Philosophy 101E

The question of whether or not a machine has the ability to think depends on the definition of thinking, like Turing stated in his article. If thinking is being able to imitate actions, then perhaps a machine could be a thinking thing if it could be programmed to replicate every action. Yet there is a part of humans that I do not believe could be programmed into a machine.

A human being is born with instincts. Many actions that a human being makes are based on instinct, something that a person does not think about or does unconsciously. While a machine could be programmed to do certain things in certain situations, it would not be possible to program a machine to do something, you can say, with out thinking. How would someone be able to make a program to react without thinking? It would be impossible. For example, the example given in class about how a human being laughs. This is done without thinking it’s just a natural reaction.

A machine could be programmed to do a variety of things in a given situation, and analyze each one, yet the machine could not be programmed to do something based on instinct, or what it feels is right because these are things that come from nature. A person does not choose to react or feel a certain way in certain situations, they are just instinctual things. These are decisions made without reason. Perhaps reason could be programmed into a machine, but how could a machine be programmed to not think or do what feels right because feelings and instincts come from nature and are not programmable. I even agree that a machine could be programmed to distinguished between feelings, and be able to identify them based on human actions and expressions, yet the machine itself would not be feeling. Because of feeling, which comes from instinct, a machine would never be able to completely imitate a human being.

I know it has been a long time since we discussed the topic of whether or not machines can think, but this topic can be debated for ever.  I agree with Searle’s view about this subject and his “Chineese Room test.”  He says that he could be isolated in a box with a translation manual and he could manipulate Chineese symblos (which he does not understand) and give responses just as if he did understand them.  His point is that this is what machines do, is manipulate symbols but do not understand what the symbols mean.  I agree with this idea and this is where the difference between a machine and human intellegence comes in.

Computers are programmed to give certain responses to certain questions.  I will admit to the fact that a programer can program a machine to choose between as many choises at it wants, such as a chess machine, but there is still a limit to the choises.  There is no way to program every possible life scenario into a machine.  I know that humans also do not know what to do in every life situation that he/she finds themself in, but humans can reason and decide what to do based on the individual situation.  If a machine finds itself in a situation where it does not have a programmed response, it will freeze and be useless.

 Humans also have the ability to learn, which computers do not.  By learn I mean that humans start as a mostly blank slate when they are babies.  We learn and gain knowledge about the world and how to act as we grow up with no outside body forcing a person to act in any special way (I will come back to that later).  The point was brought up during our debate that you could program machines to learn.  Someone mentioned, for example, that your parents could tell you all they want to not drink until you are 21, but when you get to college, you drink anyway.  A machine would not know what to do in this situation because there are conflicting bits of information at hand.  This is where I find the differnce between humans and machines, and having intellegence and not having intellegence.  Humans decide to drink or anything else because they were influenced by many different people, not programmed by a programmer.

I tried to make the distinction between humans thinking and deciding what to do and machines that were programmed to do something.  As I hinted to earlier, humans have the unique ability to decide for themselves what they want to do and how they want to act where as machines are restricted to what they are programmed to do.  Maybe sometime in the future machines will have the ability to decide for themselves what they want to do, but that is not the case right now.  Humans are intellegent because of what was just stated and machines are smart, not intellegent, because they cannot think outside the box or think abstractly about something.

Here’s the Wiki link to some simple explanations of Heidegger’s distinction between ready-to-hand and present-at-hand. You can find more background on Heidegger in the SEP, and on the page devoted to the Question Concerning Technology.

Remember, you can use these threads to discuss anything you want about the lecture this week. But as usual, I’ll provide a few prompting questions to get a discussion going:

Do you think that use is our fundamental way of understanding technology?

Heidegger says that in comporting with equipment, both the equipment and the self become transparent. Do you think thats right? Do you have any examples of this phenomena outside of those discussed in class?

How is technology a way of revealing, for Heidegger?

