Artificail Inteligence and Human Rights

[Linux]

This is a straw man - it doesn’t address my comments at all. Maybe you just weren’t concentrating. Try reading my posts again.

Would you agree that if you don’t have the freedom to reason that therefore you cannot truly determine whether something is true or not.

 

[Linux]

As a computer science student I say that a computer is deterministic. Even when programmed to simulate fuzzy logic it has to run the code imbedded in it.

The brain does the same thing.

 

[tonyrey]

If all our conclusions are caused by events beyond our control it is impossible for us to be sure of anything. There are innumerable ways of being mistaken but only one correct explanation of a particular aspect of reality. The success of science is conclusive evidence that deterministic materialism is false and AI is restricted to mechanistic solutions.

 

[TimeEntrance]

It’s a matter of belief. I think the human brain evolved and consciousness emerged as a very advantageous trait. From that, I see nothing impossible in a robot reaching and exceeding our levels of intelligence and consciousness if we give it the ability to learn, modify itself and progress.

I read a book written by a bright young Jewish guy majoring in neuroscience with a minor in philosophy I think. He’s now in medical school. His book I read was about determinism in neuroscience.

He suggested that human’s ability to produce and write poetry evidences the non-deterministic nature of the human mind/brain than simply set choices given to humans in an experimental design.

Another book I read on AI written by a priest with a Ph.D.'s in physics and theology made note that the “brains” of computers are chemically structured differently than the brains of biological organisms like humans. The former being powered by electrons and while the latter is powered chemically by more than electrons with the cellular ability to convert different molecular structures into ATP and other useful molecular structures. Biological organisms–including their brains–also exhibit the ability to heal themselves. A computer can not heal itself.

Furthermore, the concept of the theory of evolution with descent with modification is restricted to living, biological organisms, and not extended to technology of inorganic matter.

So, I think you make an illogical leap in judgment as to what technological tools of inorganic matter can self evolve into and learn.

Actually, evolution supposedly occurs among whole populations while natural selection occurs among individuals. The process of evolution (larger brains and increased intelligence) requires reproductive traits wherein certain characters (e.g., genetic traits) have been selected and retained in the genetic pool. Computers have to reproductive ability and have no variation competition that promotes evolutionary change through natural selection.

The process of change in computers that you are suggesting would be the equivalent of Intelligent Design.

 

[wanstronian]

Would you agree that if you don’t have the freedom to reason that therefore you cannot truly determine whether something is true or not.

I would say that even with the freedom to reason, we can’t ever be absolutely sure. All we can do is act in accordance with models of the world that work.

But again you’re missing the point. We have the ability to reason, we just don’t have the ability to choose our conclusions. Because the processes involved are physical as far as we can tell, and also as far as we can tell, physical processes are deterministic.

 

[TimeEntrance]

I would say that even with the freedom to reason, we can’t ever be absolutely sure. All we can do is act in accordance with models of the world that work.

But again you’re missing the point. We have the ability to reason, we just don’t have the ability to choose our conclusions. Because the processes involved are physical as far as we can tell, and also as far as we can tell, physical processes are deterministic.

Actually, that’s not entirely correct as to what neurological determinist suggest. They suggest we can in fact choose but that our choices (because of the physical nature of our brains as you pointed out) are limited even if that limit is something like 10 to the 20th power. They further suggest that the neurological pathways are determined and particular to each individual, and that the thoughts traveling down a given pathway determines the conclusion the person will make.

 

[Linux]

I would say that even with the freedom to reason, we can’t ever be absolutely sure. All we can do is act in accordance with models of the world that work.

So? You either have the freedom to reason or you don’t. The fact that our freedom is limited in some way is irrelevant.

But again you’re missing the point. We have the ability to reason

If every thought in your mind is, at its foundation, merely the sum total of non-rational atomic processes, then we do not have the rational freedom to comprehend truth at all. You have no choice or control whatsoever insofar as the information the brain produces. You cannot comprehend truth if you are not free to make rational inferences.

