Mind Emerging Out of Matter via "Complexity"

[Micawber]

Hey all,

I have a friend who argues that reason (and consciousness & free will, etc.) will eventually emerge out of computers/artificial intelligence, etc. And that, similarly, our reason “emerged” out of matter as well.

Not only do I find this vision horrifying - I also don’t agree with it. But I cannot quite say why.

Basically, what he seems to be saying is that if only substances/elements/circuits are arranged in a sufficiently complex fashion, a wholly different and independent thing emerges called consciousness/mind. No explanation is given for how this happens - much less why.

Can anyone suggest a way of articulating how and why this rather demonic vision is in error?

Thanks!

~cawbs

 

[JimG]

While the brain may be complex, the mind is simple. It is a faculty of a non-material soul.

In any case I’ll take the AI argument seriously when PC’s start writing philosophy books and arguing the finer points of Aquinas.

 

[iwillendure]

Hey all,

I have a friend who argues that reason (and consciousness & free will, etc.) will eventually emerge out of computers/artificial intelligence, etc. And that, similarly, our reason “emerged” out of matter as well.

Not only do I find this vision horrifying - I also don’t agree with it. But I cannot quite say why.

Basically, what he seems to be saying is that if only substances/elements/circuits are arranged in a sufficiently complex fashion, a wholly different and independent thing emerges called consciousness/mind. No explanation is given for how this happens - much less why.

Can anyone suggest a way of articulating how and why this rather demonic vision is in error?

Thanks!

~cawbs

to show that this is an error you could explain to him that if computer and artifical intellegnce can obtain freewill by circuits being arranged in a sufficiently complex fashion someone has to arrange the circuits and progamming in order to give it that ability and so the same would go with us someone would have had to arrange it so we had freewill meaning God

 

[Micawber]

While the brain may be complex, the mind is simple. It is a faculty of a non-material soul.

In any case I’ll take the AI argument seriously when PC’s start writing philosophy books and arguing the finer points of Aquinas.

The argument isn’t that the mind is complex; it’s that the mind (whether simple or duplex or complex, etc) emerges out of a material complexity. And that if it took billions of years for material complexity to produce the conditions neccessary for mind to emerge - it will take far longer than a mere 100 years for mind to emerge out of complex circuitry that is increasingly able to rewire itself into greater complexity.

 

[Micawber]

to show that this is an error you could explain to him that if computer and artifical intellegnce can obtain freewill by circuits being arranged in a sufficiently complex fashion someone has to arrange the circuits and progamming in order to give it that ability and so the same would go with us someone would have had to arrange it so we had freewill meaning God

Indeed, right. Thanks! I’m trying to come at this not assuming “God” - this is a militant atheist and it won’t get me anywhere. Also, he would no doubt argue what I said above: that computers are starting to learn how to repair and improve (increase their complexity) themselves. Which more or less mirrors the idea that there is a “big bang” (putting aside the causality behind that) which sets matter and energy in motion towards evolving complexity.

 

[ronnie_bonigli]

While the brain may be complex, the mind is simple. It is a faculty of a non-material soul.

In any case I’ll take the AI argument seriously when PC’s start writing philosophy books and arguing the finer points of Aquinas.

The great mathematical physicist Roger Penrose argued in his landmark book The Emperor’s New Mind that computers will ***never *** achieve genuine intelligence because of the implications of Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem.

A computer is a formal system just like any other formal system which is subject to Gödel’s incompleteness theorem, and thus “calculates” through blind symbol manipulation. Every formal system, or algorithmic system (i.e a computer) has a Gödel Proposition that the formal system can not prove to be true within the confines of it’s system but that a human being, standing outside the rules of that system, can show to be true. The implications of this show that there is a diffference in Kind, not Degree between and “thinking” ability of a human being and a computer. Human being are able to transcend any formal system to ***understand ***what is going on in that system, it is this ability to ***understand ***that computers In Principle do not have and never will have.

Penrose, who is a typical agnostic scientist, ends up making a compelling argument that there is something nonmaterial behind a human being’s ability to understand and make judgements of truth.

hmmm, I wonder what that nonmaterial “thing” is behind a human being’s intellect

 

[Micawber]

The great mathematical physicist Roger Penrose argued in his landmark book The Emperor’s New Mind that computers will ***never *** achieve genuine intelligence because of the implications of Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem.

A computer is a formal system just like any other formal system which is subject to Gödel’s incompleteness theorem, and thus “calculates” through blind symbol manipulation. Every formal system, or algorithmic system (i.e a computer) has a Gödel Proposition that the formal system can not prove to be true within the confines of it’s system but that a human being, standing outside the rules of that system, can show to be true. The implications of this show that there is a diffference in Kind, not Degree between and “thinking” ability of a human being and a computer. Human being are able to transcend any formal system to ***understand ***what is going on in that system, it is this ability to ***understand ***that computers In Principle do not have and will never have.