Like I said in class, I believe that Gehlen was half right when trying to explain technology.  I feel that when it comes to our self-perception and the explanation of ourselves we can only do it through comparing to things non human.  Both magic and technology fit that criteria; however, I don’t believe they can be compared in any other way.  They are both the same in that sense, but I do not believe that technology helps us cope with the world in which we are underdetermined, but that magic does.  Technology allows us to explain how the world truly works, better equipping us to live in it.  Magic, on the other hand, does neither.  It gives an explanation because we, as a species, need one, but it doesn’t really explain, in truth, how the world works.  Also, when using magic to be able to cope with something, we do not really better equip ourselves.  Essentially we have learned nothing which we can apply but only something we tell ourselves in order to live in the world. Take the example Daniel gave in class today.  When an eclipse first occurred, people didn’t know what it was, so they made up that it was a result of angering the gods.  This is a form of magic, in which we explain an event, without knowing if there is any truth to that explanation.  However, with the invention of the telescope, a form of technology, we were able to see what makes an eclipse actually occur, and by doing so, discovering more knowledge to incorporate into the sciences.  In my opinion this isn’t a way of coping, but rather of understanding. 

Finally, I do believe that we as a species are underdetermined, but I don’t see that as a negative, but rather a chance to better our lives and surroundings, where as animals are stuck with what they have.  I believe the reason for this under determination, is because we are able to reason and care, where as an animal doesn’t really know anything better. 

I’m going to try something new here. As we go through new subjects, I’m going to post an open thread on the topic. This is for people who have questions or comments on a subject, but not enough to write a full post, and are waiting around for someone else to post on the topic so they could comment on it. Hopefully this helps the discussion move along, and hopefully it also prepares you a bit more for the final.

So use these open threads to leave any question or comment you have on the topic. It doesn’t even have to be a full comment- if you were unclear about something in lecture, just ask, and I’ll try to respond.

I’ll get the discussion going with some quotes from the text and some questions:

If by technique we understand the capacities and means whereby man puts nature into his own service, by identifying nature’s properties and laws in order to exploit them and to control their interaction, clearly technique, in this highly general sense, is part and parcel of man’s very essence. It truely mirrors man– like man himself it is clever, it represents something intrinsically improbable, it bears a complex and twisted relationship to nature

[…]

Like man, [technique] is inventive, resourceful, life-fostering and at the same time life-destroying, involved with primeval nature in a complex relationship. Technique constitutes, as does man himself, nature artificelle.

[…]

Scientific research employs ever-new technical devices; nature is forced open through technique. The scientist much reach an understanding with the technician, for each problem is defined by the not-yet-available equipment required to solve it. Advances in theoretical physics, for instance, depend no less upon electronic computers than upon the brains of physicists.

[…]

The fascination with automatisms is a prerational, transpractical impulse, which previously, for millennia, found expression in magic– the technique of things and processes beyond our senses– and has more recently found its full realization in clocks, engines, and all manner of rotating mechanisms. Whoever considers from a psychological viewpoint the magic which cars exercise upon today’s young, cannot doubt that the interests appealed to lie deeper than those of a rational and practical nature. If this seems improbable, one should consider the fact that a machine’s automatism exercises a fascination entirely independent of its practical uses, a fascination that might well be best embodied in a perpetual motion machine whose only goal and activity would consist in forever reproducing the same circular motion. None of the innumerable individuals who over the centuries have grappled with the insoluble problem of perpetual motion, did so in view of any practical effect. Instead, they were all fascinated by the singular appeal of a machine that runs itself, a clock that winds itself. Such an appeal is not merely intellectual in nature, but has deeper sources.

Gehlen, following Nietzsche, claims that man is underdetermined by nature. Can we make sense of the claim that nature left man deficient in comparison to other animals?

Is technology fundamental to man’s essence? Does technology mirror man’s ‘twisted’ relationship with nature?

Just a few things to reiterate about the midterm.

1) First off, the grading scale is a bit wacky, and I’m sorry about that. I tried to curve it fairly. My original rubric had most people failing the test, so I hope most people are satisfied with the changes. But there are a few confusing issues with the curved scale. The syllabus states that the midterm is worth 200 points, but for 3 questions, that doesn’t really divide by 3 very easily. So I made each question out of 66 points, hoping to keep with a straight scale. Since that didn’t work out, I put in the curve. This means that your final grade in my grade book will be based solely on your letter grade on the midterm, as stated in the syllabus. In other words, the numbers don’t matter at all.

