Philosophy 101E

Robots Inherit Human Minds

by Hans Moravac, who also appeared in the movie Love Machine screened last week.

Our first tools, sticks and stones, were very different from ourselves. But many tools now resemble us, in function or form, and they are beginning to have minds. A loose parallel with our own evolution suggests how they may develop in future. Computerless industrial machinery exhibits the behavioral flexibility of single-celled organisms. Today’s best computer-controlled robots are like the simpler invertebrates. A thousand-fold increase in computer power in this decade should make possible machines with reptile-like sensory and motor competence. Growing computer power over the next half century will allow robots that learn like mammals, model their world like primates and eventually reason like humans. Depending on your point of view, humanity will then have produced a worthy successor, or transcended inherited limitations and transformed itself into something quite new. No longer limited by the slow pace of human learning and even slower biological evolution, intelligent machinery will conduct its affairs on an ever faster, ever smaller scale, until coarse physical nature has been converted to fine-grained purposeful thought.

I made the point today that we are embodied on the internet. I hadn’t planned to discuss this, so my response was a bit scattered (stream of consciousness, heh). Let me try to make it a bit clearer:

We are embodied on the internet. Technology doesn’t simply extend our capacities, but it also changes the kinds of environments in which we act. This in turn changes the kinds of actions that are required for engaging in those environments. Sometimes this results in actions that are very different from the kinds of behaviors we make while engaging nature, but that doesn’t make them any less engaged actions.

It is harder for Dreyfus to make his arguments about technology stick now days, because the technology we use today is literally engaging our bodies in ways it never could before. Take a look at any video on YouTube that shows people using the Wii. These people are clearly engaged with their whole bodies.

But there is a sense in which the Wii example is too easy and superficial. I think it is better to think of the skill required to navigate any complicated website or program. Think about people who use Photoshop, or Final Cut, or any other big, complicated program. It is impossible to doubt that there is a learned skill involved in using this kind of software. It is something that requires practice and training; its the kind of thing that some people are better at than others. But Dreyfus’ argument is that skills are acquired through the use of the body. If he’s right, then we must be embodied when we are using these programs.

Or think about all the social rules and norms involved in interacting with any online community- your favorite message boards; Facebook; MySpace; Wikipedia; this blog. These are all very complicated social environments. We all have some sense of what is appropriate for these environments, and what is inappropriate, and how to behave. Some people do it better than others. MySpace is full of social cues- music, backgrounds, images, links, friends, etc. MySpace is just like a fashion accessory to your online identity.

If these places on the Internet are really environments that take skill to navigate, then you must conclude that we are embodied on the internet. If that’s the case, then the Internet doesn’t pose a threat to our humanity. At most it poses a threat to our current understanding of ourselves and our environment, because in a real sense it changes what we are, and what we interact with. But that doesn’t undermine our humanity; it reaffirms it.

Facebook and MySpace users aren’t examples of people who despise the body, or who think that the body is obsolete. They are people who desperately want to integrate these new possibilities and forms of expression into their lives. They are people who want to make their online identity real and meaningful and relevant. They are people who are trying to find a stable social environment, not just as an abstract mind or identity, but as a real person.

Here are links to most of the videos I showed tonight. Its a little much to embed all these videos, so I’m just linking them. Feel free to post any comments you have on any of these videos, or link to others you find interesting.

Music Videos
Bjork - All is full of love
Bjork - Bachelorette
Bjork - Hyperballad (we didn’t watch this one, but its worth seeing)
U.N.K.L.E - Rabbit in your headlights
Daft Punk - Technologic
Aphex Twin - Rubber Johnny
Aphex Twin - Monkey Drummer

Robot Videos
Big Dog
Robot Chair
Film Making Robot (Some additional commentary)
You can see lots more robot stuff on my website.

Misc
Interactive Display
Stelarc (This is referenced in Clark’s book)

See that image above? That’s right, it’s two robotic Bjorks making out with each other. Sure, it’s sensual…kind of, but there’s definitely something unnatural about it. The act of kissing and fondling is usually an act performed by two humans. So why does it look so silly when robots do it?

Sex is usually accompanied by at least two of the three following emotions: lust, love, and desire. These are very human characteristics that would be difficult for a machine to learn, even with a neural network. Seeing this type of relationship between two machines is difficult for us because emotion is the one thing that we all thought would separate humans from robots.

An androids, a robot with a humanoid form, is an attempt to make a machine with as many human qualities with possible. The video portrayed an attempt to make an android with qualities that separate man and machine. The emotions in the two androids were heavily contrasted by the use of machines that were far less complex than they were. These assembly line robots worked efficiently and precisely, as fine tuned instruments should. But they gave off a cold, sterile, and uncaring feel as they meticulously worked to finish up the android.

