Can computers engage in concept-formation?

[Bowzer]

Your argument here seem to be circular. You are assuming that a robot cannot be alive and thus cannot be conscious. But that rests on the idea that only biological entities can be alive, which has not been proven. Just because all of the examples of life we have are biological does not mean that non-biological life is impossible.

What the heck is "non-biological life?"

My argument is not that machines will never be conscious because of how I define "machine." I have stressed time and time again that all of the evidence that we have at hand points to the fact that we only find consciousness where we find life. You can speculate about arbitrary future possibilities all that you want, just admit that it's arbitrary. I, on the other hand, will continue to form my generalizations based on evidence and until we have evidence of non-living things being conscious, I will form no such generalizations.

[Godless Capitalist]

So is there no room in Objectivist thinking for speculation? Either something has to be proven to exist OR it is completely arbitrary and not worth thinking about even theoretically? That seems like a false dichotomy to me.

Let me try an example. Until about 10 years ago the only planets we knew about were those orbiting our sun. We had no evidence that there were extrasolar planets (planets around other stars). Should astronomers just have said "There is no evidence for extrasolar planets, therefore we should just ignore that speculation"? They didn't. They reasoned that since our solar system has planets and our star is not unusual, therefore other stars might have planets. Eventually they found them and now extrasolar planet research is a booming field of astronomy.

The approach you seem to be suggesting would make much of science impossible (not to mention developing new technology, which relies heavily on speculation). It's not enough to sit and wait for evidence; you generally need to speculate about what might be out there and design an instrument specifically to look for it. (Sometimes of course you don't find it because your speculation was wrong.)

Nonbiological life would be entities that have all of the properties we associate with life, but based on structures other than organic molecules. For example, it might be possible for life forms to be based on silicon. We have no reason to think that either life or consciousness MUST be based on organic molecules; just because all the examples we have are so based is not proof that any other base is impossible or even unreasonable.

[Bowzer]

So is there no room in Objectivist thinking for speculation? Either something has to be proven to exist OR it is completely arbitrary and not worth thinking about even theoretically? That seems like a false dichotomy to me.

There is no room in Objectivism for the arbitrary. "Arbitrary" means "devoid of evidence" and this exactly describes the state of artificial intelligence and robotics today with respect to non-living conscious beings. As Dr. Peikoff identifies, arbitrary claims are "automatically invalidated." (OPAR, p.164) So even though I am familiar with computer models of cognition and robots that possess optical sensors and walk, I realize that they present no evidence whatsoever of non-living things being conscious. Neither do sci-fi movies or someone's imagination in case anyone is wondering...

I am certainly not presenting a false dichotomy between proven knowledge and arbitrary speculation with nothing in between. There is a progression from possible to probable to certain (see OPAR pp. 171-81). But arbitrary claims fit nowhere in this progression, that is, they represent a statement that is altogether disconnected from the path of knowledge. Non-biological life, non-living conscious beings and the statement "there are furry creatures on Mars that speak French" are neither possible, probable nor certain.

Pure speculation, i.e., giving cognitive credence to arbitrary claims, is exactly the opposite of what scientists do. You may be getting this notion from Kuhn (who got it from Popper). Such claims have no relationship to reality and you should imagine that this presents difficulties to the scientific method. Scientists begin with evidence and a universal law of gravitation gave evidence or grounds for astronomers to consider planets orbiting stars other than the sun. In other words, it was possible knowledge at that time (now it is certain). This is not analogous to your claims for non-biological life or for non-living conscious beings since there is no evidence whatsoever for either. In fact, as I have argued in this thread, all of the evidence that we have points to an inextricable link between life and consciousness.

[stephen_speicher]

So is there no room in Objectivist thinking for speculation? Either something has to be proven to exist OR it is completely arbitrary and not worth thinking about even theoretically? That seems like a false dichotomy to me.

Not only that, it is also utterly silly. But why would you (mis)characterize "Objectivist thinking" in such a manner? There is an epistemological continuum which goes from the possible to the probable and culminates in certainty, and the arbitrary lies outside of this continuum. Speculation is nothing more than the possible for which a meager amount of evidence exists, but for which there is no contradictory evidence. By contrast, for the arbitrary there does not exist any evidence at all, which disqualifies the arbitrary as having any epistemological significance. You might want to read Chapter 5 in OPAR.

The approach you seem to be suggesting would make much of science impossible (not to mention developing new technology, which relies heavily on speculation). It's not enough to sit and wait for evidence; you generally need to speculate about what might be out there and design an instrument specifically to look for it. (Sometimes of course you don't find it because your speculation was wrong.)

