Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Can computers engage in concept-formation?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

I have never argued for correlation and I really have no idea where you could have interpreted me that way.

I see. That's peculiar Bowzer.

Didn't you say:

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.
Where have we ever found consciousness apart from a nervous system?
And you have no idea at all how I could have interpreted correlation from these statements?????

Please explain how this is not an argument from correlation.

Perhaps we are using different definitions of correlation.

"cum hoc ergo propter hoc: A fallacy of correlation that links events because they occur simultaneously; one asserts that because two events occur together they are causally related, and leaves no room for other factors that may be the cause(s) of the events."

When you say "A only occurs with B in all known examples" and conclude "A can therefore never occur without B," you are mistaken. In other words, you cannot say that B could never possibly occur without A because that is to hold your first premise (the empirical one) as an out-of-context absolute.

Therefore one cannot say that non-living consiousness is impossible based only on the fact that we have never "found consciousness apart from a nervous system." (I realize this is not the extent of your argument, but the point remains)

Now, if I were to say "A only occurs with B" but our knowledge is limited therefore "A might occur without B at some future date," that would be a totally arbitrary statement in the absence of any evidence to support it. But what I am arguing is that there is evidence that consciousness might occur without life, however broad and theoretical that evidence might be--it is still derived from our scientific knowledge of how the brain works. It is therefore possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 199
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

amagi: I share your frustration, and think you have made some excellent points that deserve proper responses. But I have accepted that sometimes I just have drop topics when I am getting unhelpful or even accusatory responses.

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?

If you look at it only from an evolutionary point of view, I agree with you. Conciousness evolved because it helps organisms survive. Objectivism's view of the "purpose" (really function, since "purpose" implies design) of consciousness makes sense in the context of existing living things.

However, I don't see how that makes it impossible to someday built a computer as complex as a human brain that could possess consciousness. It might not have any practical use for that consciousness (eg it might be like a human who is completely paralyzed and unable to act). I'll certainly agree that this idea is very speculative but why would it be impossible?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

I sympathize with you, for the very same reasons. I found it impossible to have a sustained discussion with him about these issues, and just gave up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bowzer, please explain how the statements of yours I quoted above do not represent an argument from correlation.

I've always argued from causality but anyway I'm not interested in pursuing this anymore. I would like to hear how people reconcile the view that consciousness isn't at root a biological function of living organisms or that cognition is an end-in-itself with Objectivism.

Philosophy gives us universal truths--principles that are true everywhere at every time. If you believe that we might create something in the future that has no practical use for its consciousness then you believe now that there isn't necessarily a practical use for consciousness. This contradicts Objectivism and I will show why later if my questions generate enough interest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you believe that we might create something in the future that has no practical use for its consciousness then you believe now that there isn't necessarily a practical use for consciousness.

I actually don't think this is an issue for philosophy; it's an issue for science. Evolutionary theory explains why certain characteristics evolve: because they make the organism more likely to survive and reproduce in its environment. The Objectivist explanation of the practical value of consciousness makes sense within that evolutionary context. For living entities that must act to maintain their lives consciousness is of course of great value; nobody is denying that.

But it does not follow logically that it is impossible for there ever to be an entity that is conscious but does not use that consciousness. Such an entity would almost certainly have to be created artificially, since it would not be likely to evolve by normal mechanisms. It would be outside both evolutionary theory and the context in which Objectivism discusses the value of consciousness.

(I should point out by the way that even naturally evolving organisms sometimes have characteristics that have no known function; they are vestigial, or left over from an ancestor that did have a use for it. Examples include the human appendix, and eyes in cave-dwelling organisms that never see light. In theory a species could evolve that has consciousness but no longer uses it; it would be a vestigial trait. It's hard to imagine how that would happen, but I don't think one can say its impossible.)

So to summarize I am saying:

a) I believe that we might create something in the future that has no practical use for its consciousness.

B) I believe now that existing conscious entities (ie living things) do have a practical use for consciousness.

c) I believe that consciousness isn't necessarily exclusively at root a biological function of living organisms.

d) From an evolutionary point of view, I don't believe that cognition is an end-in-itself. But I believe that an artificial purposeless cognition could be created, at least in theory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've always argued from causality but anyway I'm not interested in pursuing this anymore.