Penrose, who is a typical agnostic scientist, ends up making a compelling argument that there is something nonmaterial behind a human being’s ability to understand and make judgements of truth.

hmmm, I wonder what that nonmaterial “thing” is behind a human being’s intellect

Fascinating and excellent answer. I think what he’d say is: they will have the reflexive, transcendent intelligence you describe; it might take hundreds or even thousands of years for the complexity to develop that is neccessary for it to emerge.

My problem with that^ is - “complexity” here (which is wedded to huge expanses of time) is rather like the word evolution: it’s a word that’s invoked magically, and doesn’t really qualify as argument/evidence.

 

[ronnie_bonigli]

Fascinating and excellent answer. I think what he’d say is: they will have the reflexive, transcendent intelligence you describe; it might take hundreds or even thousands of years for the complexity to develop that is neccessary for it to emerge.

My problem with that^ is - “complexity” here (which is wedded to huge expanses of time) is rather like the word evolution: it’s a word that’s invoked magically, and doesn’t really qualify as argument/evidence.

Well if your friend is just going to use the word “complexity” like a magic wand and say that it will solve all problems, even those that are IN PRINCIPLE unsolvable, then there’s no point in reasoning with him. You obviously can’t speed read through Penrose’s book right row, it’s over 700 pages, but you might enjoy this book review of Penrose’s second book on strong AI by Catholic writer and physicist Stephen Barr.
leaderu.com/ftissues/ft9511/articles/revessay.html

 

[grannymh]

Fascinating and excellent answer. I think what he’d say is: they will have the reflexive, transcendent intelligence you describe; it might take hundreds or even thousands of years for the complexity to develop that is neccessary for it to emerge.

My problem with that^ is - “complexity” here (which is wedded to huge expanses of time) is rather like the word evolution: it’s a word that’s invoked magically, and doesn’t really qualify as argument/evidence.

Due to the current ban on evolution discussion, I will not comment.

 

[The_Exodus]

Hey all,

I have a friend who argues that reason (and consciousness & free will, etc.) will eventually emerge out of computers/artificial intelligence, etc. And that, similarly, our reason “emerged” out of matter as well.

In your analogy your friend forgets the enormous elephant in the room: intelligence would be emerging out of computers, and computers are things made by intelligent beings.
mic:

Basically, what he seems to be saying is that if only substances/elements/circuits are arranged in a sufficiently complex fashion, a wholly different and independent thing emerges called consciousness/mind. No explanation is given for how this happens - much less why.

“arranged in a complex fashion” indicates intentionality, design, purpose, intellect, telos, etc - whatever word you want to use. All of these indicate that mind would arise from mind.

 

[Spock]

The great mathematical physicist Roger Penrose argued in his landmark book The Emperor’s New Mind that computers will ***never *** achieve genuine intelligence because of the implications of Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem.

Even the best, smartest people are lousy prophets. Remember the CEO of IBM who predicted that there “might be” a need for five or six mainframes in the whole world. Remember Bill Gates who said: 640K memory will be enough for anything. Physicists in the 19th century were totally convinced that we already know “pretty much everything” about physics, and there might be a few dusty corners left, but nothing substantial. They all have eggs on their face.

The brain is a very complex system, consisting of about 10 to a 100 billions of neurons, which are interconnected. The mind is the “activity” of this complex system. What the components are “made of”, biological parts, or silicon chips is not important, only the activity (the program) is relevant. It is theoretically possible to grow these “chips” in a fashion resembling the grows of the biological brain. There is nothing theoretically impossible about having a silicon-based complex system, which will exhibit similar characteristics to the human brain.

Now someone may argue that this system will only “emulate” the biological brain. We must ask them, what is the difference between a “sufficiently convincing” emulation, and the “real McCoy”? If a computer will pass the Turing test, on what ground can anyone consider it “inferior” to a real human?

 

[grannymh]

How about looking at complexity as the wrong answer?

The mind comes from simplicity. The more simple a thing is, the less restrictions there are. The less restrictions there are, the greater the output. The immaterial or spiritual does not have the restrictions of the material.

God is immaterial, pure spirituality because He is not limited by the material/physical conditions of the natural world.

What is the human person?

Catholicism teaches that human nature, in itself, unites the spiritual and material worlds. There is no emerging of one aspect out of another. There is a complete oneness, a unique unification of rational/corporeal, body/soul. Consequently, the human person is a both-and creation. At the same time, his and her soul, being spiritual, is unlimited in that it can share in the spiritual life of God. But, not being God, his and her spirituality deals with the limitations of the material/physical body.

Blessings,
granny

Human nature is sacred.