You seem to be using the notion of "evidence" in a somewhat peculiar way. Do you think that we design new instruments based on no reason at all?

Nonbiological life would be entities that have all of the properties we associate with life, but based on structures other than organic molecules. For example, it might be possible for life forms to be based on silicon. We have no reason to think that either life or consciousness MUST be based on organic molecules; just because all the examples we have are so based is not proof that any other base is impossible or even unreasonable.

Well, there certainly exists a lot of good technical reasons that make silicon-based life rather unlikely, but when or if we find it then we expand our view of "life" to accomodate such a non-organic form. What's the problem?

[stephen_speicher]

...

I most often do not read ahead in threads, but here was a good reason for doing so. Bowzer seems to have already addressed all the relevant issues. Sorry.

[Bowzer]

I most often do not read ahead in threads, but here was a good reason for doing so. Bowzer seems to have already addressed all the relevant issues. Sorry.

Surely such intersubjective agreement is proof that what we said is true!

Seriously though, it's always good to hear important points stated another way.

[Godless Capitalist]

In fact, as I have argued in this thread, all of the evidence that we have points to an inextricable link between life and consciousness.

Where is the "inextricable link"? How can you prove that only life can have consciousness? It seems that you are trying to claim that the idea of non-living (artificial) consciousness is not just abitrary, but impossible. I understand your argument for arbitrariness, but not impossibility. The evidence we have seems to me to support the idea only that consciousness requires a very complex structure (aka brain) not that that structure must be organic.

[Godless Capitalist]

Scientists begin with evidence and a universal law of gravitation gave evidence or grounds for astronomers to consider planets orbiting stars other than the sun. In other words, it was possible knowledge at that time (now it is certain). This is not analogous to your claims for non-biological life or for non-living conscious beings since there is no evidence whatsoever for either.

There is no evidence right now that Earthlike planets exist outside our solar system, yet scientists and engineers are designing a telescope to look for them. It's a reasonable speculation based on the fact that such planets do exist in our solar system. It's also a reasonable speculation that life might be based on something other than organic compounds. Stephen seems to recognize this; is he wrong?

[Godless Capitalist]

You seem to be using the notion of "evidence" in a somewhat peculiar way. Do you think that we design new instruments based on no reason at all?

No, of course not. But sometimes the reason is pretty speculative, to the point where people like Bowzer write it off as arbitrary.

Well, there certainly exists a lot of good technical reasons that make silicon-based life rather unlikely, but when or if we find it then we expand our view of "life" to accomodate such a non-organic form. What's the problem?

No problem; I agree. The problem for astrobiology is to try to expand our view of life beforehand to try to figure out what types of nonorganic life might be out there and how we would recognize them.

[Bowzer]

Where is the "inextricable link"? How can you prove that only life can have consciousness? It seems that you are trying to claim that the idea of non-living (artificial) consciousness is not just abitrary, but impossible. I understand your argument for arbitrariness, but not impossibility. The evidence we have seems to me to support the idea only that consciousness requires a very complex structure (aka brain) not that that structure must be organic.

OK, you tell me what you know that should convince me that consciousness doesn’t require a brain (or let’s even extend this argument to the possession of a nervous system)? Where have we ever found consciousness apart from a nervous system? What has ever suggested that consciousness can exist apart from a nervous system? Now answer me this: where have we ever found a nervous system apart from a living organism?

I do believe that consciousness cannot exist apart from life. The sole purpose of consciousness for organisms possessing it is to keep said organism alive. A conscious but non-living being would be in the same quandry that Miss Rand’s immortal, indestructible robot would be in: conscious? what for? It need not locomote to gain food. It need not feel pleasure or pain since nothing is for or against its life. It need not gain knowledge since no action at all is required for its continued existence.

I will grant you that functionalism (the view that consciousness is a kind of “software” that can run on many kinds of “hardware”) is the predominant view of most cognitive scientists. And to a certain extent it is true: insects have a very different biological makeup from mammals yet both possess nervous systems (at root, the systems are startingly—to me at least—similar). But that is not what you nor the majority of functionalists are holding. That version of functionalism, i.e., that anything can possibly produce consciousness, is preposterous and there is no evidence at all to support it. Some wackos have gone so far as to claim that beer can pyramids or nations of people can reproduce consciousness! There is a very fine defining line that cannot be crossed when discussing the broader causal context that gives rise to consciousness and that line is life. I am maintaining that there is enough evidence to draw that line firmly in the sand right now.