I tried to impress upon you the seriousness of accusing me of a long-term pattern of "misrepresenting" you. I tried to encourage you to have the maturity and intellectual courage to actually support your accusation with evidence. Any evidence.

You did not. Instead, you made your personal attack, ignored all of the substance of my arguments, and when challenged to defend your accusations, swiftly changed the subject and declared that you were no longer interested in the topic you had been debating at length, that smearing someone's honesty was too trivial a matter to warrant the effort of presenting any explanation whatever to justify yourself.

I am disappointed. But I am not surprised.

This is exactly the pattern of behavior exhibited by the individual I mentioned previously who chose to use this same "tactic" against me. (Mr. Speicher identified himself a few posts up)

But I will do you the courtesy you (and he) denied me. I will attempt to resolve this through rational argument instead of baseless smears.

Since you are still unable to see how your argument is based on nothing more than a correlation, I will make it even clearer.

We know that some processes in the brain are causally responsible for the existence of consciousness. But we do not know which processes. We know with certainty that not every process in or property of the brain is causally responsible for consciousness.

When you declare that you are certain that consciousness cannot exist without a brain:

Where have we ever found consciousness apart from a nervous system? 

...

where have we ever found a nervous system apart from a living organism?

...

I do believe that consciousness cannot exist apart from life.

You are declaring that consciousness cannot exist apart from all the processes of the brain. In other words, you are assuming that because all the processes of the brain occur with consciousness (the cum hoc part), they are all necessary for the existence of consciousness (the ergo propter hoc part).

But the truth is that you have no idea which processes are necessary and which are not. No neuroscientist in the world knows this. Therefore, you cannot logically claim that you know with certainty it is impossible (i.e. false and not merely arbitrary) that consciousness might exist without all the processes of the brain present, because you are committing a fallacy of correlation. (As to whether the concept is merely arbitrary or at least possible, I have already addressed that)

This is your argument. The fact that you were unable to identify the elementary error of logic you committed does not mean that when I name that error, I am putting words in your mouth or "misrepresenting" you or failing to understand your wisdom. It is you who have failed to understand your own premises.

But even if I was wrong, even if I had in fact misunderstood your argument, the reason it is totally inappropriate to resort to accusations of intellectual dishonesty (which is what you implied and what Mr. Speicher stated explicitly), with no attempt at all to determine whether I had simply misunderstood you or if instead I had some nefarious scheme to "misrepresent" you, is that honest errors are possible. The only way to resolve matters like this is through rational, civil discussion. You and especially Mr. Speicher should remember that.

Despite it all I am still willing to accept any explanation, any evidence from either of you as to how I "misrepresented" your respective arguments. As it stands you have produced none.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're right, amagi, you know my position better than I do. Thank you for making this so clear to me. You have never mischaracterized my view, I was wrong; instead you have only been on a higher intellectual plane than me this whole time. Makes sense now. I admit defeat.

Now that that's over let's talk about Objectivism shall we? That's why we all come here isn't it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not trying to be substantive; in fact I have purposefully stopped being substantive with you.

I do have to thank you for one thing and that's reminding me why I come to this BBS in the first place: I want to study Objectivism. There are many, many things that I want to learn and time is short, sir. Therefore, I carefully pick where I spend my time and when I see it being wasted I quit what I'm doing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Objectivist explanation of the practical value of consciousness makes sense within that evolutionary context...

But it does not follow logically that it is impossible for there ever to be an entity that is conscious but does not use that consciousness. Such an entity would almost certainly have to be created artificially, since it would not be likely to evolve by normal mechanisms. It would be outside both evolutionary theory and the context in which Objectivism discusses the value of consciousness.

Please point me to where in the literature the context of Objectivism's theory of consciousness is set within the boundaries of evolutionary theory.

Evolution is a scientific theory so how is this not an example of philosophy (which comes hierarchically prior to science) being delimited by a scientific discovery.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not trying to be substantive; in fact I have purposefully stopped being substantive with you.

You never started.

You made an personal accusation in a public forum which you have now declared needs no justification whatsoever, no evidence to support it at all, not even a pretense at an explanation on your part of any kind.

You never gave any such justification and clearly you never will.

