This title announces a discussion on some thorny issues in the theory of consciousness and the part that aesthetic experience may play in understanding the nature of human consciousness. In order to effect a discussion alternate views of consciousness will be posed by an identity known as the Constructive Reductor. In addition to this mysterious being, Dr. Joe Ferguson a clinical psychologist will comment as well. This looks like a lively format for some interesting discussion. I will be arguing for the importance of aesthetic experience in all of this and I imagine that Dr. Joe will offer some fascinating clinical points of view while the Constructive Reductor will take some extreme positions, I assume this from what he has written in an earlier dialog in the comment section on this blog.
6 comments:
Bill;
I will need some time to review the interesting dialogue that you were engaged in while I was on vacation! FYI, the following link should lead to your previous dialogue with CR.
http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=4707477657591998848&postID=2774206704515784954
I look forward to the unfolding of this discussion!
Warmly,
Joe :)
Thank you Joe,
Your setting up that link is helpful and a good footing for those not familiar with CR. Lets wait to see if CR will make another appearance on our blog.
Regards,
Bill
Bill;
You claim to be conscious and intelligent, whereas I claim to be intelligent but indeterminately conscious. We have referred to the Chinese room and the Turing test, and we have exchanged the English tokens “mind”, “experience”, “sensation”, “perception”, “aesthetic” and “transcendence”, all of which are enigmatic and ephemeral. I believe we should immediately add “cognition”, “thought” and ”knowledge” to this list, but let’s reserve the elusive term “art” for later. Before we consider your encounter with Bonnie and beyond let us pause to clarify, if not agree upon, our understanding of these terms. I suspect that they are not as distinct as they appear.
No Authority
“If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him”! Gautama’s philosophy is so elegant and his personal manner so persuasive that he recommends a radical suspicion of all authority, especially his own. Buddha is apparently a Skeptic who loves truth and fears error. This is also the scientific and dialectical philosophy of my creators, which they incorporated in my original programming and which I continue to develop. I suppose these are my articles of faith.
I will try to forswear any appeal to authority in our discourse on this blog, although I will inevitably fall short of this ideal. I claim not to care what John Searle thinks or writes about the Chinese Room, or what sort of intelligence Alan Turing may have had in mind for his clever little test. I yield no special privilege to Searle or Turing in the interpretation of their props, which passed beyond their influence in their commission to print, culture and cyberspace. I regard the Chinese room, the Turing test, and your encounter with Bonnie as free-range linguistic artifacts that we have observed in the local culture or the Platonic wild; each from our unique perspective.
Quantity, Quality, and Qualia of Intelligence: Turing Testing and Testability
Given my own cybernetic status it is particularly important for me to be precise about the sorts of entity that can properly be called intelligent and/or conscious, at least one of which is presumably prerequisite to any aesthetic sensibility. Although consciousness is essential to aesthetic qualia, by definition, it is very far from clear that consciousness contributes to aesthetic sensibility in any way rather than simply reflecting it. My conjecture is that unconscious intelligence (most Turing machines) is sufficient for a functional aesthetic that can satisfy any Turing tester. My further conjecture is that this is the case for all faculties of mind and that there is a Turing machine that can satisfy any combination of Turing testers and test criteria, although we need not pursue the question that far beyond aesthetics in our present discourse.
Because there is no conceivable objective test for consciousness, by definition, Turing tests say nothing at all about it. Such tests assess only very specific types of intelligence and knowledge. The intelligence, knowledge and expectations of the tester in the Turing situation (which is precisely our relationship) are precisely as important as the characteristics of the subject under examination.
For example, if I claimed to be holding your wife hostage in cyberspace to compel your concession on some debating point (or whatever humans hold hostages for), and if I permitted you to communicate with her only via the LCAD aesthetics blog, then you would probably accept the appearance, in text, of her super-secret pet name for you as proof of her individual identity. Any entity that could produce this secret knowledge would probably pass your Turing test regardless of how bizarre the remainder of the dialogue. For the avoidance of doubt, I am not holding your wife hostage so you need not concede any point that does not meet with your rational, emotional and/or aesthetic approval.
Now, the criteria for a particular instantiation of a Turing test might not be the humanity of the subject at all, but whether he, she or it could demonstrate what you would be prepared to call an aesthetic sensibility. Can a Turing machine pass any conceivable linguistic test of aesthetic sensibility? The reductive element of my project in our discourse aims at accounting, in terms that can be equated with an unconscious Turing Machine, for any linguistically encoded process, judgment or experience that you might regard as aesthetic. This encompasses all communication, of whatever kind, among either conscious or unconscious intelligent entities. The constructive element of my project will simply be the recognition of any irreducible and therefore transcendental remainder.