Consider this analogy: non-living things cannot digest. Sure, you can add acids to a test tube, throw a piece of cheeseburger in there and watch it dissolve. But that is not digestion in a tube. Digestion—by its nature—involves the assimilation of nutrients into the body of a living organism in order to further that organism’s life. By analogy, you cannot get consciousness—or the processes that give rise to it—in a tube. Consciousness—by its nature—is the faculty guiding the actions of an organism in the sustenance of its life. And, no, this doesn’t make my argument circular. I have already referred my opponents to the plethora of literature produced by biologists and neuroscientists that supports my claim. I have yet to hear anyone disclaim this evidence or to give counter-evidence collected from non-living things. When no evidence can be offered to support a claim, that claim is arbitrary.

[Bowzer]

There is no evidence right now that Earthlike planets exist outside our solar system, yet scientists and engineers are designing a telescope to look for them.

And their venture is not based on arbitrary speculation since we know many of the conditions that give rise to life and we know that these conditions can exist elsewhere in the universe.

Stephen seems to recognize this; is he wrong?

I believe that he is making the same point that I am: a claim is arbitrary when no evidence can be offered in its support; once evidence has been obtained, the claim can be evaluated accordingly. Your claim that non-biological life is possible is arbitrary since you have not offered any evidence against which we can evaluate it.

[tommyedison]

OK, you tell me what you know that should convince me that consciousness doesn’t require a brain (or let’s even extend this argument to the possession of a nervous system)? Where have we ever found consciousness apart from a nervous system? What has ever suggested that consciousness can exist apart from a nervous system? Now answer me this: where have we ever found a nervous system apart from a living organism?

Centuries ago no one would have thought that life could exist in unicellular, not visible by naked eye organisms. Wherever life had been found, it had been found in multicellular, visible state. Would it have been wrong to suppose at that time that life could exist in a state where it is not visible by the naked eye?

I do believe that consciousness cannot exist apart from life. The sole purpose of consciousness for organisms possessing it is to keep said organism alive. A conscious but non-living being would be in the same quandry that Miss Rand’s immortal, indestructible robot would be in: conscious? what for? It need not locomote to gain food. It need not feel pleasure or pain since nothing is for or against its life. It need not gain knowledge since no action at all is required for its continued existence.

We do not act to survive, we act to live. A conscious but immortal indestructible robot is similar to a human being who cannot die and cannot be destroyed. Would you say that that human being has no purpose to be alive? That it cannot feel pleasure and pain?

[Bowzer]

Would it have been wrong to suppose at that time that life could exist in a state where it is not visible by the naked eye?

I’m sure that our great ancestors had their share of problems with ants and such. They also saw tall trees. This gave them observations of living creatures across a wide range of scales. I’m quite sure that it was evident to them that the existence of life was not causally connected to the size of an organism, i.e., there were no grounds to rule out very tiny living things. In other words, Hooke had reason to believe that the scale of the size of living organisms extends beyond man’s unaided perception. This scenario is not analogous to my position on consciousness if that is what you were implying.

We do not act to survive, we act to live. A conscious but immortal indestructible robot is similar to a human being who cannot die and cannot be destroyed. Would you say that that human being has no purpose to be alive? That it cannot feel pleasure and pain?

I have pointed out elsewhere that immortality is not just the extension of life; it is non-life, i.e., death. I’m not going to elaborate on this since it is quite clearly stated in OPAR (pp. 209-11).

[stephen_speicher]

No, of course not.

Okay. But, based on what you wrote, it sure seemed as if you were using "speculation" as something not based on any evidence at all.

But sometimes the reason is pretty speculative, to the point where people like Bowzer write it off as arbitrary.

I admit to not having read all of the posts, but I do not recall Bowzer doing that. Could it be that, just as I did, Bowzer interpreted your "speculation" to mean that for which there is no evidence? The latter is just another way of saying "arbitrary."

[stephen_speicher]

I believe that he is making the same point that I am: a claim is arbitrary when no evidence can be offered in its support; once evidence has been obtained, the claim can be evaluated accordingly. Your claim that non-biological life is possible is arbitrary since you have not offered any evidence against which we can evaluate it.

Yes, it is true that Godless Capitalist has not provided any evidence in support of non-organic life, which is certainly surprising since it is he who has so frequently raised the possibility. But, regardless, some meager evidence does exist to favor the proposition, though the evidence against it, while not contradictory, does make non-organic life rather unlikely. Silicon's proximity to carbon in the Periodic table (it is just below it) has some significance, and silcon, like carbon, can form long chains, which itself is thought to be an essential for a widely-based life-form. The arguments against silicon, such as bonding strength, stability, lack of double bonds, etc., can all be countered by reasonable scientific arguments, which leaves us with some meager evidence that says that silicon-based life is possible, but not probable.