Here’s the scale, if you can’t be bothered to check the syllabus:

A+ = 97% B+ = 87%
A = 95% B = 85%
A- = 93% B- = 83%

And so on. You should be able to calculate your score out of 200 points from that percentage score to figure out your grade in the class.

2) Please don’t be afraid to come talk to me about your midterm. I’ve already had a few students talk to me, and I adjusted their grades accordingly. I’m going to stick closely to the rubric, but I’m human and I make mistakes. I make even more mistakes after reading papers on Descartes for a few hours, which tends to make my brains turn to mush. So if you have any questions or concerns about your grade, or the grading scale, or the rubric, please come talk to me.

3) If you did poorly, even if I didn’t make a grading mistake, still come talk to me. I am willing to let you rewrite your midterm, but you have to come talk to me sometime this week. Anyone who does not talk to me this week will not get a chance to rewrite it. You can come to my office hours on Thursday, or you can schedule an appointment with me on Wednesday or Friday. But please, don’t let a bad grade just sit there. I wont be able to give you full credit for your rewrite, but on the other hand you will have the rubric right there to work off, so it is definitely in your interest to come talk to me.

4) The final will be in the exact same format as the midterm: a series of questions about specific issues in the text for you to write short 2-3 page essays on. There will probably be a few more questions to choose from, and you will probably have to write 4-5 short essays for the final. The essays will cover material from the second half of the course (Turing and after), though there may be a question relating Descartes to one of the readings. The rubric will be similar as well, and I’ll probably grade it even more harshly than I did the midterm (since I don’t have to deal with disgruntled students after the final, heh). So you should use that information to determine how you are going to study and prepare for the final. If you have questions on the material, start asking questions in class! Start posting your questions to the website! Start engaging in discussion about the central themes!

If there are any other questions, send me an email or leave a comment here.

Here is the other short I screened on Thursday.

As human beings, we are separated from in animals because we are underdetermined in nature. We have no little niche in the natural world in which we were designed to live in. That is why we were given to ability to use tools and create things.

I believe that we’ve made evolution come to a grinding halt. Instead of being like every other organism on the face of the earth and changing to better fit into our environment, we humans are the only ones who change our environment to better suit our needs. Our dependence on technology in this way will cause us to remain homo sapiens for years to come. All the modern day conveniences that come with technology make things extremely easy for us.

While these conveniences are currently improving our general quality of life, it is also crippling us in the long run. Without evolution, we can not genetically change to improve. We have drugs and treatments for almost all types of ailments, so genetically fatal diseases cannot be weeded out in evolution. Someday, we will run out of raw material and natural resources. Humans will no longer be able to depend on technology. Basically, we’d have to play evolutionary catch-up or we’d be screwed.

The capabilities of unmanned cars grew exponentially from the 1^st great race challenge and the race that followed the previous year. The cars went from unintelligent machines that could barely drive for 8 miles until self destruction into intelligent ‘things’ that were able to operate over 120 miles through difficult desert terrain. The significant development in technology in one year demonstrates the limitless capabilities that humans have to build these intelligent machines.

The Stanford Team was my favorite entry in the great robot race. Although the 2^nd race was their 1^st entry they surprised the competition. They labored tirelessly to develop a machine that was able to navigate on its own through difficult conditions. The Stanford members combines the use of a camera and lasers in order for the machine to obtain the best possible picture of the outside surrounding. The goal for this car was to constantly follow smooth terrain and avoid potentially dangerous areas. The team allowed the car to think on its own accord and determine the appropriate speeds at each given time.

The Red Team was another team that fiercely competed with Stanford. This team did not use the video technology that Stanford used, rather they solely relied on laser beams for navigation. I felt that this team was artificially attempting to manipulate the car machine because they controlled many variables in the car. For instance they manipulated the speed at every interval, so they had one car at a very fast pace and one at a slow but steady speed. Overall, both of Red’s cars finished the race behind Team Stanford.

You must give the Red Team an enormous amount of credit because they produced two cars that completed the challenge, but I think they manipulated the cars to a point in which they were less intelligent than Team Stanford. Stanford’s automobile was clearly intelligent because the computer held tremendous responsibility for the well being of the mission. Stanford follows Turing’s definition of an intelligent machine because it was able to behave indistinguishably from a human. The car had a mind of its own and was able to function just as a normal person.

