Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
AIList Digest Volume 6 Issue 096
AIList Digest Monday, 9 May 1988 Volume 6 : Issue 96
Today's Topics:
Philosophy - Free Will & Randomness
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 3 May 88 19:23:33 GMT
From: ulysses!sfmag!sfsup!glg@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (G.Gleason)
Subject: Re: The future of AI [was Re: Time Magazine -- Computers of
the Future]
In article <1053@crete.cs.glasgow.ac.uk> gilbert@cs.glasgow.ac.uk
(Gilbert Cockton) writes:
>The main objection to AI is when it claims to approach our humanity.
> It cannot.
That's a pretty strong claim to make without backing it up.
I'm not saying that I disagree with you, and I also object to all the
hype which makes this claim for current AI, or anything that is likely
to come out of current research. I'm also not saying your claim is
wrong, only that it is unjustified; there is more to learn before we
can really say.
There are new ideas in biology that build upon "systems theory," and
probably can be tied in with the physical symbol systems theory (I
hope I got that right) that suggest that information or "linguistic
interaction" is fundamental to living organisms.
In the May/June issue of "The Sciences," I found an article called
"The Life of Meaning." It was in a regular column (The Information Age).
I won't summarize the whole article, but it does present some compelling
examples, and arguments for extending the language of language to talking
about cellular mechanisms. One is how cyclic AMP acts as an internal
message in E. coli. When an E. coli lands in an environment without
food, cyclic AMP binds to the DNA, and switches the cell over to a
"motion" program. Cyclic AMP in this role has all the attributes of
a symbolic (or linguistic) message: the choice of symbol is arbitrary,
and the "meaning" is context dependant. This becomes even more clear
with the example of human adrenaline response in liver cells. The
hormone binds to sites on the outside of the cell which causes an
internal message to be generated, which just happens to be cyclic AMP.
The cell responds to the cyclic AMP (not by a DNA based mechanism as
in E. coli) by producing more glucose. The composition of the message
has nothing to do with the trigger or the response, it is symbolic.
So, how is this relevant to the original discussion. I don't see any
fundamental difference between exchanging chemical messages or electronic
ones. Although this does not imply that configurations of electronic and
electromechanical components that we would call "alive" are possible or
that it is possible to design and build one, it doesn't rule it out, and
more importantly it suggests a fundamental similarity between living
organisms and "information processors." The only difference is how they
arise. Possibly an important difference, but we have no way to prove this
now.
Gerry Gleason
------------------------------
Date: 2 May 88 16:11:11 GMT
From: clyde!mtunx!whuts!homxb!houdi!marty1@bellcore.com (M.BRILLIANT)
Subject: Re: Free Will & Self-Awareness
In article <717@taurus.BITNET>, shani@TAURUS.BITNET writes:
> In article <30502@linus.UUCP>, bwk@mbunix.BITNET writes:
> >
> > I would like to learn how to imbue silicon with consciousness,
> > awareness, free will, and a value system.
>
> .... free will and value systems - such things cannot
> be 'given', they simply exist.....
> .... You can write 'moral' programs, even in BASIC, if you want,
> because they will have YOUR value system....
It has been suggested that intelligence cannot be "given" to a machine
either. That is, an "expert system" using only expertise "given" to it
out of the experience of human experts is not exhibiting full
"artificial intelligence."
BWK suggested "artificial awareness" as a complement to "artificial
intelligence," but apparently that is not enough. You need artificial
learning. My value system was not "given" to me, nor was my
professional expertise; both were learned. At its ultimate, AI
research is really devoted to the invention of artificial learning.
For full artificial intelligence, the machine must derive its expertise
from its own experience. For full artificial awareness, the machine
must derive its values from its own experience. Not much different.
Achieve artificial learning, and you will get both.
I hate to rehash the old "Turing test" again, but a machine cannot pass
for human longer than a few hours, or days at most, unless it has the
capacity for "agonizing reappraisal": the ability to "reevalueate its
basic assumptions." That would be learning as humans do it.