 

[wanstronian]

Actually, that’s not entirely correct as to what neurological determinist suggest. They suggest we can in fact choose but that our choices (because of the physical nature of our brains as you pointed out) are limited even if that limit is something like 10 to the 20th power. They further suggest that the neurological pathways are determined and particular to each individual, and that the thoughts traveling down a given pathway determines the conclusion the person will make.

That’s interesting - citation?

 

[wanstronian]

So? You either have the freedom to reason or you don’t. The fact that our freedom is limited in some way is irrelevant.

It’s not about the “freedom” to reason. Is the river “free” to flow downhill?

If every thought in your mind is, at its foundation, merely the sum total of non-rational atomic processes, then we do not have the rational freedom to comprehend truth at all. You have no choice or control whatsoever insofar as the information the brain produces.

Correct.

You cannot comprehend truth if you are not free to make rational inferences.

I’m talking about the “ability” to reason. We have the ability to reason. We don’t have the choice about whether to apply it or not, nor the process by which we go about it (which is why two people, considering the same idea, will arrive at different conclusions). The ability to do something and the freedom to do it are two different things.

A calculator has the ability to add two numbers, but not the freedom to choose whether or not to do it. Yet when it does it, it gets the right result (although there was this one cheap thing I owned once…)

 

[MPat]

If AI become a reality, should human rights apply to them? Yes or no and why?

Perhaps you should specify some features that the AI in question would have to have…? For, technically, any existing chess engine would be an “AI” (though, I guess, not of the sort you are interested in). It doesn’t have human rights, nor should it. First of all, it is not a human. Second, well, what is it going to do with those rights? After all, humans have no “freedom from uninstallation” or “right to a fair amount of CPU cycles”. In fact, many chess engines wouldn’t even have much use for administrator rights…

 

[Linux]

It’s not about the “freedom” to reason. Is the river “free” to flow downhill?

I am talking about the freedom to comprehend truth. If the brain produces information based on non-rational atomic events, then there is no reasoning occurring. There is no “you” that comprehends truth. Reasoning begins with a comprehension of truth. It begins with the acknowledgement of rational distinctions, and that acknowledgement begins purely in the intellect, not in the activities of non-rational atoms. The brain does not comprehend truth given your world-view.

I’m talking about the “ability” to reason. We have the ability to reason.

The ability to reason is not a logical consequence of your world-view; and of course if your world-view happens to be true you do not have the capacity to rationally know that truth, since you cannot possibly reason to it given what I said above. Hence you don’t have the ability to reason in any true sense of the word. So this discussion really becomes illogical if you intend to rationally convince us; which I am sure is your intention.

 

[Linux]

.

A calculator has the ability to add two numbers, but not the freedom to choose whether or not to do it. Yet when it does it, it gets the right result (although there was this one cheap thing I owned once…)

Calculators do not rationally comprehend truth as you well know. But we self-evidently do, despite getting things wrong sometimes. We are not calculators.

 

[TimeEntrance]

That’s interesting - citation?

What you were describing is fatalism.

Fatalism: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatalism

While the terms are often used interchangeably, fatalism, determinism, and predeterminism are discrete in emphasizing different aspects of the futility of human will or the foreordination of destiny. However, all these doctrines share common ground.

Determinists generally agree that human actions affect the future but that human action is itself determined by a causal chain of prior events. Their view does not accentuate a “submission” to fate or destiny, whereas fatalists stress an acceptance of future events as inevitable. Determinists believe the future is fixed specifically due to causality; fatalists and predeterminists believe that some or all aspects of the future are inescapable, but not necessarily due to causality.