This definitely redefined the what the words “robot” and “machine” mean to me. A machine is no more than a a tool, something to be used by someone. A robot, however, has a certain degree of independence and can work on it’s own. The music video portrayed a distant future, one where robots are capable of some level of compassion. The video shows the two androids going through the motions of compassion and erotic love, but I do not think that androids, no matter how realistic, will ever feel exactly what we as humans feel.

Artificial intelligence is something that stirs up people’s blood because it is thinking about what might happen. There is a long history of literature and film about this topic, and we are finally approaching the final time. It is only a matter of time until we hit that technological breakthrough that will finally answer all the questions about robots and intelligence. People like to think they are special and superior to everything else in the world with having no real threats in the modern animal kingdom. Our “edge” is the capacity to reason and reflect, something that has been unprecedented in history. When there is uncertainty, people will try to rationalize. Some people will be right, some people will be wrong. There was a point when technology was new. The internet 20 years ago was nothing like we see it today. The computer of 40 years ago is literally hundreds of thousands of times bigger than the modern computer. If I was to go back in time when computers were the size of buildings, and show them a laptop, they would probably flip out. People often think too small and underestimate the capabilities of technology. We are growing more and more dependant on technology, and I believe in the power of robots. I believe that humans have the power to create great turning machines. I believe that we can explain a formal system to a machine. As hard drives get bigger, we will be able to store ridiculous amounts of information in small spaces. It will get to be to the point where there will be virtually unlimited saving space. Perhaps we will one day be able to save every single possible game of chess onto a big hard drive, and the machine will indefinitely know every outcome. Humans are unique in that the sky is the limit. As we go on from generation to generation, people use the information from the past and they build on it. Many philosophers are too stuck on the idea that humans are special just because they can feel. I’m sure 20 years from now, my suspicions will be confirmed.

So when Daniel was talking about Deep Blue, he said that it was programmed just to play chess and that people who were smarter then it created it. My first thought was the idea of God. Did God not just program us? He is, after all, our creator. If our thoughts are “electrical” synapses, how can we be that different from a machine? Maybe one day they will be able to create “caring” machines. People only 30 yrs ago could not imagine the technology we have so far. Like Frank said in class, one day they will be doing things we can’t imagine about at all. But just because we can’t imagine it, mainly because of our lack in understanding the science and math behind new ideas, doesn’t mean there isn’t some inventor out there thinking about how to figure out a way to incorporate feelings into machines. From what we learned about earlier, there is no such thing as an imagination, just learning knowledge that has always been there. When you think about it that way, aren’t these scientists just trying to create a human from metal? I think that one day, it could be a possibility. Especially with all of the scientific advances on watching how a brain reacts to electrical impulses, what it looks like when it is thinking of different things, and what happens when certain parts are missing. That is where psychology, philosophy, and physiology come together. I think when Daniel was talking in class, he said that you can’t open a brain and see a verbal ‘box’. But when scientists take a look at the electrical impulses while someone talks or listens, they see patterns and certain areas that consistently light up. They have studied the physical means of the brain and have figured out where different things are processed, sent to where, interpreted to what, and sent to somewhere else. They have learned a lot and they can only learn more. If it is out there, it should be able to be recognized one day.

Just like in the movie Pi, everything is a pattern. I know they didn’t talk about the findings of symbol/number Pi, but that was some pattern that was not obvious until it was studied to a point that it was right in front of their faces. Once that number was recognized, then it was obvious that it could be used for a lot of concepts pertaining to a circle. I was thinking about the time in the movie with the guy was talking about how the board game had infinite choices (like the example of chess in class). Yes, in the beginning, there are infinite choices. But the further they got into the game the more logistic the choices became. It is a lot like guessing how to do something and not succeeding. You try different ways until you stumble upon a right one. This reminds me of Einstein trying to figure out the light bulb. Then, once you can figure out one part, your next level is narrowed down on what you need to figure out the second time. Until you can spend so much time, like lifetimes or millennia, until all the works piles up onto the one correct answer. This is like in movie Waking Life. When the guy was talking about it took a shorter and shorter time for “God” to make things. The eras get shorter and shorter as they approach human existence, which to us has been a long time, but really hasn’t been that long at all compare to how old the Universe is. But who knows, maybe that has a pattern in its self that will one day be a predictable end.

In John Haugeland’s article, there was a lot that confused me. However, the last thing he says, and something that we discussed in class today, is whether or not computers could ever feel, or care. I personally have never thought of a computer as anything more than a machine, and I don’t think that I ever will. However, Haugeland says that “if cognitive science is on the right track, then some semantic engines can care about things, be involved with them, have personalities, and so on.” (page 49) I do not understand how this can be, since everything that is part of the machine starts from a human. If the computer is programmed to feel embarrassed, ambitious and so on, it is only feeling that way because a human first experienced those emotions and found a way to instill them in a computer. While I do not understand computers very well, I can not see how this would happen.