M. B. Brilliant Marty
AT&T-BL HO 3D-520 (201)-949-1858
Holmdel, NJ 07733 ihnp4!houdi!marty1
Disclaimer: Opinions stated herein are mine unless and until my employer
explicitly claims them; then I lose all rights to them.
------------------------------
Date: 6 May 88 13:31:25 GMT
From: eniac.seas.upenn.edu!lloyd@super.upenn.edu (Lloyd Greenwald)
Subject: Re: Free Will & Self Awareness
In article <10942@sunybcs.UUCP> sher@wolf.UUCP (David Sher) writes:
>It seems that people are discussing free will and determinism by
>trying to distinguish true free will from random behavior. There is a
>fundamental problem with this topic. Randomness itself is not well
>understood. If you could get a good definition of random behavior you
>may have a better handle on free will.
>
This is a good point. It seems that some people are associating free will
closely with randomness. To me true randomness is as difficult to comprehend
as true free will. We can't demonstrate true randomness in present day
computers; the closest we can come (to my knowledge) is to generate a string
of numbers which does not repeat itself. Can anyone give us a better view
of randomness then this? I've heard some mention of true randomness at the
quantum level. Does anyone have any information on this? Given that current
theories of free will tie it so closely to randomness, it seems necessary to
get a handle on true randomness.
Lloyd Greenwald
lloyd@eniac.seas.upenn.edu
------------------------------
Date: 4 May 88 07:19:52 GMT
From: TAURUS.BITNET!shani@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU
Subject: Re: AIList V6 #86 - Philosophy
In article <1579@pt.cs.cmu.edu>, yamauchi@speech2.cs.cmu.edu.BITNET writes:
> Actually, I have read The Society of Mind, where Minsky writes:
>[A quote of Minsky]
> I would agree with this. In fact, unless one believes in some form of
> supernatural forces, this seems like the only rational alternative.
You are touching the very core of the problem. The point in which, this
'only random and determination exist' is getting into problems is the
question of responseability i.e., if everything is pre-determened or random,
how can you asume responsebility to what you are doing? and if responsability
does not exist, the whole matter of free will and value system has no content,
so, if free will and value system can be given to a machine, it is meaningless,
and if it has meaning, it is depended on a third, irational factor (Free will),
which cannot (Menwhile?) be given to a machine...
O.S.
------------------------------
Date: 6 May 88 09:20:18 GMT
From: otter!cwp@hplabs.hp.com (Chris Preist)
Subject: Re: Free Will & Self-Awareness
R. O'Keefe replies to me...
> > Did my value system exist before my conception? I doubt it.
>This is rather like asking whether some specific number existed before
>anyone calculated. Numbers and value systems are symbolic/abstract
>things, not material objects. I have often wondered what philosophy
>would have been like if it had arisen in a Polynesian community rather
>than an Indo-European one (in Polynesian languages, numbers are _verbs_).
>----------
Oh no! Looks like my intuitionist sympathies are creeping out!!!
Seriously though, there IS a big difference between numbers and value
systems - Empirical evidence for this is given by the fact that (most of)
society agrees on a number system, but the debate about which value system
is 'correct' leads to factionism, terrorism, war, etc etc. Value systems
are unique to each individual, a product of his/her nature and nurture.
While they may be able to be expressed abstractly, this does not mean
they 'exist' in abstraction (Intuitionist aside: The same could be said of
numbers). They are obviously not material objects, but this does not mean
they have Platonic Ideal existance. We are not imbued with them at birth,
but aquire them. This aquisition is perfectly compatible with determinism.
So what does this mean for AI? Earlier, in my reply to O.S., I was arguing
that our SUBJECTIVE experience of freedom is perfectly compatible with our
existance within a deterministic system, hence AI is not necessarily
fruitless. You have drawn me out on another metaphysical point - I believe
that our intelligence (rather than our capacity for intelligence), our
value systems, and also our 'semantics' stem from our existance within the
world, rather than our essential nature. Sensation and experience are
primary. The brain is a product of the spinal chord, rather than vice-versa.