[stephen_speicher]

There is no evidence right now that Earthlike planets exist outside our solar system, yet scientists and engineers are designing a telescope to look for them. It's a reasonable speculation based on the fact that such planets do exist in our solar system.

This is an example of your misuse of "speculation" as being based on something other than "evidence." We know that stars exist similar to our own, and that Jupiter-like planets have been identified in more than 125 stars in less than the past decade. Further, we have a decent sense of the means by which our solar system was formed, and it is thought that a giant planet such as Jupiter helped in making us Earth-like by absorbing bodies like comets and asteroids before they hit Earth. Combining just these is evidence, albeit still speculative.

[Bowzer]

Yes, it is true that Godless Capitalist has not provided any evidence in support of non-organic life, which is certainly surprising since it is he who has so frequently raised the possibility. But, regardless, some meager evidence does exist to favor the proposition, though the evidence against it, while not contradictory, does make non-organic life rather unlikely.

For the record, I was arguing against something called "non-biological life" and I still haven't the faintest clue about what was meant by this phrase. I figured that Godless Capitalist was arguing for completely artificial life forms which he has done in other threads. I wouldn't, for example, say that non-organic life is an arbitrary speculation.

[stephen_speicher]

For the record, I was arguing against something called "non-biological life" and I still haven't the faintest clue about what was meant by this phrase. I figured that Godless Capitalist was arguing for completely artificial life forms which he has done in other threads. I wouldn't, for example, say that non-organic life is an arbitrary speculation.

Thanks for the clarification. I took his "non-biological" as meaning "non-organic," but considering that Godless Capitalist does not see his robot as mimicking life, I would now guess his "non-biological life" to stand for anything that even just looks like life. But, it is best if Godless Capitalist himself makes clear just what he means by the term.

[Godless Capitalist]

I would now guess his "non-biological life" to stand for anything that even just looks like life.

No, what I mean is anything that fits Ayn Rand's definition: "Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action." That would apply to silicon critters, sufficiently complex robots, whatever. But that takes us back to the "Life" thread, so I will reply there.

[amagi]

Bowzer wrote

You can speculate about arbitrary future possibilities all that you want, just admit that it's arbitrary. I, on the other hand, will continue to form my generalizations based on evidence and until we have evidence of non-living things being conscious, I will form no such generalizations.

Assuming that you mean what you say then you are here stating explicitly that until there exists an actual example of a conscious non-living thing then the entire concept is arbitrary and invalid. Even if you did not mean this literally, this is what your standard of "the burden of proof" amounts to. Despite the fact that you have in this very thread identified the progression from possible to probable to certain, you are demanding that a concept be certain before you even admit it is possible. But there can be ample evidence that a thing is possible before any actual example of that thing exists, and I believe there is more than enough evidence to show that non-living consciousness is possible. Not probable, certainly not certain, but definitely possible.

I am arguing for something even stronger than the relationship of consciousness to the brain. I am arguing for its inextricable link to life as such. (I am not arguing that this is part of Objectivism but I definitely consider it to be compatible with Objectivism.)

Consciousness is a sub process of life (like digestion or respiration). It exists due to its evolutionary value for those organisms possessing it. Its sole purpose is for value-satisfaction. I still fail to see how you could ever tie the faculty of consciousness to something that is not alive.

Clearly, life was necessary for consciousness to come about through evolution. Consciousness could never occur naturally without life. But evolution is no longer in charge. We are.

As I have said before, your argument amounts to nothing more than this--there is a correlation between consciousness and life. Every example of consiousness we know of occurs in a living thing (as you continually repeat).

But you then proceed to say, based entirely on this argument, that consiousness therefore cannot exist without life. In other words, you have clearly said that the concept is not only arbitrary but impossible.

This is logically unsound. You simply cannot say that two things must occur together based only on correlation--therefore you cannot say that the concept is impossible.

all of the evidence that we have points to an inextricable link between life and consciousness.

This is simply not true. All of the evidence points to a link (a correlation) between life and consciousness. The evidence does not however make this link "inextricable." You demand evidence from others yet you have never supported this claim with any evidence that goes beyond correlation. All you have shown is that life and the evolution or natural occurance of consciousness are inextricable.

To show an inextricable link between consciousness and life you would have to know enough about the CAUSAL properties of the brain that give rise to consciousness to say that they cannot be reproduced in something other than a brain. Neither you nor anyone else knows this. It is in fact possible (as opposed to arbitrary) that the link might be "inextricable," but to assert that you already know with certainty that consciousness requires life is nonsense.

