeed imagine that the Creator "became" or "merged with" the Creation [1]. But the ACP is not overtly Deistic, only implicitly. On the other hand, in my view, the Creative Principle is PanEnDeistic. Which means that the Deus has always existed, but for some unfathomable reason, decided to Enform a temporary experiment in world-building. In that case, the "how" was probably like any other act of En-form-ation : eternal Potential (Platonic Form-giver) actualized the concept of an evolving world, maybe with "let there be light", or with "Shazaam!" or "Bang!", and suddenly a world (Matter) appeared in the midst of nothing (Space), and the clock of Time began ticking. "Voila!"
The rest of the story is pretty much as the typical creation myths, and evolutionary theories, and Big Bang theories have laid it out. Of course, I was not there to witness the creation. And I have no divine revelation. So I'm just making it up as I go along, by piecing together bits & bytes of previous stories. And by binding it all together with the Enformationism Thesis, based on the latest scientific hypotheses, that shape-shifting Information (power to enform) is the essence of Reality. [2] :cool:
PanEnDeism :
"Panendeism is an ontological position that explores the interrelationship between God (The Cosmic Mind) and the known attributes of the universe. Combining aspects of Panentheism and Deism, Panendeism proposes an idea of God that both embodies the universe and is transcendent of its observable physical properties."
https://panendeism.org/faq-and-questions/
Note --- PED is distinguished from general Deism, by its more specific notion of the G*D/Creation relationship; and from PanDeism by its understanding of G*D as eternal creative Potential, rather than the emergent Soul of Nature. Enformationism is a Panendeistic worldview.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page16.html
Enformationism :
[i]* As a scientific paradigm, the thesis of Enformationism is intended to be an update to the obsolete 19th century paradigm of Materialism. Since the recent advent of Quantum Physics, the materiality of reality has been watered down. Now we know that matter is a form of energy, and that energy is a form of Information.
* As a religious philosophy, the creative power of Enform-ationism is envisioned as a more realistic version of the antiquated religious notions of Spiritualism. Since our world had a beginning, it's hard to deny the concept of creation. So, an infinite deity is proposed to serve as both the energetic Enformer and the malleable substance of the enformed world.[/i]
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html
Note -- If you don't like my story, try this one :
[1] God's Debris: A Thought Experiment is a 2001 novella by Dilbert creator Scott Adams.
God's Debris espouses a philosophy based on the idea that the simplest explanation tends to be the best. It proposes a form of pandeism and monism, postulating that an omnipotent god annihilated himself in the Big Bang, because an omniscient entity would already know everything possible except his own lack of existence, and exists now as the smallest units of matter and the law of probability, or "God's debris".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God%27s_Debris
. . . . or this one :
[2] The EnFormAction Hypothesis :
http://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page23.html
Quoting 180 Proof
That description sounds like the God's Debris story, in which the deity, due to a bad case of eternal ennui, made like an Islamic suicide bomber, and blew herself into smithereens. Except that in this case, the "debris" is not simply splattered blood & guts, but is our complexly evolving universe. Which, instead of dissipating into thin air (xaos redux), has developed into the highly organized & beloved world of living thinking beings, in which we now live & breathe & sh*t & love.
For me, Deism was a rather vague & pointless alternative to the faux certainties of traditional Theism. And PanDeism is somewhat fatalistic, in that "what you see is all you get", and leaves the beginning & end of the story unresolved. Moreover, your notion of PanChaos pictures our world as "in a state of complete confusion and disorder". But I don't see it that way. I doubt that Steven Pinker is a Deist of any prefix. But he has written some well-informed & erudite books that dispel the cynicism of the intelligentsia class, and the despair of the downtrodden class. They include, The Better Angels of Our Nature, Enlightenment Now, and most recently : Rationality. These works illustrate that our world, which began in Chaos (Bomb Bang), but is now evolving & progressing, not only in technology (cybernetics), but also in moral progress and social justice. Fake news, from both Left & Right, focus their spotlight on the ugly underside of reality, ignoring the beauties of the upside.
Therefore, as I see it, the world is far from perfect, but it is also far from worthless debris. So, the Deus, whatever its other qualities, is not an Evil Genius, or a bored know-it-all. Instead, it's more like a scientist experimenting with the volatile alchemy of random Chance & rational Choice (determinism & freewill) -- what could go wrong? Anyway, our world is a living growing maturing organism with innate Potential for both Good and Bad. Therefore, instead of hopelessly killing myself, I'm going to stick around to see what happens next, in the unfinished Story of Life. :joke:
[1] God's Debris : A Thought Experiment is a 2001 novella by Dilbert creator Scott Adams.
