Neurologist outlines why machines can’t think

[Silmarien]

Even if we grant all of this, I don't see why AI is impossible.
Brains are material objects. So are computers (hardware). Thoughts aren't material objects; neither is software.

I mean, I assume this neurosurgeon doesn't use an ATM, because there is no way that number on the screen could be 'about' him or his bank account or the amount of money in it.

This is pretty much his point, though. The number on the screen doesn't have anything to do with bank accounts or money. It's just the result of an essentially meaningless computation, and humans are the ones assigning meaning to it. (Unless, of course, the ATM machine actually is self-aware and thinking about money.)

 

[Strathos]

Not in the least, since the universe came from God. But even science agrees energy can neither be created nor destroyed, so must have always existed, even before the universe as we know it began.

Well the statement that God is the fabric of the universe seemed to imply it.

 

[Anguspure]

Even if we grant all of this, I don't see why AI is impossible.
Brains are material objects. So are computers (hardware). Thoughts aren't material objects; neither is software.

I mean, I assume this neurosurgeon doesn't use an ATM, because there is no way that number on the screen could be 'about' him or his bank account or the amount of money in it.

The brain is a material object but indications from NS are that the mind is something else that transcends the material brain.

 

[essentialsaltes]

This is pretty much his point, though. The number on the screen doesn't have anything to do with bank accounts or money. It's just the result of an essentially meaningless computation

So are the algorisms one learns in school to calculate things.

(Unless, of course, the ATM machine actually is self-aware and thinking about money.)

I'm not suggesting ATMs are aware, but 'aboutness' is less strict I think.

 

[essentialsaltes]

The brain is a material object but indications from NS are that the mind is something else that transcends the material brain.

How is that?

 

[Anguspure]

How is that?

I have read a couple of NS books that write of patients who have severe brain damage and yet little diminishment of the mind and who are able to subsequently regain almost complete function.

One of these, a stroke victim, was found (during autopsy) to have been operating with less than 10% of his brain functioning and yet was able to self rehabilitate to near normal function.

I know a couple of guys who have lost half thier brains and one of them in particular (who was hit on the head by an exploding block and so lost almost half his brain) is able to relate that although his brain function suffered hugely his mind did not.

This article is also interesting: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/transcending-the-brain/

 

[Strathos]

I would caution people to be very careful about strictly anthropocentric views of intelligence.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Neuroplasticity is a well-known aspect of regaining function after brain injury.

 

[Silmarien]

So are the algorisms one learns in school to calculate things.

Yes. Which is the point. The author is suggesting that the mind cannot be represented as an algorithm.

I'm not suggesting ATMs are aware, but 'aboutness' is less strict I think.

Intentionality in the philosophical sense does require more than a simple algorithm, though. Some recognition of the object of "thought" as an object is necessary.

Mind you, I do ultimately view thought as computational (sort of), so I disagree with the article as well. AI seems to be primarily a problem for substance dualists.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I'd like to hear peoples' definitions of "intelligence". Computers, in my mind (and I've worked on them for nearly 40 years) will never be intelligent. They can store vast quantities of information, and they can make super-fast computations, but they can't reason. They only deal with inputs they've been given (or have derived from those they've been given). We have nothing to fear about AI because the computer's "I" is quite a poor substitute for human intelligence.

People said the same thing about being able to create technology to go to the moon before we did it. Have you not noticed that technology increases in leaps and bounds about every 3 to 5 years?

It's basically not a technology issue, but a programming issue. We do not think in 1's and 0's. So how can you develop a thinking machine by limiting it's ability to think to only two dimensions? Granted, it allows for exceptionally fast computations, but that's it. The failure to create AI is us, and only secondarily the computer...

EDIT: I agree, with our current operating systems, it will never be possible....

 

[Holoman]

Nice article. I agree with him, and I've used machine "learning" in my day job and can see how unsophisticated it really is.

I do not accept that consciousness is purely a result of the material brain. If that were true, I don't see how any of us have free will. We are being driven purely by particles bouncing around in our brains as we react to the world.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... The author is suggesting that the mind cannot be represented as an algorithm.

That seems reasonable, as the brain is a learning system, so while it uses numerous algorithms at a low level, they are the tools of a flexible, adaptive higher level.

The standard computing analogy is not really appropriate, except in the broadest general terms, but we do have neuromorphic network learning systems that are analogous, and are also functionally non-algorithmic.

Intentionality in the philosophical sense does require more than a simple algorithm, though. Some recognition of the object of "thought" as an object is necessary.

I see no reason why neural network learning systems could not have intentional states, and I suspect some already do, in a limited way. However, the difficulty in establishing such claims is that 'intentionality' is poorly defined in functional terms; i.e. what are the observable distinguishing characteristics of intentionality?

The same limitations apply to other high-level abstractions, such as consciousness, and free will.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I do not accept that consciousness is purely a result of the material brain. If that were true, I don't see how any of us have free will. We are being driven purely by particles bouncing around in our brains as we react to the world.

The feeling that we have free will is not incompatible with materialism, and even pure determinism. All it takes is not having complete knowledge of the complexities that underlie our behaviour.