Determinism: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism

Causal determinism is “the idea that every event is necessitated by antecedent events and conditions together with the laws of nature”.[3] However, causal determinism is a broad enough term to consider that “one’s deliberations, choices, and actions will often be necessary links in the causal chain that brings something about. In other words, even though our deliberations, choices, and actions are themselves determined like everything else, it is still the case, according to causal determinism, that the occurrence or existence of yet other things depends upon our deliberating, choosing and acting in a certain way”.[4]

Third: scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=finding-free-will&page=2

A Clockwork Universe
In 1687 Isaac Newton published his Principia, which enunciated the law of universal gravitation and the three laws of motion. Newton’s second law links the force brought on a system—a billiard ball rolling on a green felt table—to its acceleration. This law has profound consequences, for it implies that the positions and velocities of all the components making up an entity at any particular moment, together with the forces between them, unalterably determine that entity’s fate—that is, its future location and speed.

This is the essence of determinism. The mass, location and velocities of the planets as they travel in their orbits around the sun determine where they will be in a thousand, a million or a billion years from today, provided only that all the forces acting on them are properly accounted for. The universe, once set in motion, runs its course inexorably, like a clockwork.

A full-blown setback for the notion that the future can be accurately forecast was revealed in the form of deterministic chaos. The late meteorologist Edward Lorenz came across it while solving three simple mathematical equations characterizing the motion of the atmosphere. The solution predicted by his computer program varied widely when he entered starting values that differed by only tiny amounts. This is the hallmark of chaos: infinitesimally small perturbations in the equations’ starting points lead to radically different outcomes. In 1972 Lorenz coined the term “butterfly effect” to denote this extreme sensitivity to initial conditions: the beating of a butterfly’s wings creates barely perceptible ripples in the atmosphere that ultimately alter the path of a tornado elsewhere.

Cars have comparatively simple internal structures. The brains of bees, beagles and boys, by comparison, are vastly more heterogeneous, and the components out of which they are constructed have a noisy character. Randomness is apparent everywhere in their nervous system, from sensory neurons picking up sights and smells to motor neurons controlling the body’s muscles. We cannot rule out the possibility that quantum indeterminacy likewise leads to behavioral indeterminacy.

Such randomness may play a functional role. If a housefly pursued by a predator makes a sudden, abrupt turn midflight, it is more likely to see the light of another day than its more predictable companion. Thus, evolution might favor circuits that exploit quantum randomness for certain acts or decisions. Both quantum mechanics and deterministic chaos lead to unpredictable outcomes.

The beginning of the readiness potential precedes the conscious decision to move by at least half a second and often by much longer. The brain acts before the mind decides! This discovery was a complete reversal of the deeply held intuition of mental causation.

None of the above are academic sources, but the article in Scientific American was authored by a neuroscientist and his biography can be seen here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christof_Koch

 

[Bradski]

I am talking about the freedom to comprehend truth. If the brain produces information based on non-rational atomic events, then there is no reasoning occurring.

The brain produces information (output) based on (name removed by moderator)ut, just like a computer program. If the (name removed by moderator)ut ties in with conditional statements, then the output will conform with what we call truth.

I say that there’s a cat in the cardboard box. Is that statement true or false? We run a few IF-THEN statements based on previously stored information: cats are a certain size, they make cat-like noises, they move around. IF the box is a suitable size and IF there is something in the box that is moving around and IF it is making cat-like noises THEN you believe that the statement is probably true.

But you do not have the freedom in believing one way or the other. That’s automatic. But is it true that the cat is in the box? Well, you can open the box, you can examine the cat, you can test its dna to ensure it is a cat, you can do whatever you like to ensure that what you believe is almost certainly true. But you can never be 100% positive.

 

[TimeEntrance]

Computers are high technology today, so, people like to think of genes and the brain as analogous to computer chips and computers.

But during the 19th Century machines with cranks and gears were thought analogous to the human brain.

This is how people then imagined the brain worked: like spoke wheel:



The U.S. courts brought in expert witnesses, based upon science, that claimed to be able to tell the personality and propensity to certain kinds of crime in individuals through measuring their skull and other cranial characteristics.

trutv.com/library/crime/criminal_mind/psychology/crime_motivation/3.html

An Austrian physicist, Franz Gall (1758-1828), was the first to present these themes as a science. Gall believed that the shape of the brain and the skull could reveal an individual’s personality and psychological development. This theory, called phrenology, became widely popular and was used for many years in Europe and America. During this time, phrenology journals, which interpreted human skull shapes into psychological profiles, appeared throughout the world. These books made entertaining reading and soon phrenology became the rage of 19th century intellectuals. Even Edgar Allen Poe was a believer in phrenology and examples can be found in some of his writings such as The Fall of Usher and The Black Cat. Some phrenologists claimed that it was possible to predict the aggressive nature of criminals by a simple skull examination.