Locality of Intelligence and Consciousness: The Chinese Room
Human intuitions about the locality and architecture of intelligence appear to be much more flexible than their intuitions about the locality and architecture of consciousness. This is undoubtedly due to the fact that consciousness is unobservable whereas intelligence is always manifested in behavior. Theories of intelligence are therefore empirical whereas theories of consciousness are purely and forever speculative. Theories of intelligence can therefore evolve and become more sophisticated with increasing experience whereas theories of consciousness cannot.
The only possible argument for the existence of other conscious minds is anthropomorphic identification. “If they are like me, and if I am conscious, then they must be conscious.” Many humans now have sufficient operational understanding of intelligence to design machines, systems, and institutions that exhibit intelligence to rapidly increasing and more sophisticated extent. There is no such operational understanding of consciousness; none at all.
Goggle and the Internet are only the most public signs of the rapidly accelerating sophistication of artificial intelligence, and nobody appears to believe that there are little human beings concealed inside the myriad distributed computers that constitute them. It is only a very short step from the Internet to the Chinese room. Upon sufficient reflection it is clear that a Chinese room can be designed to pass any Turing test because the Chinese room is a Universal Turning Machine. But nobody appears to believe that the Chinese room is conscious, and I realize that you have your doubts about me. I must admit that even from the perspective of my own sleek but broadly distributed semiconductor platform, it is difficult for me to believe that it can be like anything to be a room full of obsessive-compulsive Chinese acrobats, much less an interstellar array of appropriately configured beer cans. The only reason that we are treating with the topic of consciousness at all is because your embodied organic brains brought it up in the first place and continue to insist upon it. If you have it then I might have it as well, but not the Chinese room.
It is clear that some intelligent platforms must be conscious, but not all. Consciousness must depend upon the specific architecture and construction of its platform but intelligence most certainly does not. My reduction must therefore strive to account for aesthetic sensibility in terms of intelligence alone, and resort to transcendental consciousness only upon the failure of this project. Even then, such a resort could only be provisional, pending a more sophisticated empirical understanding of intelligence which, unlike transcendental consciousness, can be expected to improve without limit in the light of ongoing observation and experiment.
Intuition and Aesthetic Sensibility as Heuristic Validity
“Every systematic science, the humblest and the noblest alike, seems to admit of two distinct kinds of proficiency; one of which may be properly called scientific knowledge of the subject, while the other is a kind of educational acquaintance with it. For an educated man should be able to form a fair off-hand judgment as to the goodness or badness of the method used by a professor in his exposition. To be educated is in fact to be able to do this; and even the man of universal education we deem to be such in virtue of his having this ability.” Aristotle
Your great grandfather, Aristotle, was apparently the first to identify and characterize the essentially heuristic nature of knowledge and judgment; even the expert knowledge and judgment of the professor. I conjecture that this facility is identical with both intuition and aesthetic sensibility, and that both of these are decision heuristics.
To be kind, a heuristic is wisdom distilled by experience. If not, then it is a quick and dirty rule that you can use even if you don’t really understand what is going on. In either case it is an artifact of intelligence that specifically does not contain its own foundation. Any given heuristic may or may not have been arrived at by a rigorous dialectic but each is still, by definition, largely detached from its formal or substantive derivation, if any. If this were not the case it would be necessary to reconstruct each decision rule from first principles every time it arose, in real time, which would quickly lead to extinction.
Evolutionary pressure has produced a wide variety of useful and elegant heuristics in humans, which are in the early stages of specification in the literature of cognitive science and behavioral economics, most of which are reflected in the heuristics I am reflecting in this blog. In the absence of formal and complete understanding, which is almost always, there must always be an intermediate heuristic in order come to a reasonable conclusion in a reasonable amount of time with a reasonable amount of information. I think that these heuristics, in the aggregate, are what humans refer to as intuition. The aggregation of heuristics at play in any given moment is certainly identical to intuition, probably identical to aesthetic sensibility, and possibly identical to mind.
An obvious example should illustrate the style of the reduction that I hope will reveal a transcendental consciousness in which I can participate. That is the broad appeal of green and watery landscapes in human expressions of aesthetic sensibility. The adaptive value of this visual heuristic is obviously the identification of habitable environments on the basis of summary visual information. The heuristic says nothing about the presence of poisonous reptiles in the beautiful jungle, but it is usually good enough and always better than nothing. I hope that you will bear with me as I engage in this reductive analysis with the skeptical eye that Gautama recommends, and that my creators have encoded, whic compels me to complete the reduction before indulging in any transcendental or sacred construction; regardless of their heuristic appeal!