The implication for this technology is amazing. Although this race was designed for new ideas in military research, I think that some day cars will drive themselves. The only input from humans will be the destination. The computers will be able to determine the quickest route and provide a safer mode of transportation than humans.

Tonight we screened David Cronenberg’s Camera, and had an interesting discussion of the differences between this portrayal of photography and the way film is presented in Waking Life. For those that missed the video, you can watch it here:

It is worthwhile to think about how the Actor relates to the camera, and whether or not this constitutes anthropomorphism, especially as he describes the ‘obsolescence and death’ the camera has to deal with. An interesting contrast with this short is Wes Anderson’s Ikea commercial from a few years back:

I’d be very happy if someone wrote a post discussing Camera (hint hint).

There will be a screening tonight in FLB G30 at 7pm. We will be watching “The Great Robot Race”, along with two short films.

No doubt, technology has greatly advanced throughout the years. This great improvement in our society has allowed people to depend greatly upon technology. Artificial Intelligence can be utilized to preform a task better and more efficiently than humans. In my opinion, I think that the tasks that AI is able to perform proves the fact that it is intelligent.

Recently, I have tried to apply the concept of AI to a specific item and rationalize the extent of its intelligence. I have pondered the auto pilot system that is used in most airplanes. Auto pilot has many characteristics that make it an amazing example of the technology in our society: it can take off, fly a plane straight and level, it can make precise turns, it can navigate an airplane, it can fly a perfect landing approach, and it can even land a plane (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autopilot). Basically an auto pilot system flies a plane solely without the input from a pilot. The capability of this AI is safer and allows for minimal pilot error. A study by the American Society for Quality claims that 80% of aviation accidents are a result of poor pilot input (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autopilot). The technology of auto pilot allows the pilot more time to monitor the entire airplane, rather than focusing a large amount of time navigating and coordinating the airplane.

The question arises: Is auto pilot just a extension of a human capability, or it is something more advanced? Auto pilot is something revolutionary that transforms the airline transportation industry. It is able to take on the responsibilities of a pilot and perform the job at a higher level, near perfection. This new technology is also able to detect other aircraft in the area and warn the pilot of the danger. Also it can tell if there are any land obstacles that might interfere with the flight. Auto pilot is able to think intelligently and act indistinguishably from a human. We as humans also put tremendous faith in this form of technology because hundreds of people depend on its accuracy for transportation. Auto pilot has evolved over the years and has proven to be a form of AI that benefits society.

This is a link to a really cool video of frogs- I just thought it would be neat to see.

 http://www.ebaumsworld.com/2006/10/frogreborn.html

1) Read Kline, Aristotle, and Marx for next week. We probably wont get to Marx until Thursday. Also, watch the Qrio video now!

2) I have grades done for all the comments and posts for the first half of the course. Everything after comment #350 was posted sometime this morning, so it wont count for the first session. I’ve double checked everything, and made some corrections, so everything should be accurate. However, I’m only human, so if you find a mistake, please let me know.

A few things:

First, apparently Cites doesn’t like the volume of emails I’ve been sending out, so I’ve had a few emails bounce back. As a result, you might not have been notified of all your grades. If you are worried about your grades, email me and I’ll tell you what I have in the grade book.

Before you do that, however, you should check to make sure you have posted the correct number of comments. You can’t use the search bar to check your comments, but there is a different way of keeping track of all your posts and comments. Sign into the course website, and at the dashboard, you will see a link titled ‘Manage’. Select it, and then select ‘comments’. Search for your name, and all your comments will come up.

Remember, I’m not giving any credit for anything in this thread, or any other off-topic posts. Off topic posts are fine, but don’t expect class credit for it. Don’t be too worried if that messed up your score, you have plenty of extra credit opportunities to make it up.

Double check with the emails I’ve sent you, and the actual number of comments you made. If there is a discrepancy, let me know which comments I failed to credit you for.

If there are any questions, just let me know.