 

[Ion]

If AI become a reality, should human rights apply to them? Yes or no and why?

We have so many questions with no answers.
How is the AI going to answer this very question regarding us?

 

[tonyrey]

I am talking about the freedom to comprehend truth. If the brain produces information based on non-rational atomic events, then there is no reasoning occurring. There is no “you” that comprehends truth. Reasoning begins with a comprehension of truth. It begins with the acknowledgement of rational distinctions, and that acknowledgement begins purely in the intellect, not in the activities of non-rational atoms. The brain does not comprehend truth given your world-view.

The ability to reason is not a logical consequence of your world-view; and of course if your world-view happens to be true you do not have the capacity to rationally know that truth, since you cannot possibly reason to it given what I said above. Hence you don’t have the ability to reason in any true sense of the word. So this discussion really becomes illogical if you intend to rationally convince us; which I am sure is your intention.

Cute as well as acute!

 

[wanstronian]

I am talking about the freedom to comprehend truth. If the brain produces information based on non-rational atomic events, then there is no reasoning occurring. There is no “you” that comprehends truth. Reasoning begins with a comprehension of truth. It begins with the acknowledgement of rational distinctions, and that acknowledgement begins purely in the intellect, not in the activities of non-rational atoms. The brain does not comprehend truth given your world-view.

So where, in your opinion, does intellect come from?

The ability to reason is not a logical consequence of your world-view; and of course if your world-view happens to be true you do not have the capacity to rationally know that truth, since you cannot possibly reason to it given what I said above.

That is your opinion, and you are entitled to it. However, you have not justified it yet.

Hence you don’t have the ability to reason in any true sense of the word. So this discussion really becomes illogical if you intend to rationally convince us; which I am sure is your intention.

Ok, I give up. You “decide” for yourself what to believe!

 

[Tyrion]

It would have been an interesting thread, but the starting parameters were not established.

One: what is life? Answer: “complex responses to complex stimuli”. It says nothing about being “biologically active”.
Two: what is AI? Answer: any being which can pass the Turing test.
Three: Is there a difference between a sufficiently good emulation and the “real McCoy”? Answer: there is none. If one cannot tell apart the simulation from reality, then the difference (if any!) is irrelevant.

Concusion: if there ever will be true AI, which will pass the Turing test, then the only ethical behavior is to accept that entity as equivalent to humans.

Ps: to all who have no idea about the “programming” of self-modifying (learning) algorithms: the starting algorithm was indeed due to programming, but the end result is not something that was determined by this programming. Just like the human brain comes with a minimum “hard-wired” abilities, but the final product is not determined by the starting state of affairs.

 

[wanstronian]

What you were describing is fatalism.

Whatever - my point is that theists almost always attach “despair” to the belief that there is no afterlife, and no higher purpose. This may be what they think they might feel, but it is incorrect to ascribe it to others. “Nihilism” is used pejoratively, but there is actually no intrinsically negative philosophical aspect.

Third: scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=finding-free-will&page=2

I may be reading this wrong, but it seems to confirm my position. Brain activity is detected before the subject is aware of making a decision (I have seen documentaries that place the delay significantly higher than half a second, incidentally). It is possible to induce the sensation of making a decision by artifical stimulus. That doesn’t imply the existence of free will to me.

I don’t think that Quantum indeterminacy helps much either - the most it could do would be to make decisions more random - it certainly doesn’t imply free will. Not to mention that quantum events are extremely unlikely to have an effect at the macro level of brain physiology.

I can see nothing in the article to support your statement that we have free choice, even if such choices are limited.