 

[ronnie_bonigli]

Even the best, smartest people are lousy prophets. . . They all have eggs on their face.

Very True, just like all those people who were so confident than Artificial Intelligence was just around the corner about the time Penrose wrote *The Emperor’s New Mind *twenty one years ago, they’ve made zero progress since.

The brain is a very complex system, consisting of about 10 to a 100 billions of neurons, which are interconnected. The mind is the “activity” of this complex system.

See my comment earlier about simply using the word “complex” as a magic wand thet solves problems that are IN PRINCIPLE unsolvable.

What the components are “made of”, biological parts, or silicon chips is not important, only the activity (the program) is relevant.

There’s that word “program”, also known as “algorithm”, also known as “formal system”. What I was saying is that Godel’s Theorem shows that ANY formal system (i.e. any purely material system) can not display real intelligence in the sense of “understanding” or “making judgements of truth”. You might get a computer to mimic the mind of a dog, which doesn’t have genuine intelligence, but never a human being, a human mind does things that are unexplainable in purely material systems, i.e. dogs and computers

 

[Spock]

Very True, just like all those people who were so confident than Artificial Intelligence was just around the corner about the time Penrose wrote *The Emperor’s New Mind *twenty one years ago, they’ve made zero progress since.

So what? The progress in twenty one years is not indicative of the progress that can and will be made in the next 200 years, or 2000 years.

There’s that word “program”, also known as “algorithm”, also known as “formal system”. What I was saying is that Godel’s Theorem shows that ANY formal system (i.e. any purely material system) can not display real intelligence in the sense of “understanding” or “making judgements of truth”. You might get a computer to mimic the mind of a dog, which doesn’t have genuine intelligence, but never a human being, a human mind does things that are unexplainable in purely material systems, i.e. dogs and computers

You seriously misunderstand the Godel Theorem. It merely says that no finite, formal system can describe its own algorithm completely - nothing more. But description is not needed for emulation. We cannot describe our own algorithm, but we are able to create new humans in a very natural way - via procreation. Why does anyone think that this is the only way? I would suggest to read Stanislaw Lem’s book: “Summa Technologiae”, at least those parts which have been translated into English. (It is a crying shame that the whole book has not been translated.) A short summary can be found at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summa_Technologiae

The point is that the underlying material is not relevant to the operation of the system. Whether it is biological or mechanical it simply does not matter. There is no “principle” which would say that silicon based material is incapable of doing what the biological components can do.

 

[inocente]

Basically, what he seems to be saying is that if only substances/elements/circuits are arranged in a sufficiently complex fashion, a wholly different and independent thing emerges called consciousness/mind. No explanation is given for how this happens - much less why.

There’s a difference here between theorists and empiricists.

Suppose we’re practical guys and want to disprove the existence of free-will by trying to predict the exact train of someone’s thoughts. We’re given megabucks, lots of researchers, top notch brain reading technology and all the time we want, but after years of trying we don’t even get close and are forced to conclude that free-will exists. The theorists still argue that the brain is deterministic, but us practical guys have shown that it’s impossible to actually determine what it’s going to do next and go off to collect our Nobel prizes.

Now there are already computer programs that evolve their own logic, for example by using “genetic algorithms”, and in many cases they become so complicated that it would take months trying to figure out how they work. We know for sure that the computer and program are deterministic but the only practical way to accurately predict what will happen is to run the program.

Here’s a example written by a student. Note his words towards the end – even in this simple case he doesn’t know how his evolved “bots” are making decisions.
youtube.com/watch?v=2kupe2ZKK58

Now he makes it a bit more complicated and ends up drawing a moral conclusion from his bots!
youtube.com/watch?v=GvEywP8t12I

So even here the line between determinism and free choice is blurred. The program can be so complicated that it defeats the efforts of us practical guys to predict what it’s going to do, even in principle. The brain of course is far, far more complicated. The inference is that complexity alone is sufficient to explain free choices. Theorists may hate it and say it’s playing with words but us practical guys are already quaffing our root beers.

Your friend is then going on to make the reasonable guess that complexity is enough to explain the whole shebang.

 

[ronnie_bonigli]

You seriously misunderstand the Godel Theorem. It merely says that no finite, formal system can describe its own algorithm completely - nothing more.

Irony Alert!

Dude, it appears to be YOU who “seriously misunderstand the Gödel Theorem”

Gödel’s First Incompleteness Theorem states that for any consistent formal system (that would be any computer) there exist propositions (called “Godel propositions”) that cannot be proven true within the system, and yet can nevertheless be proven to be true by going outside the system. And yet because the human mind can grasp the structure of the formal system and understand the meaning of its symbols, it is able to reason about them in ways that are not possible for a merely formal system. That is, any mechanistic system (anything made of matter, operating under the normal laws of physics) will have Godel propositions which it can not prove to be true, yet are true and can be found to be true by a human being standing outside that system. Human minds work in a way that is IN PRINCIPLE different in ***kind ***and not degree, from mechanistic systems such as computers or dogs.