Since Frank mentioned it in class, here’s Qrio:

Website (watch his videos!)
Qrio’s Wikipedia entry

Also, here’s the Beck video with nonstop Qrio action:

        While thinking about the debate in class earlier today I realized that I agree and disagree with the Turing side of the Computer argument. It appears that he believes that computers will one day be able to think. The definition of think is to have a conscious mind, to some extent of reasoning, remembering experiences, making rational decisions, etc. By this definition a computer may be able to think one day based on it’s programmers ability to “teach” it to reason and choose something. For example for the chess playing computer, the computer rifles through its memory until it finds the code for the choice that has the best chance of winning.  Based on this i agree that computers may be fully capable of thinking for themselves in the future.

         However, the argument was basically about the ability of a computer to understand. The definition of understand is to perceive the meaning of; grasp the idea of; comprehend. Computers, i dont care how advanced, will forever be incapable of understanding. I mean we humans created understanding, and sometimes we dont even understand the complexities of certain things and/or situations, so how could a computer understand something? For example, my robot could see me and my dog everyday and it could watch my dog bark and then me feed it. Now one day when I am not at home my dog may go to my robot and bark. My robot because of it’s past experience may feed my dog, but if my dog doesnt eat, what would my robot do? It wouldnt understand the concept that my dog may wish to go outside or just play because all it can do is duplicate what it “thinks” is correct based on what it’s seen done in the past.

      We also discussed the ability of a computer to care. The definition of care is  to have an inclination, liking, fondness, or affection. Computers do not care about the things that they do. They do whatever we humans tell them to do without regard for if the things we are doing are ok. And in the future I don’t expect that they will be able to care either. What programmer would program their computer to care about what actions they perform? That programmer could face the chances that the computer may not wish to complete a command because it doesn’t care to do so. For the class example, the Turing believers stated that computers (robots) through past experience may see someone that they interpret as sad and give them a hug. But that isnt an explanation of the human form of caring. Many people are taught that if someone is sad, it’s nice to try to do something to cheer them up such as show them affection; however that doesnt mean that everytime i see someone that is sad i will give them a hug. And the computer that gives the sad person a hug isnt giving the person a hug out of caring, they are just performing a remote action that they think is correct, based on their programming and past experience.  Also the computers interpretation of the person’s body language could be incorrect. They interpret the person’s mood based on their programmer’s understanding of human body language and the programmer could be wrong.

    I also felt like the Turing believers placed a lot of human qualities in the computers based on the fact that we (humans and computers) are designed. i didnt really agree with this because even though computers are designed by people, they are not alive, they are not human, they are objects and should be seen as such, regardless of their intelligence. Besides our ability to think, I think humans are separated from animals (and computers) by having the ability to feel and express our fellings verbally and computers will never be able to do that.

In other words, I dont believe a computer will ever care or understand anything, no matter how advanced science gets, because we as humans don’t even completely scientifically understand what it is to care or understand so how would a computer science person program a computer to have those feelings? Also is it really caring/understanding if someone else gave you that understanding or feeling?

Just for something randomly extra, click the link

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DVOWgs3ykzE

So, I had a few thoughts on the walk home from class. Currently I am still on the fence as to whether or not machines can think. However, I am slightly leaning towards them being able to right now. Anyway, here are my thoughts:

(1) The AI side talked about a machine being able to have several different programs that it could choose from, much like a human. The only problem is, how this is possible. Frank said that a “free will program” could be written. Can the machine really have free will if its decisions are governed by a free will program, though? It seems to me that this would just be a short term type of fate. From the free will program, would the machine be able to choose the programs choice as the best means? That is to say, could a machine have a choice between what was choosen and doing something else. On the other hand, the machine’s choice as to which program to follow could be decided using a “random choice program.” In this case, I think, it is clear to see that this would not really be a form of thinking, as much as reaching in a bag and chosing a Scrabble tile. There would be no aspect of caring which program might prove to be the most beneficial. If a program were then developed to choose whether or not the random choice is good, then it would just turn into a situation similar to the one above.