[amagi]

Now, since the concept of consciousness in a non-living organism is not "impossible," is it possible or merely arbitrary?

The evidence for the concept is this: we know that the brain is the biological organ that gives rise to consciousness, and we know that the brain's action is entirely the result of physical and chemical processes--of the mechanistic action of its cells, which are machines composed of inorganic and organic materials.

Therefore the causal powers of the brain that give rise to consciousness are due to physical, chemical processes.

Despite the vast amount of technical detail about the brain's function we know from the sciences of biology and chemistry, etc.--in broad terms the above statement describes the extent of our knowledge about the relationship between the brain and consciousness--and it suffices as evidence that non-living consciousness might be theoretically possible.

If we can learn which particular processes give rise to consciousness than we might be able to reproduce those processes in a machine that does not possess the other peripheral qualities of life, such as growth and reproduction of cells or liquid components or carbon-based organic molecules.

That's it.

That makes the concept possible and not arbitrary. In demanding further evidence you are only demanding a greater degree of certainty. It's as if you want someone to present some technical paper from a scientific journal proving the point, or to give an example of some prototype consious robot--but that's a ridiculous standard of proof, and it's completely out of context.

All that is needed is knowledge of the fundamental principles underlying our understanding of how the brain gives rise to consciousness. Cells are machines, and one day we will understand what it is about those machines that lets them get together and give rise to consciousness. It is not arbitrary to postulate that at that point, if not sooner, we might be able to produce machines of our own which accomplish the same thing.

Clearly this argument alone does not make the prospect certain, but it does enter it into the realm of possibility--of cognitive validity.

[Bowzer]

amagi, you have completely misunderstood my position (once again). I don't appreciate the way that you have mischaracterized me. If you have questions about what I meant, please ask me and perhaps I'll answer you.

Even if you don't want to ask questions, stop making assumptions about what I meant because you are consistenly mistaken.

[Bowzer]

I would like to hear from Objectivists who think that some thing could possess consciousness yet not be alive.

Do you believe that a conceptual consciousness can exist apart from life? How do you integrate this belief with what Objectivism has to say about consciousness and its purpose? I don’t believe that you can integrate this with the rest of your knowledge. If this is clear to you but you hesitate to believe that non-conceptual consciousness is just as fundamentally tied to life, what is so different about non-conceptual consciousness that makes this possible?

[amagi]

amagi, you have completely misunderstood my position (once again). I don't appreciate the way that you have mischaracterized me. If you have questions about what I meant, please ask me and perhaps I'll answer you.

Even if you don't want to ask questions, stop making assumptions about what I meant because you are consistenly mistaken.

Please explain how I have misunderstood your position. I fail to see how what I attributed to you is anything but an accurate representation of your own statements.

I am asking you sincerely, Bowzer, be specific about how I have "mischaracterized" you.

I do not think I did. I think you have been quite clear.

And notice that I did not simply explain my own "interpretation" of your positions. I presented a positive case for why the concept being discussed is possible as opposed to arbitrary or contradictory.

If your only response to that is, essentially, "you just don't get me," then I suppose we're through. But if you honestly feel that I have your own ideas wrong, then I would welcome a discussion of why.

I am certainly not accusing you at this point of being evasive in your response, but I must be clear about this--you have now accused me of some sort of consistent scheme of misrepresenting you, and you should be prepared to explain yourself rather than make dismissive assertions that do not contribute to the discussion like the one above. If you do in fact choose to explain yourself--wonderful.

I am trying to be thorough in this response because this has happened to me before on this forum. In the course of attempting to engage in a serious discussion of an idea, someone chose to respond to me by stating arbitrarily, with no explanation, that I was "misrepresenting" his views. That person never produced any defense of his accusation, or any evidence whatsoever that I had his statements wrong, despite accusing me several times of deliberately misrepresenting him--and the discussion was over.

I refuse to go through that again.

So please explain yourself.

[Bowzer]

As I have said before, your argument amounts to nothing more than this--there is a correlation between consciousness and life...You demand evidence from others yet you have never supported this claim with any evidence that goes beyond correlation.

I have never argued for correlation and I really have no idea where you could have interpreted me that way. I don't have a problem with people criticizing my views as long as they make an attempt to understand what I am saying. I don't believe that to be the case in your response(s).

Regardless, I am interested in seeing this thread become more relevant to the purpose of this board which is the dicussion of Ayn Rand's philosophy, Objectivism. The science on this topic is fascinating but even moreso is what Objectivism holds to be the nature of consciousness.