The other day I came home and found that the internet wasn’t working. I didn’t have anything particular that I needed to do- I think I was going to check my e-mail- but I got really nervous for a moment, wondering what I was missing because my link to the world was cut off. What do Terminator, Matrix, and the Will Smith version of I, Robot all have in common?
Well for starters, they all begin with the assumption that in the future robots or computers will develop a will, a self-awareness, or a set of ethics based on their own evolution/experience rather than what they were created with. But is this true? Can computers actually transcend their own data and interact with the universe in an intelligent way? Of course for the purposes of this blog we're going to go with a formidable AI definition, not a weak one where robots are able to make small choices about stacking their parts differently in order to traverse a room. For movies like Terminator to come to fruition, we'd have to assume that computers and robots were able to move far beyond the normal threhold of AI and into something very close to a Human's ability to reason and choose. So, when I say AI- that's what I mean. An Artificial Intellegence that closely resembles a human being's. The lectures I’ve been listening to by Hubert Dreyfus seem to indicate that on a purely philosophical level it would be almost impossible for true AI to spring into existence within the foreseeable future. The primary reason is that AI is programmed without a holistic ontology. Without a holistic reference for the universe, robots are limited to calculated “symbol shunting” rather than significant, meaningful interactions. So unless there is a significant change in the way we’ve been doing AI- we’re going to continue getting calculated rather than intuitive results. But how to you create a robot or computer that has the ability to understand the holistic model of how the world works? You know, a better question might be this- how do humans understand the holistic form of life? This is one of the hardest questions to answer, because as Heidegger noted, trying to describe the way we get around in the world is like trying to describe a really functional light source. We don’t even notice the light source until there’s something wrong with it. We tend to see, instead, the things that are illuminated because of the light. Likewise, our understanding of how the world works is only apparent to us when it’s not working correctly- when we’re disoriented or confused. And if we’re not yet able to put much of a framework around our own experience regarding how the world works- I’m fairly certain that any framework we try to put around a machine will be inherently flawed. So, the problem for AI programmers is not just figuring out the algorithms, software, and hardware needed to make some sort of self-aware creation. Their real problem is figuring out how to translate the context of the environment into a computer in a way that will allow it to mimic human understanding of how the world works. And since none of us are really clear on how we truly understand how the world works- it may be quite a while before robots figure it out. I know I promised some religious implications/thoughts as well… But due to time constraints, I’m not sure that I have them figured out well enough to transcribe here. If you’ve got some religious ideas why computers/robots can or cannot become truly AI let me have ‘em. I’d love to hear from you. I love Robots and so I'm pleased to announce that Robots are the topic for this week. The time you have on this earth is more valuable than anything else you have in your possession. Manage it just as well (or better) than you manage your wealth. Matt was kind enough to allow me to use one of his photos as my banner this week. Here it is without my 880x250 crop: He's in Iraq right now documenting a family and an organization who helps kids. Please head over to his blog to learn more. It's a visual wonderland and he tells it through film much better than I could through words!
Making an issue of one’s being is what makes us human, claims Heidegger. He calls this “making and issue of one’s being” existence and claims that this is the essence of what it means to be human. After reading Micah’s brilliant little series on Modernism/Postmodernism:
>>>> What Is Modernism? | Examples | What Is Postmodernism? | Examples I’m inclined to put Heidegger’s third state of being into the Postmodern category because it makes a claim against all other philosophers that “nothing” is our essence other than to make an issue of our essence. Kant argues that we are fundamentally Rational Beings, and Christians argue that we are fundamentally “Children of God” and so this claim that we are essentially and purely existence is a very “wheel-like” claim. I’m borrowing the wheel from Micah’s posts and this will make a lot more sense if you read through them- especially the Postmodern examples. I’m probably making a fairly simple leap since Heidegger was of first importance to Derrida, Foucoult, and all the other Continental Philosophers- but bear with me as I’ve not done much study on Heidegger prior to this and even little accomplishments like this make me happy. Now that I’ve giving a little ‘blog love,’ let me point this in a different direction, if I may. Heidegger argues that only humans exist (his definition of existence is to “make an issue of one’s being”). He even goes as far as to say that God does not exist within this definition of existence (remember that He’s not refuting God, he’s saying that God doesn’t make an issue of his being). However, it seems to me that in the Christian worldview, God IS a Being whose essence is existence. He calls himself I AM, essentially stating that His very nature is built on His existence, thus making an issue of His own being. Following that idea, if we were made in the image of God- namely that His existence IS His nature, it would follow that our existence (and making an issue of it), would be our essence as well. I doubt Heidegger really wanted this idea reconciled with Christianity, but there you have it. What’s done is done. Thoughts? This morning, I wrote that Heidegger believed that the third way of being was found within the structure of "finding one's meaning" in the outworking of Equipment Ontology. That was not correct. Heidegger believed that the way of being human is in taking a stand, or an interest in one's own being. The outworking springs from being human- not using tools or equipment (although one might use equipment as a way to "take a stand on one's being"). Note: This is the guy I’m learning from right now regarding Heidegger. As both Seth and Jim pointed out in the comments yesterday, the practical outworking of a theory is probably just as important as the idea itself. I just began listening to a lecture series on Martin Heidegger, the German Philosopher with questionable ethics due to his involvement in Nazism. |
About NathanNathan Key likes to think about faith and philosophy and talk about it with others. He lives with his family in New Hampshire. He doesn't always refer to himself in the third person. |