For example, we examine and evaluate options, weigh up the pros and cons, make decisions, and take actions based on our preferences, desires, morals, needs, opinions, how we feel at the time, and so-on. Many people would say that if you can do this without feeling coerced or constrained, you're exercising free will.

However, there's a good argument to be made that those motivations are themselves determined by prior events in a complex way, by the interaction between our genetic inheritance with our life experiences as we grow and learn, each of us becoming unique personalities as a result.

Our universe doesn't seem to be purely deterministic, due to quantum randomness (although there are fully deterministic interpretations), but at everyday scales, stochastic quantum behaviour 'averages out' to what some philosophers call 'effective determinism' - determinism for macro-scale intents and purposes. This doesn't mean predictability - chaos (non-linear dynamics) and complexity see to that, but predictability isn't a requirement of determinism.

So I would suggest that the subjective experience of free will described above is quite compatible with deterministic materialism.

If you have a different concept of free will that is distinguishable, in practice, from what I described, and an example that illustrates the distinction, I'd be interested to hear it.

 

[Kaon]

Another interesting series that explores the concept is: https://m.imdb.com/title/tt4122068/

But for my part I am wondering what the connection with the recent AI technological push and the desire of the fallen ones to have bodies to inhabit.

Could it be that the development is simply creating a user interface for a spirit being that will masquerade as a clever computer?

YES.

 

[Kaon]

The real question is why are so many humans not intelligent?

We are born geniuses; we learn how to become stupid by means of civilization and society (i.e. teaching the many to think like a few.)

That is why men would even be so foolish as to try to create AI, or evaporating inter-dimensional pockets for example. They don't realize it, but they are thinking like a few.

 

[Holoman]

The feeling that we have free will is not incompatible with materialism, and even pure determinism. All it takes is not having complete knowledge of the complexities that underlie our behaviour.

It's possible, but that would make free will illusory.

For example, we examine and evaluate options, weigh up the pros and cons, make decisions, and take actions based on our preferences, desires, morals, needs, opinions, how we feel at the time, and so-on. Many people would say that if you can do this without feeling coerced or constrained, you're exercising free will.

However, there's a good argument to be made that those motivations are themselves determined by prior events in a complex way, by the interaction between our genetic inheritance with our life experiences as we grow and learn, each of us becoming unique personalities as a result.

Yes I'll grant it's possible but again I think that would make free will illusory.

Our universe doesn't seem to be purely deterministic, due to quantum randomness (although there are fully deterministic interpretations), but at everyday scales, stochastic quantum behaviour 'averages out' to what some philosophers call 'effective determinism' - determinism for macro-scale intents and purposes. This doesn't mean predictability - chaos (non-linear dynamics) and complexity see to that, but predictability isn't a requirement of determinism.

So I would suggest that the subjective experience of free will described above is quite compatible with deterministic materialism.

If you have a different concept of free will that is distinguishable, in practice, from what I described, and an example that illustrates the distinction, I'd be interested to hear it.

I'm probably more inclined to believe the deterministic interpretations of quantum mechanics though I'll admit I don't know much about it. It reminds me of something John Polkinghorne said though about quantum mechanics and how it explained how free will was able to exist in a material universe. I think his view was that God had created the universe in such a way that it had these mechanisms of influencing things at the quantum level that couldn't be detected. I didn't fully follow it at the time.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Yes I'll grant it's possible but again I think that would make free will illusory.

I guess that depends on how you define 'free will' (or 'illusory'). If you're making choices based solely on your personal preferences (etc.) without coercion or constraint, in what sense do you think it's illusory?

Do you have a coherent definition of free will that you don't consider illusory?

I'm probably more inclined to believe the deterministic interpretations of quantum mechanics though I'll admit I don't know much about it. It reminds me of something John Polkinghorne said though about quantum mechanics and how it explained how free will was able to exist in a material universe. I think his view was that God had created the universe in such a way that it had these mechanisms of influencing things at the quantum level that couldn't be detected. I didn't fully follow it at the time.

I too would prefer QM to be deterministic (e.g. 'Many Worlds', or Bohmian mechanics), but I don't expect nature to conform to my preferences

I really don't see how QM can help explain free will - how does introducing probabilistic randomness help? Seems to me that's the last thing it needs...

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Nice article. I agree with him, and I've used machine "learning" in my day job and can see how unsophisticated it really is.

Yah, I liked it myself, he did a really good job IMO.

I do not accept that consciousness is purely a result of the material brain. If that were true, I don't see how any of us have free will. We are being driven purely by particles bouncing around in our brains as we react to the world.

Neither do I. I believe consciousness happens in the electrical spark between our neural cells, not in the cells themselves. The cells are mere repositories for data.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Rather believe in spirit (of people who have a living spirit).

As Yahweh's fellowship with us and our worship/ service to Him is in spirit and in truth.

Neither do I. I believe consciousness happens in the electrical spark between our neural cells, not in the cells themselves. The cells are mere repositories for data.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I really don't see how QM can help explain free will - how does introducing probabilistic randomness help? Seems to me that's the last thing it needs...

But is it really probabilistic randomness, or just our inability to determine all the variables that lead us to this conclusion?