So I agree--this is a waste of time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please point me to where in the literature the context of Objectivism's theory of consciousness is set within the boundaries of evolutionary theory.

Evolution is a scientific theory so how is this not an example of philosophy (which comes hierarchically prior to science) being delimited by a scientific discovery.

I don't really understand your questions.

What do you mean by "Objectivism's theory of consciousness"? I've just gone through the relevant sections of OPAR and TVOS. The most relevant statement seems to be "Consciousness--for those organisms which possess it--is the basic means of survival." (Ayn Rand, TVOS p. 18) To paraphrase this a bit, one could say "If an organism possesses consciousness, it uses that consciousness as its basic means of survival." Now, how do you get from that to "Only organisms can possess consciousness."?

All I meant is that evolutionary theory explains from a scientific viewpoint why organisms generally do not have capabilities that perform no useful function. Objectivism's discussion of the value of consciousness to living things agrees with that. However, neither evolutionary theory nor Objectivism (as far as I can tell) discuss non-living and/or non-purposeful consciousnesses. If there is something in the Objectivist literature, or in scientific literature, that supports your position, please let me know what it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What do you mean by "Objectivism's theory of consciousness"?

What does Objectivism hold the nature of consciousness to be, what it used for, how it is to be used, etc.? The answers to these questions are quite clearly stated in many places and they constitute a theory of consciousness.

To paraphrase this a bit, one could say "If an organism possesses consciousness, it uses that consciousness as its basic means of survival." Now, how do you get from that to "Only organisms can possess consciousness."?

Objectivism's theory of consciousness--because it is part of a philosophy--applies to all consciousnesses, past, present and future. So when Miss Rand writes, for example, "consciousness, an attribute of life, directs the actions of the organism to use, to shape, to realign matter for the purpose of maintaining its existence," (The Journals of Ayn Rand, p. 663), she means it to apply to all forms of consciousness. So I am merely restating this view when I say that consciousness, no matter where it is found, is only possessed by living things.

However, neither evolutionary theory nor Objectivism (as far as I can tell) discuss non-living and/or non-purposeful consciousnesses. If there is something in the Objectivist literature, or in scientific literature, that supports your position, please let me know what it is.

That is because the idea of a non-living and/or non-purposeful consciousness is antithetical to the philosophy of Objectivism. One fine example of my position is the section, "Reason as Man's Basic Means of Survival," in OPAR, Chapter 6. By "reason," Dr. Peikoff means man's consciousness and this section is the application of the points that I have been making in this thread. You seem to be saying that some thing could possess reason yet reason, for that thing, would have no function.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So when Miss Rand writes, for example, "consciousness, an attribute of life, directs the actions of the organism to use, to shape, to realign matter for the purpose of maintaining its existence," (The Journals of Ayn Rand, p. 663), she means it to apply to all forms of consciousness.

I don't see how you can conclude that that is what she meant. She was discussing consciousness within the context of existing living things. Knowledge is contextual, and according to our current knowledge only living things have consciousness. But that does not prove that only living things canhave consciousness.

That is because the idea of a non-living and/or non-purposeful consciousness is antithetical to the philosophy of Objectivism. One fine example of my position is the section, "Reason as Man's Basic Means of Survival," in OPAR, Chapter 6. By "reason," Dr. Peikoff means man's consciousness and this section is the application of the points that I have been making in this thread. You seem to be saying that some thing could possess reason yet reason, for that thing, would have no function.

I just reread that section. Again, the discussion is within a context. Objectivism's theory of consciousness deals with the nature of consciousness, what it used for, how it is to be used, and so on by man and other existing living things. It makes no sweeping statements about "all consciousnesses, past, present and future."

Yes, I am saying that "some thing could possess reason yet reason, for that thing, would have no function." For reasons that I have already explained, such an entity would be very unlikely to evolve naturally. But I see no philosophical or scientific reason why it could not be created artificially. Now Objectivists would no doubt say there would be no point in creating such an entity, and I would agree. But that does not make it impossible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...
Let me state my disagreement this way: there is no evidence to suggest that we can re-create the causal powers of the brain that give rise to consciousness without also re-creating the living processes that go along with them. The identity of the brain includes its nature as a life organ and you cannot exclude this fact from discussions about the brain's casual powers.