For this reason, I believe that the goals of strong AI can only be
accomplished by techniques which accept the importance of sensation.
Connectionism is the only such technique I know of at the moment.
Chris Preist
------------------------------
Date: 6 May 88 17:06:34 GMT
From: vu0112@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu (Cliff Joslyn)
Subject: Re: Free Will & Self Awareness
In article <4543@super.upenn.edu> lloyd@eniac.seas.upenn.edu.UUCP
(Lloyd Greenwald) writes:
>This is a good point. It seems that some people are associating free will
>closely with randomness.
Yes, I do so. I think this is a necessary definition.
Consider the concept of Freedom in the most general sense. It is
opposed by the concept of Determinism. We can say of anything, either
it is absolutely determined (it will always do one thing and only one
thing), or it is somwhat free (sometimes it will do one thing, other
times another). This is so whether we talk of molecules in a box or the
actions of an organism.
>To me true randomness is as difficult to comprehend
>as true free will.
I agree. That's because both psychological free will and randomness are
cases of my general sense of Freedom. Freedom is a very difficult
things to understand.
>We can't demonstrate true randomness in present day
>computers;
von Neumann machines are highly Determined systems. They posess so
little Freedom that it is essentially null. This is what they have been
designed to do. However, it is easy to demonstrate that von Neumann
machines are slightly free. Consider the distribution of bit errors in
a cpu or RAM, or of read errors on a disk drive. These are random
events. To that extent the computer is Free. This is not especially
useful or interesting Freedom, nevertheless it is there.
>the closest we can come (to my knowledge) is to generate a string
>of numbers which does not repeat itself.
This is not possible in a von Neumann machine.
>I've heard some mention of true randomness at the
>quantum level.
See recent (last two years) articles in _Scientific American_ concerning
hidden variables theories in QM. As I described in a brevious article,
we can think of two cases of randomness, subjective and objective.
Subjective randomness is usually equated with ignorance. For example,
in Newtonian physics if I had sufficient information about initial
conditions I could predict the roll of a die. Objective randomness is
your "true", or irreducible, or inherent, or unavoidable randomness.
There has been a great debate as to whether quantum uncertainty was
subjective or objective. The subjectivists espoused "hidden variables"
theories (i.e.: there are determining factors going on, we just don't
know them yet, the variables are hidden). These theories can be tested.
Recently they have been shown to be false.
>Given that current
>theories of free will tie it so closely to randomness, it seems necessary to
>get a handle on true randomness.
In my mind, the critical thing to understand about Freedom is that
Freedom is always relative; Determinism is always absolute.
What I mean is that when we talk about something being Free, we can
always talk about degrees of freedom. A six sided die is more Free than
a four sided, a twelve than a six. Or consider a probability
distribution: it's Freedom is generally measured by it's entropy, which
takes values in the interval [ 0, inf ). In order for the
distribution to reach the infinite limit, it must be uniformly
distributed over the whole positive real interval. This distribution is
not well defined.
In other words, we know what it means for something to be completely
Determined. I submit that it is not possible for somethings to be
completely Free. Absolute Freedom is an infinite limit; absolute
determinism is a zero limit.
This is obviously true in the realm of human affairs as well. It is
easy for me to completely determine your actions: put you in a Skinner
box, or straight jacket, or just kill you. And while I espouse Free
Will, I do so only in this relative way. In no way can you tell me that
you are absolutely free: drug delusions, dreams, illness, epilepsy, all
kinds of physical/biological factors come into play which somewhat limit
the Freedom of your mind.
--
O---------------------------------------------------------------------->
| Cliff Joslyn, Cybernetician at Large
| Systems Science, SUNY Binghamton, vu0112@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu
V All the world is biscuit shaped. . .