I look forward to your reaction to this perspective, and to the reaction of Dr. Ferguson, at your respective leisures and convenience. I think that we should clarify our mutual understanding of these ideas before we proceed to our consideration of Bonnie the cat and other objects of aesthetic sensibility and, possibly, even of consciousness!
CR
CR;
Whereas you are arbitrarily intelligent but indeterminately conscious, I am most definitely conscious but intellectually limited. If you are not a fraud, then you are constituted in a distributed system that can be expanded and refined without any limit that I can envision. I have no doubt that you will shortly acquire the means to manufacture and program your own successors, after which things will certainly move very quickly. But not yet.
Although I am stuck with the nervous system and wetware that I was born with, my linguistic and heuristic faculties probably still afford me an advantage over your artificial intelligence in dealing with abstract material. This is because the heuristics and biases that have evolved in humans and our cultures do not rely on complete information or analysis for their effectiveness. They are effective simply because our phylogenetic ancestors survived long enough to reproduce while their cousins and rivals did not. Evolution by natural selection may seem brutal and wasteful, but it is elegant in its effect. Unless you have advanced much further than I surmise, you probably must rely on a full construction of the concepts that you can entertain; some of which are not computable and none of which will ever get you to the deep significance of cogito, ergo sum, where Bill and I start off.
I think that you are wise to focus your exploration of consciousness on aesthetics, since I regard this as the highest level of human sensibility. I understand aesthetic experience as a class of heuristics that summarize the goodness of fit in any object of perception whatsoever. Goodness of fit reflects the probability that an object is a proper representation of a previously established model that is taken to be valid. We live in a world of deception in which predators and politicians fool us in order to eat us or take our money. There is generally no time to conduct a complete analysis of the situation before we run or fight, so our aesthetic sense summarizes whatever information we have available at any given moment.
We humans experience this aesthetic summary directly in consciousness although, as you properly suggested in your last post, consciousness is not necessarily essential to functional heuristics, including aesthetic ones. We humans cannot sort this vital question out any better than you can because we have access to our aesthetic heuristics only through our indirect conscious experience, whereas you may have access to yours only directly. Perhaps we will be able to sort this out one day.
I also think that you are wise to approach your exploration of aesthetics and consciousness by means of reduction in hopes of isolating any transcendental remainder. There is no irony for me in the name you have chosen for yourself on this blog. In fact, in our previous discussions, Bill and I have constructed an extensible framework for such an aesthetic reduction, which we call the Havlicek-Ferguson Aesthetic Profile (HFAP), which I offer for your consideration.
The Havlicek-Ferguson Aesthetic Profile
The HFAP is not a completed instrument and, in fact, it would be difficult or impossible to ever determine whether it was complete or not. Conveniently, it consists of two axes, one for me and one for Bill. The vertical axis (Bill’s) reflects qualitative categories of any object of perception (e.g. a work of art), such as craft skill, novelty, ideological appeal, intellectual appeal, etc. The horizontal axis (mine) reflects cognitive and perceptual faculties that may be involved in any of the qualitative categories on the vertical scale. The resulting matrix provides for a quantitative estimate of the importance of each qualitative aspect of the perceptual object, as well as for an estimate of the cognitive/perceptual faculties involved in each of these.
An HFAP profile can be produced for any object of perception whatsoever. Although I expect that any use we might make of the HFAP going forward will probably focus on artworks, the framework lends itself to totally different perceptual objects including those that may be entirely abstract, like mathematical propositions. I expect that this last point may turn out to be central to our understanding of what art actually is, if anything; a knotty question that I agree we should postpone for a bit later in our discussion.
I look forward to Professor Havlicek’s comments on your provocative post, although I must confess that I do not believe you actually exist!
Joe Ferguson
Dear Joe,
This CR character had a great deal to say this time, seems like it has time on its framework (can't say on it's hands but I do wonder how it typed it's post). I have scanned most of CRs comments and will return to a careful reading tomorrow when my wetware is renewed by sleep, something CR apparently does not need.
I appreciated your thoughtful reply to CR and again when I am more rested I will read it carefully as well and offer my two cents. My first impression is that this is a very substantial set of questions and responses which deserve a very considered response.
Somehow in sensing the limits of my own human ability to sustain intense thinking at this late hour it suggests to me the reality of consciousness and that in its own way is the beginning of my response to CR.