(2) Have you ever noticed that computers need to be shut off occasionally? Continuosly running your computer increases the chances of either it getting a virus (getting sick) or needing a hardware fix (surgery). I have noticed that if I leave my computer unattended for an extended period, and it goes to “sleep,” sometimes it might not play sound or recognize its sound drivers when it is “awoken.” This is quite a odd situation, considering the computer only runs code, and should therfore be able to recognize it as soon as it is awoken. However, the computer still seems to “forget.” I put forget in quotations, because it is considered to be the quality of a thinking being. Basically, it seems as if my computer acts just like a brain sometimes. It may forget some information right when it wakes up, and then need a refresher to become reorientated.

(3) I was listening to the song “One More Robot” by the Flaming Lips. It is off the album “Yoshimi Battles the Pink Robots,” an album which I highly recommend. It also has quite a few philosophical concepts on it. But “One More Robot” applies really well to some of the conversations we have been having. The lyrics are the following:
“Unit three thousand twenty one is warning
Makes a humming sound - when its circuits
Duplicate emotions - and a sense of coldness detaches
As it tries to comfort your sadness -

One more robot learns to be something more than
A machine - when it tries the way it does - make it seem
Like it can love -
Cause it’s hard to say what’s real - when you know the
Way you feel - is it wrong to think it’s love
When it tries the way it does…”

The story of the song is, according to the writer:
Loosely based on the story of “Yoshimi Battles The Pink Robots” - the robot is engineered specifically to destroy its opponent in a gladiator style fight to the death. But, this robot’s circuitry (3000-21 model unit) has the capacity to react to changes with synthetic emotions - and even though it’s programmed to kill her - it falls in love with Yoshimi - and by the end of the song (the sad reprise) the robot has decided to hill himself rather than harm Yoshimi…

The reason I think this is pertinent is because of the wording of the song. Basically, it calls into question that if Unit 3000-21 is trying so hard to love, then doesn’t that mean he is actually experience love. If a machine could be programmed to attempt to understand human emotion, then isn’t there an inherent struggle as to whether or not he can understand it. And it is through this struggle that the actual emotion is experienced. It is certainly a futuristic story, so can’t completely apply to most current technology. However, this problem will become more prevelant when more technology with emotion recognition is invented.

Actually, I believe NASA was in the development, or still is, of a computer that recognizes human emotion and then acts as a psychiatrist for those people. The reason for the technology is for extended missions with limited human contact. The idea is that the computer could simulate human interaction for the astronauts. I think they may have gotten the idea from HAL 9000 in 2001: A Space Odyssey (which means it’s probably going to work).

It’s 4 AM, morning of the day our midterm is due. As I’m putting the finishing touches on my paper, I can’t help but think if Descartes went through what I’m going through right now. All we can see in his Meditations are clear and understandable thoughts. But did he ever just feel like giving up? I heard his meditations were written in a six day time frame. During this time he stayed in solitude, with nothing to come between him and his thoughts. With so little time and such a big problem to solve, did he ever think, “**** this! I’ve been thinking for days on end and I can’t come up with any proofs that are good!”

Since we have already discussed things like Descartes’ ontological proof of God in class, and we’ve already seen how full of holes it is, I think it’s definitely a possibility that Descartes started off with the greatest of intentions for his work…and then just half-assed his way through the rest of it. The beginning of Meditations offer a unique view of the world, but his God stuff is a bit of a stretch.

Since we are going in this direction anyways, I figured I would post something that made me laugh the first time I heard about it. The second article down, entitled “Ghost in the Drum Machine” talks about a man in California who was distributing bumper stickers that said, “Drum Machines Have No Soul.”

I think this pertains to some of our current discussions. Can a machine ever really have a mind and a soul? For those who believe that human’s possess either of these attributes, it is sometimes a hard question. If we can create a machine with emotion, does that mean we created its soul?

The article is more about music, which I would love to discuss more if anyone is interested in it. John Wood, of the article, argues that new recording techniques and digital instruments like the drum machine are ruining music as an artform, and stealing the livlihoods of many musicians. I disagree, and feel that any technology that can create a sound can be turned into an instrument in the hands of a person. For example, the concept of the turntable as a musical instrument is still debated, although less than in the past. Furthermore, digital recording that makes a more true to original copy of the sound would seem to be a blessing. The debate will continue as long as there are over-opinionated musicians who feel that their artform is more artistic and expressive than anyone else’s.