Furthermore, why would anyway want a human to begin caring? Obviously, there’s been a lot of movies and other media that jokes about computers taking over the world. While this is ridiculous, it does raise the point of how we are making computers so similar to us. In some ways, it seems that they are becoming better than us at things that were once solely human. For example, today in class we talked about the computer that beat the expert at chess. I find something like that unsettling, and I do not think that is something we should be striving for. I think machines can be useful, but when we start drawing too many similarities between us and them, it is time to stop.

Thankfully, Haugeland did mention right at the end of his article that while computers may be able to be programmed to care, they will never be able to have the common sense and values of people. They will not be able to put things into any sort of context, or use reason that way that humans do.

I thought that this article and the discussions in class have been extremely interesting. I agree with the whole idea that humans are like machines. When we were talking about the computer that is programmed to play chess, it made me think of how similar that is to humans. We all may act differently in situations, but we all have the same main choices to choose from. We, like the computer, are programmed so that before each move we make, we look through all of our options and choose which one has the best chance of getting whatever we’re looking for. Like the professional chess player who was shocked when the computer played a “human” move during the game, we as humans are shocked when other people make decisions that we can’t imagine doing, such as brutal cases of murder or rape. We perceive these actions as “non-human” and can’t believe that the person was capable of doing this. However, we, like the chess player, just choose not to see that one branch in our array of options, but we all have it in us. Although we all vary in our different behaviors and actions, the general ideas and paths are there for most situations in each human being. We have been programmed, like the computer, to choose the options with the best chance for success, but every once in awhile there is a error or a slip-up and we choose the path that seems impossible or incomprehendable. If we really searched deep and thought about all the options we could take in a certain situation, we would see that those same “non-human” paths lie in ourselves as well, though the majority of people chose to block them and don’t even consider them in their everyday activities and normal situations. This discussion showed a part of us as human beings that we may not want to look at or realize, but the truth is that is there and we are all capable of making one of those “non-human” choices and shocking everyone.

As we learned in class today, a turning machine can imitate a formal system with three parts: storage, a control unit, and an indicator unit. From our example in class, ones and zeros are the identifiable positions. In a computer science class I took, ones and zeros translate to yes and no, respectively. To design programs in a computer, complex queries are asked and are answered by yes or no. The complexity of the queries is what allows for a more intricate answer. Therefore, an imitation, where a turning machine can simulate an analog with a digital system, is done so through ones and zeros. My question is, with all the ‘grey areas’ in analog thinking, how might a yes or no answer truly imitate a formal system on an abstract level? Is it done through the questioning? The questions must therefore be leading questions to allow a simple yes or no answer to imitate such a complex idea.

My point here is the idea of imitation through leading questions and such simplicity seems cheap. I hate the idea of simulating something as beautiful as originality and inspiration with ones and zeros. To bring this idea further if a human being is considered a formal system, and formal systems may be imitated by turning machines, we as individuals may be simulated through digital systems. Relevance, in fact, is the only requirement standing in the way of computers’ capability of imitating all things, including us. Someone pointed out in class that computers have come so far already in technology, that it is only a matter of time before the hindrance of relevance is too overcome. When I step back from the definitions and the understanding of this vocabulary of the cognitive thinker, I wonder how we got here. How did technology become so complex that it began taking away from the complexity of our own minds? How did we allow a machine to begin to imitate the things we pride ourselves on being capable of doing. The ability to have thought is what sets us apart from animals, Descartes would say. What will set us apart from computers if they are capable of relevance, the fact that computers come to the same end product as us through ones and zeros?

Personally, I do not buy the analogy from class that human beings are a formal system. I mean, it is understandable that we might have a system very similar to that, but we are not strictly formal systems. I like the argument that was presented that we are simply something more than that. I believe that this argument might be a little cliché of course, but it is correct nonetheless.

The formal system that was being used initially to describe human existence does make some sense. The idea of operating by a set of rules and the starting points all make sense. I think you could even say that the operations of the human body do live to a set of rules. The human must breathe, must recycle wastes and all the other necessary bodily functions and that could be looked as following a set of rules. If the body breaks these rules there could be dire consequences. The problem is though; can human existence simply be based on physical presence? To further elaborate, there is no physical proof of God’s existence by Descartes definition, but there is a sort of existence in his own mind. Therefore, if God’s existence is not based on a physical foundation, does a human’s existence have to be based on a physical foundation?

This is where I believe the formal system fails to completely define human existence. It can be related to the physical aspect of humans, but not the mind or “soul” as some people would refer to. To say that computers are a formal system, and that humans are the same, thus computers can emulate humans does not make sense. As also stated in class, the idea that computers must receive human input first in order to even do anything backs the previous statement.

Like I said earlier, the formal system I believe can be used to define the basic physical part of human existence, and sure a computer can emulate that, like they make the terminators in the movie. The emotional or mental part of the human being, I do not believe can be associated with the formal system. The mind does not necessarily operate no a set of rules. The mind is an open system and is not restricted to any set of norms.