Philosophy 101 Unit 1

Is science dangerous? AND Is technology dangerous?

First I want to distinguish the difference between my meaning of science and technology. I am referring to science as controlled experimentation of a predetermined procedure such as one would perform in a chemistry lab. Technology I am defining as anything that makes tasks easier for humans and has moving parts (i.e. computers, machinery, robotics, etc.)

The question sounds like it is unsure of itself. Science has advanced humans in tremendous ways. Science has created an easy mode of transportation, the automobile. Science has given humans numerous cures to previously deadly diseases. Science has extended the life expectancy for people all over the world. Science has improved the quality of life for people all over the world by simplifying difficult tasks and reducing the risks that humans need to take. Currently scientists have been experimentation with stem cells and furthering stem cell research. Science is something that will ever continue to evolve and change lives in the future, but only if done correctly. Science can be performed safely with no harm to anyone. Science is roughly performing controlled tests in controlled experiments. Theoretically there shouldn’t be a way for things to go horribly wrong. If done properly with a meaningfully goal in mind science can be safe, but some information that scientists can learn could be dangerous. A scientist could for example learn how to clone a human…perfectly and use that information for the good of mankind. Or he could be inherently evil and clone himself a whole army of white supremacists who go out and perform murder and try to control the world. Obviously this is a drastic example but in the end makes perfect sense. Scientific principals learned from experimentation are neutral. The way I see it in order for science to become a danger, it would have to be in the hands of some sort of evil genius.

My stance on technology being dangerous is similar to my stance on science. Technology again has advanced exponentially in the last 20 years. As Dan Estrada said in class, the internet is actually younger than most of us. Try to think back to the first time you can remember using a computer. The first personal computer my family had was a very clunky monitor (that couldn’t display complex graphics) connected to a HUGE box containing all the mechanical components. In addition I believe we also had a dot-matrix printer. To be honest, I don’t even think that computer had internet. Now I look at the machine that is enabling me to type this post on. It is 1 piece, fairly small, has internet (obviously) and is very different. Advances in technology have allowed for this to happen. New technology comes out constantly whether or not everyone is aware of it. It can come in the form of a bug fix or a new type of advanced touch screen computer. Has any of this proved (at current) to be dangerous at all. Obviously computers have not. On the other hand there are different types of technology. Robotics are ever improving and are not dangerous at all. Certain robots, like those on a manufacturing line, have safety restrictions which don’t allow humans to enter their workspace but following safety procedures basically ensures that technology is always safe. Now as with science, if someone was able to construct a robot focused on eliminating people (think Terminator/Matrix movies) then yes technology could be dangerous. But one has to remember that movies are not the same as reality. All our machines are built to be safe and can in no way intentionally harm humans.

Sorry if this seems obnoxious to you guys, but it looks like this post of mine is going to be a Platonic style dialogue. I was trying to verbalize what this post was going to be with my good friend Dan today, and it really took me through the whole course of what I had planned to say.

Hmm. Can you read something for me, and tell me what you think of it? Just a couple of sentences.

Yup.

“Primary emotions and secondary emotions are all complex and varied, but almost none of them can be felt on command; humans cannot just tell themselves to be happy and then be happy. If that were the case, psychiatrists would be out of business and wars would be a thing of the past. The same must be true then for synthetic emotions; for the emotions to be real, they cannot be programmed into a machine.”  (Quoted from Elena’s post, “A.I. – Can it really Happen?”)

That’s weird, creepy, and awesome to think about.

Do you agree or disagree?

I think I agree mostly, but I don’t know enough about ai to make a fair statement about it.W hy, what say you?

Before I answer that, let me ask you a few questions. When you feel emotions, why do you do so? What causes you to feel emotions?

Neurotransmitters I’m guessing. Hormones.

Ahh, I didn’t think you’d jump right to that, but yes. I would say that at its base level it is nerve impulses stimulated either by hormones or by information you gather from the world. You agree?

Yeah.

Okay. If you feel an emotion because of information you gather from your senses… Okay, wait

lets say the emotion we are talking about is happiness. In a given instant that you feel happiness, like, any specific instance, don’t actually pick one out, but imagine just a situation where you feel an instant happiness. There is a set of information that you gathered from the world and hormones that triggered it, right?

Yeah.

Okay, so now, take that exact same set of information and hormones, and feed your brain that exact same information, no more, no less. Would it make sense for it to trigger an emotion different from happiness, if all conditions and inputs are exactly the same?

No, I don’t think so. Because that’s all the info that triggered my happiness.

Exactly, that’s all I’m saying. So now, does it make sense that whenever your brain receives that particular set of input, no more, no less, it will always trigger an instant of happiness?

Yeah.

Indeed, I agree but does it make sense that for this emotion, the one we call happiness, only one possible set of inputs can ever produce it?