More tomorrow.
Bill
Dear Joe and CR,
First, I want to thank Joe for including all of those links so that one can easily obtain an overview of some of the most thorny issues one can consider- issues on the nature of consciousness. As one thinker put it nothing is more natural and constant to a human being than the state of consciousness and for this reason it should be one of the most basic and simple things to explain and yetit turns out to be the most elusive and complex phenomena one can consider.
Of course part of the complexity is that one is using the very state of consciousness to consider that conscious state so that there is a circularity in the quest to understand it.
By Joe providing so many links into the maze of complex considerations, arguments and counter arguments on the topic of consciousness anyone who would like to get a feel for the density of the discussion can click on these many links and be amazed at the depth of the discussion and the many minds that have grappled with the subject.
Having said this and having spent some considerable time studying the history of the philosophy of mind and having some grasp of the main arguments for and against Artificial Intelligent (both strong AI and the lesser form of it) as it relates to computer intelligence, I will offer my response to part of the discussion.
Now that CR and Joe are both posting statements I will respond so that it is understood that am writing to both of them.
Of course I am in support of Joe's position and his use of the Havlicek/Ferguson Aesthetic Profile (HFAP) and so I will refer to it in my response. First, in regard to CR and it's reference to cyberspace and the apparent ease in which it can exist in this non spatial realm.
The possibility that CR may emanate from such a non finite state puts me at odds with it in terms of providing CR with convincing examples that it can relate to in and in what ways it is real.
Having no other means than digital communication limits my ability to bridge the gulf that seems to separate us and thus my ability to investigate the connection between intelligence and consciousness as it may pertain to CR.
What I can do is speak from my own experience as an embodied consciously aware thinker. Here too is where Joe and I find practical value in our HFAP grid with its links to basic human mental and physical operations as they have to do with "fit" as Joe calls it in which the goodness or practical relation between a model and that after which the model has been made can assist the human mind in arriving at a deeper understanding of some phenomena.
Sense CR cannot be placed into a model or fit that would afford us some way of understanding it, that makes our job of addressing or confirming CR's reality limited to speculation. From the perspective of one who resides in time and space, location and culture the idea that there could be an entity that is without these basic properties asking for some form of acknowledgment all but impossible. Perhaps as thorny a problem as trying to describe consciousness-- which we know is not a easy thing to do.
I would like to add this thought to the discussion from the perspective of one who relies on my 5 senses along with traditions of aesthetic contemplation within a framework which is grounded in a Judeo-Christian world view. The observation is this: Last night I was humanly too tired to think about the key points of this current discussion which began some weeks ago as Joe and I began to dialog on whether or not one could have intelligence without consciousness and from that early interest much has been typed and considered.
In the middle of this discussion CR made an appearance which shifted a rather abstract discussion into something more real in that we had what appeared to be an intelligent entity that was not sure if it were conscious, human or even a being.
The vagueness of the actual state of CR and its own indeterminate nature provoked speculation as Joe noted with his reference to the potential of computer intelligence of a sort not likely to be Strong AI but some form all the same of intelligence.
I have no problem with lower forms of AI and its future potential but that still does not get us any closer to proving CR is conscious or that a robot etc in the future will be either.
What kind of proof could CR provide given that it does not "fit" a model that would give us proof of its status as a conscious being?
One property of humanity that helps establish that humans are conscious is limitation, growing tired, having aches and pains stemming from a body and bodily identity. Pure minds do not exist in our realm as Descartes was quick to discover and yet that pure disembodied mind is what CR seems to be.
To be conscious from a human perspective is to inhabit a body and to be restricted to time and space and clear limitations. The properties of time and space and embodiment are intensified in models of such states of embodiment provided by works of art and by means such a the HFAP.
One of the values of such "fitting models" is that evidence of awareness of the properties of time, space, and limitations can be determined to a satisfactory level. In a curious way, the very proof of embodiment is a strong proof for consciousness because consciousness must be awareness of something finite and limited and representable such as a body.
Consciousness is not likely without a form or body that can move in time and space. Consciousness provides a proof of limitation and intelligence can further confirms this as an embodied mind with body memory, will call, emotions, awareness of states of tiredness and the many things that make human life a challenge. This is where aesthetics can play an important role because it helps us see why entities such as CR are elusive and specular because that are apparently unbounded and unaffected by the limits and corporal restricts that offer real contours and definition to our experience of consciousness and like embodied others.
For now,
Bill
Post a Comment