If someone asked Aristotle if a machine that could fly is possible, and Aristotle answered that there is no evidence of flying entities without also possessing life, therefore non-living flying machines are not possible. Would Aristotle being using valid reasoning?

My feeble brain cannot see how your "conscious machines are impossible" argument differs from a similar "non-living flying machines are impossible" argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting way to create a neologism, Necessary. The prefix "im" and the prefix "a" mean generally the same thing in this context, both are a negation of the affixed word. The prefix "a" means "outside of" or "without" in general usage.

"Lacking possibility" and "having no possibility" are two ways of saying the same thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If someone asked Aristotle if a machine that could fly is possible, and Aristotle answered that there is no evidence of flying entities without also possessing life, therefore non-living flying machines are not possible. Would Aristotle being using valid reasoning?

The question isn't quite right. For that reasoning alone, Artistotle would be wrong. But, if he were to say that "non-living flying machines are not possible" he would still have been correct.

No, that is not a typo.

Knowledge is contextual. In Aristotle's time period, there is insufficient knowledge in the physical sciences to imagine airplanes as anything more than pure fantasy. This statement would be absolutely correct in the context of true knowledge available at the time.

Note that the statement does not say ever. If he were to say "non-living flying machines will never be possible" then that would be an error. But to say they are not possible is still correct; they are not, in his time period. The statement can later be amended to read "non-living flying machines are not possible without the knowledge of aerodynamics".

Another example is the hypothetical discovery of the boiling point of water. Man A discovers that "water boils at 212F". His statement is correct. Later, man B discovers that at 10,000 feet, water boils at 211F. Was man A wrong?

No, he wasn't. His statement can be amended to say "water boils at 212F at sea level". He was correct before -- he only needs a qualification to be added to encompass the new context. True knowledge is always and forever true, and doesn't later become false just because more context was added.

If something is discovered to be false, then it was never true to begin with.

Applying that to the problem at hand, it is correct to say that "non-living conscious machines are not possible", given the context of our current knowledge of the physiological causation of consciousness (i.e. virtually nil). In the future, we may obtain sufficient knowledge to build such a thing. There is just no way to know for now, so its science fiction..... for the time being.

For more in-depth reading on "knowledge as contextual", refer to OPAR chapter 4.

Edited by TomL
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One more idea just occurred to me:

Our consciousness was caused through evolution as a means of survival. Thus "life" is at the very root of causation of "consciousness". It is thus quite possible than any machine, even given the exact same physiological processes present in our brains, may not become conscious. The reason is that it will not need consciousness in order to "survive", since it isn't alive and can't use its consciousness to further its own life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The devil's advocate in me, wants to reply thusly,

One more idea just occurred to me:

FLYING was caused through evolution as a means of survival. Thus "life" is at the very root of causation of "FLIGHT". It is thus quite possible than any machine, even given the exact same physiological processes present in WINGS, may not become AIRBORNE. The reason is that it will not need FLIGHT in order to "survive", since it isn't alive and can't use its FLIGHT to further its own life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This answer makes more sense to me (than your follow up post). Thanks, I appreciate the thoughtful reply. I still feel that something is wrong. I think there is a difference in claiming something is versus claiming something is not.

The classic contextual example is blood types. I might claim that all humans have one of two blood types A and B, and that all people with the same blood type can share blood safely.

Claiming that there are two blood types, seems different from claiming it is impossible to have more than two blood types.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really hope we wouldn't get to actually equivocating "consciousness" with "flight", but it seems that's where we are. Darn.

Holy context dropping, Batman.

"Consciousness" is a mental faculty. "Flight" is a mechanical process. How exactly can the two be equivocated?

The error that leads to this is in thinking that "consciousness is a mechanical process". It is not. Consciousness is caused by a (bio)mechanical process. It is not the biomechanical process itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Life is the product of Evolution. In the course of Evolution, Life becomes more fitted to survival and reproduction in its environment.

Airplanes are not separately alive, but neither are your fingernails or even your heart. Our body parts and the tools we create are part of our means of survival. It is our Life, as people who use airplanes, which requires that airplanes be able to fly, not a separate Life of the airplane itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...