 

[Spock]

Gödel’s First Incompleteness Theorem states that for any consistent formal system (that would be any computer) there exist propositions (called “Godel propositions”) that cannot be proven true within the system, and yet can nevertheless be proven to be true by going outside the system.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del’s_incompleteness_theorems

Gödel’s incompleteness theorems are two theorems of mathematical logic that establish inherent limitations of all but the most trivial axiomatic systems for mathematics. The theorems, proven by Kurt Gödel in 1931, are important both in mathematical logic and in the philosophy of mathematics. The two results are widely interpreted as showing that Hilbert’s program to find a complete and consistent set of axioms for all of mathematics is impossible, thus giving a negative answer to Hilbert’s second problem.

The first incompleteness theorem states that no consistent system of axioms whose theorems can be listed by an “effective procedure” (essentially, a computer program) is capable of proving all facts about the natural numbers. For any such system, there will always be statements about the natural numbers that are true, but that are unprovable within the system.

The second incompleteness theorem shows that if such a system is also capable of proving certain basic facts about the natural numbers, then one particular arithmetic truth the system cannot prove is the consistency of the system itself.

Which has nothing to with the question at hand.

And yet because the human mind can grasp the structure of the formal system and understand the meaning of its symbols, it is able to reason about them in ways that are not possible for a merely formal system. That is, any mechanistic system (anything made of matter, operating under the normal laws of physics) will have Godel propositions which it can not prove to be true, yet are true and can be found to be true by a human being standing outside that system.

Human minds work in a way that is IN PRINCIPLE different in ***kind ***and not degree, from mechanistic systems such as computers or dogs.

That is just an assertion. It would be nice if we could find out just how the human mind works. But that is impossible since no finite automaton can fully describe its own complete algorithm. But that is not necessary, as I already explained in the previous post.

There is another thing that you have missed. People usually think of computer programs as a “closed” system. There is a program running, it receives (name removed by moderator)uts, and creates outputs. In the meantime it is supposed to be isolated from external “disturbing” factors. (When a “bug” makes a short-circuit, as the original “bug” did, the computer stops working, since it does not have the necessary redundancy to cope with the problem. The brain can circumvent this problem. A partially damaged brain can compensate for the loss.) Our mind does not work that way. We are constantly “bombarded” with external stimuli, and there is no reason why a computer “must” be an isolated system. So there is no reason to extrapolate from the current conditions, and declare that the current state of affairs is the only one.

The mind is the working of the brain. The brain contains billions of neurons, and their interactions. It is a huge, but finite automaton, where the “program” continually changes the “hardware” - changes the interactions of the neurons.

 

[inocente]

That is, any mechanistic system (anything made of matter, operating under the normal laws of physics) will have Godel propositions which it can not prove to be true, yet are true and can be found to be true by a human being standing outside that system. Human minds work in a way that is IN PRINCIPLE different in ***kind ***and not degree, from mechanistic systems such as computers or dogs.

Another criticism would be that due to complexity it’s highly unlikely we could prove that either a human mind or a complicated evolved computer program are internally consistent (a CPU is a Turing machine, fine, but it’s an unwarranted assumption that a highly complicated overlaying system remains consistent). Humans make mistakes and so do evolved programs, hence a betting man might say neither are consistent. However, whatever applies to one almost certainly applies to the other and therefore Señor Gödel doesn’t provide a means to separate them in kind.

 

[grannymh]

The mind is the working of the brain. The brain contains billions of neurons, and their interactions. It is a huge, but finite automaton, where the “program” continually changes the “hardware” - changes the interactions of the neurons.

Emphasis mine.

There are some of us who observe that the brain is the working of the mind.
However, that observation is off topic.

Blessings,
granny

:snowing:

 

[ronnie_bonigli]

Another criticism would be that due to complexity it’s highly unlikely we could prove that either a human mind or a complicated evolved computer program are internally consistent (a CPU is a Turing machine, fine, but it’s an unwarranted assumption that a highly complicated overlaying system remains consistent). Humans make mistakes and so do evolved programs, hence a betting man might say neither are consistent. However, whatever applies to one almost certainly applies to the other and therefore Señor Gödel doesn’t provide a means to separate them in kind.

If any formal system is inconsistent in any way, then it is completely untrustworthy and can prove ANYTHING is true, even if it is obviously false. An inconsistent formal system will prove that 1 = 0. It’s a junk system. When a human makes a mistake, he can be shown the mistake and “understand” that it is indeed in error, an inconsistent system would still say that the mistake is true, it is completely unreliable.