God's Debris espouses a philosophy based on the idea that the simplest explanation tends to be the best. It proposes a form of pandeism and monism, postulating that an omnipotent god annihilated himself in the Big Bang, because an omniscient entity would already know everything possible except his own lack of existence, and exists now as the smallest units of matter and the law of probability, or "God's debris".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God%27s_Debris
Note -- I went through the stages of Agnosticism, then Deism, then PanDeism, and am currently in the unstable state of PanEnDeism. But so far, I have avoided the pitfalls of Atheism and Cynicism. Like the world around me, I continue to evolve.
Sorry. I seem to have wandered off into sermonizing. :roll:
1. Deism: God as creator (of the universe) but who doesn't intervene.
2. Pantheism: All is God.
3. Pandeism: God became one with the universe [Deism + Pantheism].
4. Panentheism: All is God but God is much more. [Pantheism + God transcends all].
5. Panendeism: Deism + Panentheism = (Your) Enformationism
Ultimately, in the very distant future, God will come into existence (The Omega Point).
:chin:
It's all good (as the kids say). :up:
I read God's Debris about twenty years ago and enjoyed the speculations. Not an influence really. My outlook is tragic by comparison, even absurdist, but not pessimistic. As Freddy points out: tiny, partial, perspectives like ours cannot grasp or assess the whole of reality / nature (e.g. Spinoza & Zapffe, Camus & Rosset say as much too). The cosmos ends well with the 'deity reborn' in my speculation; and the implications for 'us' or nature are simply unknowable, especially since 'we' (sapient sentients everywhere in the universe) are not the protagonists of this absolute epic, just among the countless, infinitesmal means to the ultimate end (i.e. "omega point"). Pandeism, for me, is only speculative and a recent position (derived from both classical atomism & spinozism and yet because it's simpler to convey than either of them) adopted for the sake of those arguments wherein I'm challenged to explain what I'm for once what I'm against (re: antitheism), and my reasoning, fails to be refuted by a religious / theistic interlocator. Epistemically, I am agnostic about this pandeity.
:death: :flower:
Quoting TheMadFool
In Teilhard deChardin's Omega Point, the future-god was imagined as the prophesied return of The Cosmic Christ. But his fellow Catholics were not impressed by his tainting of Faith with scientific evidence. First century Christians expected Jesus to return in their lifetime. So the idea of a trillion year delay is not very supportive of fragile Faith.
Likewise, the Anthropic Cosmological Principle seems to be a stretch, if it is intended to reinforce any religious belief. The book took it on faith that the Big Bang was the creative act (insemination) of an eternal deity. And it seemed to view Evolution as as sort of gestation process to give birth to the Son of God. The authors didn't say that in so many words, but it's my takeaway.
My own worldview is also based on the axiom of an eternal creative force. but remains agnostic about the deity's specific intentions [1]. I label that model as "PanEnDeism" because our current understanding of physics is information-centric. In that case, both the Creator (Enformer) and the Creation (Enformed) are essentially the same stuff : infinite Potential-to-Be. And Evolution is the creative work of enforming, as performed by EnFormAction. In other words, it's all Information from Energy to Matter to Mind, and from Alpha to Omega.
That said, I still must label myself as Agnostic, because my personal worldview is just an educated guess, not a revealed prophecy. And it's not beholden to any religious tradition. So, this rather abstract model of Reality does not provide any of the emotionally appealing mythical elements, that would serve as a popular religion. It's more along the lines of Plato's LOGOS, and Lao Tse's TAO :meh:
PS__I did at one time play around with the idea of writing a mythical version of the Intelligent Evolution postulate : beginning with a self-fertilized goddess. Unfortunately, I have no talent for dramatic or romantic Fiction, and I have scruples against pandering to popular beliefs. So, I'll have to leave the myth-making to someone else. Any volunteers?
[1] One possible scenario imagines that the disembodied deity created a material world as a way to know itself through the metaphorical eyes of millions of little gods. But, for now, I am resigned to remain a Mysterian regarding the Creation. Although I do have a theory about the emergence of Life & Consciousness. Which is more amenable to philosophical & scientific methods than the God Problem.
Mysterian :
Martin Garner -- "I belong to a group of thinkers known as the 'mysterians.' It includes Roger Penrose, Thomas Nagel, John Searle, Noam Chomsky, Colin McGinn, and many others who believe that no computer, of the kind we know how to build, will ever become self-aware and acquire the creative powers of the human mind. I believe there is a deep mystery about how consciousness emerged as brains became more complex, and that neuroscientists are a long long way from understanding how they work."
http://martin-gardner.org/MYSTERIAN.html
:ok: ... very Hegel and Bergson, Whitehead and Heidegger, and perhaps David Bohm too, which seems, IMO, an idealist analogue for the epicurean-spinozist pandeism I've proposed (mostly woo-free) above.