------------------------------
Date: 5 May 88 09:37:54 GMT
From: mcvax!ukc!strath-cs!glasgow!gilbert@uunet.uu.net (Gilbert
Cockton)
Subject: Re: Free Will & Self-Awareness
In article <5100@pucc.Princeton.EDU> RLWALD@pucc.Princeton.EDU writes:
> Are you saying that AI research will be stopped because when it ignores
>free will, it is immoral and people will take action against it?
Research IS stopped for ethical reasons, especially in Medicine and
Psychology. I could envisage pressure on institutions to limit its AI
work to something which squares with our ideals of humanity. If the
US military were not using technology which was way beyond the
capability of its not-too-bright recruits, then most of the funding
would dry up anyway. With the Pentagon's reported concentration on
more short-term research, they may no longer be able to indulge their
belief in the possibility of intelligent weaponry.
> When has a 'doctrine' (which, by the way, is nothing of the sort with
>respect to free will) any such relationship to what is possible?
>From this, I can only conclude that your understanding of social
processes is non-existent. Behaviour is not classified as deviant
because it is impossible, but because it is undesirable. I know of NO
rational theory of society, so arguments that a computational model of
human behaviour MAY be possible are utterly irrelevant. This is a
typical academic argument, and as you know, academics have a limited
influence on society.
The question is, do most people WANT a computational model of human
behaviour? In these days of near 100% public funding of research,
this is no longer a question that can be ducked in the name of
academic freedom. Everyone is free to study what they want, but public
funding of a distasteful and dubious activity does not follow from
this freedom. If funding were reduced, AI would join fringe areas such as
astrology, futorology and palmistry. Public funding and institutional support
for departments implies a legitimacy to AI which is not deserved.
------------------------------
Date: 5 May 88 19:35:39 GMT
From: mcvax!ukc!its63b!aiva!jeff@uunet.uu.net (Jeff Dalton)
Subject: Re: Free Will & Self-Awareness
In article <717@taurus.BITNET> <shani%TAURUS.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU>
writes:
- you are underastimating yourself as a free-willing
- creature, and second, your request is self-contradicting ans shows
- litle understanding of matters, like free will and value systems -
- such things cannot be 'given', they simply exist.
Is this an Ayn Rand point? It sure sounds like one. Note the use
of `self-contradicting'.
- You can write 'moral' programs, even in BASIC, if you want,
- because they will have YOUR value system....
It is hard to see how this makes any sense whatsoever.
------------------------------
Date: 5 May 88 20:19:25 GMT
From: mcvax!ukc!its63b!aiva!jeff@uunet.uu.net (Jeff Dalton)
Subject: Re: Free Will & Self Awareness
In article <770@onion.cs.reading.ac.uk> jadwa@henry.cs.reading.ac.uk
(James Anderson) writes:
>If the world is deterministic I am denied free will because I can
>not determine the outcome of a decision. On the other hand, if
>the world is random, I am denied free will because I can not
>determine the outcome of a decision. Either element, determinancy
>or randomness, denies me free will, so no mixture of a
>deterministic world or a non-deterministic world will allow me
>free will.
Just so. Having one's actions determined randomly isn't much help.
One of the problems with discussing free will here is that it's too
easy to simply rehash arguments that have been handled in the
philosophical literature. I thought it best to make this point
in response to an article that I agreed with, though, because I'm
not claiming that no one ever says anything valuable or that I am
some kind of expert in these matters with no time to listen to the
rest of you.
Nonetheless, anyone who is seriously interested in such topics should
be willing to do some reading. I would recommend Dennet's Elbow Room:
The Varieties of Free Will Worth Wanting for its discussion of free
will, for its relevance to AI, and for the interesting things that
come up along the way.
Jeff Dalton, JANET: J.Dalton@uk.ac.ed
AI Applications Institute, ARPA: J.Dalton%uk.ac.ed@nss.cs.ucl.ac.uk
Edinburgh University. UUCP: ...!ukc!ed.ac.uk!J.Dalton
------------------------------
End of AIList Digest
********************