Like one set of information?

Right. Would there only be one set of information that triggers happiness?

No. You can have different experiences and it would still trigger the same feeling.

Exactly. So therefore, there exists a whole lot of different sets that would trigger happiness. you could say, there is a set of those sets. Does that make sense?

Yeah.

Indeed, you and I agree. Do you think that only Happiness works this way? Or does it make sense for other emotions to also be triggered by a certain, well-defined set of information?

Others can be triggered as well.

And we already determined that for any given set of inputs, only one emotion can be triggered. I mean, for any input, like any set of information from hormones and the senses, only one emotion is triggered, yes?

I don’t know, because I can be sad that someone died but then happy that they are no longer suffering. Or would that be considered two sets of info?

I would say that every instant is a whole different set of input, but also that your mixed emotion of happiness and sadness is its own emotion, in and of itself.

Touche.

Because remember before, we agreed that for that instant of happiness, one set of input triggered it? And that particular set of input would always cause happiness?

Right.

So now, just replace “happiness” with a general emotion, andit should still work the same way.

Yeah, I agree.

So, would you agree that for every possible set of sensory input and hormones, there is one emotion that comes from it?

Yes.

So, would you also then agree that each possible set of input is programmed to trigger a specific emotion?

Yes.

And could you also just say that in a different way, and say that each emotion is programmed to go off when a certain input is presented?

Yeah.

And now, I must ask: Would you agree that for emotions to be real, they cannot be programmed?

Yeah.

You think that if an emotion is programmed, it is fake?

Based on our talk yes. How do you learn an emotion even based on info? There still has to be something telling you that this is the way it is.

Well, you agreed with me all the way up until two questions ago, then you suddenly switched around on me. You to agreed that your emotion was programmed to trigger from a certain set of inputs. You agree with that?

Yes, but i think the reason that i “switched sides” is based on the fact that i haven’t witnessed much AI. I agree with what you’re saying i just haven’t seen it first hand or heard much about it.

Okay, tell me if you see a difference between these two statements:

Each emotion is programmed to go off when a certain input is presented.   <—You agreed with this.
Emotions can be programmed  <— You disagreed with this. Those appear to me to be the same statement.

I think I got you. Yeah I got you. Ask your other question one more time.

Would you agree that for emotions to be real, they cannot be programmed?

No because I suppose our brains are doing the same thing.

I’m talking entirely about brains here, you don’t even need to think of AI. Based on all these situations I’ve presented you with, and asked you about, you agree with me so far? And agree with me that emotions are effectively “programmed” to come from sets of input?

Yes.

So, the brain takes a set of input, and based on that input it gets, produces without fail, a single output, no matter how complex that output might be?

Yup.

So the brain is like a big “black box” like the term used in programming. You feed it a specific input, and it does whatever it does, and spits out a specific output.

Okay, I agree.

I’m almost done, don’t worry.

Dude I’m enjoying this education process.

I’m glad! But, you and I already determined that the brain functions in such a manner as you give it input, and out comes output. Every input can only get one single output.

Yup.

Now, also, each output has a whole group of inputs that produce it, right? So many different inputs can make the same output?

Yes.

This makes the whole process algorithmic. You input something, the brain performs an algorithm, and then invariably produces whatever output. And now, this is really the culmination of all of this. This algorithmic operation is exactly the same way in which computers function. We can draw two different conclusions of this:
a) Our brains are just biological computers
or
b) Computers are potentially capable of having emotion

Would you agree?

Yeah. And whoah. But keep going

Did I just blow your mind?

You have no idea.

I pretty much blew my own mind when I went through all of that the first time, back in the day.

So which do you think it is? a or b? Or c all of the above?

Well, I think a and b are the same thing.

Well based on this whole conversation it appears so.

Indeed! Now, I do have to ask you, anywhere along the lines of that discussion, did I take any steps that are illogical?

And now, to all readers. What say you?

Reminder: Tonight (Thursday) @ 6pm in Greg 217: I will be giving a short paper entitled “What is the Internet?”

Tomorrow @ 3pm in Greg 213, Bernard Reginster “On being Looked At: Sartre on the Significance of Alienation”

Attend either talk (and say hi to me!) and I will mark you down for extra credit. 

Here are the prompts for this week’s R&L thread. Respond to this post by class on Tuesday for participation credit for the week. 

1) Is the mind a semantic engine? Why or why not?

2) Argue for or against any of Haugeland’s X-factor objections to the central thesis of cognitive science. 

3) Can machines give a damn?

4) Is indistinguishability from human behavior enough for intelligence? Why or why not? Is the imitation game fair?

5) Is the Lady Lovelace objection fatal to the possibility of artificial intelligence?

6) Can machines learn? Are learning machines autonomous?