For our descendents' sakes, let's hope not. I think 'human-level artificial intelligence' without any unnecessary atavistic, evolutionary-baggage like the metacognitive bottleneck of "affective self-awareness" would be optimal.
At least when the flesh is healthy (which ignorance makes more difficult.)
Where have you seen a similar perplexed perspective? Are you referring to PanEnDeism, or to Mysterianism, or simply to Inquisitive Agnosticism? :smile:
"All I know is that I know nothing"
___attributed to Socrates
This is technically a shorter paraphrasing of Socrates' statement, "I neither know nor think I know" (in Plato, Apology 21d).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_that_I_know_nothing
Humanoid descendants without "self-awareness"??? Where's the fun in that? Our self-oriented egos may be an atavistic bottleneck. But at least it allows us a perspective from which to critique the non-me world. A rock on a mountain cannot see the stars, because it's not self-motivated to look up. :cool:
PS___Artificial Intelligence without a self-image would also lack free-will. Because it would not be able to distinguish Self from Non-self. Hence, no firm grounds for making choices. That might make a good slave Robot, but a rather boring Person. Besides, with no self-perspective, those arrogant AI would not see us metacognitively-confused NI (Natural Intelligences) as ancestors. Perhaps only as insignificant bits of their highly-evolved post-genetic code. :joke:
I didn't say that.
I disagree with this.
(3) "Non-self" would be whatever AI "observed" that it could not control or it would have to use its executive functions to manipulate. (2) Such a system maps its environment to include itself ("self-image") as a token which is also a parameter (or axis) of its interactivity with (orientation to) its environment. (1) As far as "free will" goes, a compatibilist might say: 'as long as the machine is free of coercion by another agent, its "will" – executive functioning – is, for all intents and purposes, "free" no less so than that of a human (i.e. a deterministic, complex, ecology-bound, information-processing system)'. Btw, these three capabilities already have been implemented in a range of autonomous industrial military & commercial robots.
What I mean by 'atavistic ... metacognitive bottleneck of self-awareness' is an intelligent system which develops a "theory of mind" as humans do based on a binary "self-other" model wherein classes of non-selves are otherized to varying degrees (re: 'self-serving' (i.e. confabulation-of-the-gaps) biases, prejudices, ... tribalism, etc). Ergo: human-level intelligence without anthropocentric defects (unless we want all of our Frankenstein, Skynet-Terminator, Matrix nightmares to come true).
That seems to be a semantic quibble. A morally responsible agent maps its environment, with Self as a as a You Are Here "token", in order to properly execute its cybernetic responsibilities. In other words, executive self-control must precede other-control. Yes?
Cybernetics :
Margaret Mead emphasised the role of cybernetics as "a form of cross-disciplinary thought which made it possible for members of many disciplines to communicate with each other easily in a language which all could understand".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cybernetics
Executive :
of, relating to, or suited for carrying out plans, duties, etc.:
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/executive
Note -- by controlling others
Your quibble, G, not mine. The rest is non sequitur.
? :chin: You say it as if it's (self-awareness) is a bad thing. Why, may I ask?
Quoting 180 Proof
:fire: Moral of the story: I'm gonna need a bigger boat.
By the way, very Buddhist (anatt?).
It's everywhere. You just have to be on the lookout for it.
Righto!
Great scene, great cast, great movie. My little brother and I had nightmares all summer long after seeing Jaws at a Long Island, NY drive-in with my (crazy) uncle when it first came out. :monkey: :up:
??? No idea what this reply has to do with my previous post.
Good to know I brought back bitter-sweet memories. :smile:
Quoting 180 Proof
Self-awareness creates the self-other distinction and that, according to Buddhism is the final boss in this game we call life. Ego-death? Ah, but you don't buy into that idea, believing instead in Ego-transcendence or something like that. Do you mind jogging my memory too?
This post should do. And this post too. Lastly, Fool, this post on mysticism to aufheben (i.e. sublimate) the other two.
I get your meaning now: yes, AI without 'self-awareness' (and thereby without all of the defects which come with having an ego-self). :up:
:up:
If determinism is incompatible with free will, it seems impossible that any AI, no matter how advanced, will ever possess free will. I'm assuming AI is going to be deterministic systems. Can they be anything else?
Side note: Free will and randomness, can they be distinguished in any real sense?
Is that (nonlinear) the secret to compatibilism. Could you elaborate on it if it's not too much to ask. Thanks.
How do we reconcile determinism with free will, as must happen in compatibilism?
:ok: I'm intrigued by your statement: deterministic nonlinear dynamic systems.
It's a compendium of concepts (determinism, nonlinearity, dynamism, system). I was just wondering which of these is the key to compatabilism.
Good advice! I don't quite like the idea of relying on predigested material. Isn't that someone else's shit? :grin:
Good day señor!