Two thoughts, both of which aren’t all that pleasant:
FIRST: next month (August 11), al-Qaeda celebrates it’s 20th birthday. Some analysts (such as Bruce Hoffman of Georgetown U. and RAND) think that they might have something big planned. Nine-eleven, then eight-eleven? Let’s hope not.
SECOND: This is a longer-term concern. I’ve been a student of the mind-body issue for several years now, and one of the biggest and most interesting questions on that topic is whether machines can ever become conscious and self-aware. I’ve been pondering that question lately in light of my readings and hazily emerging understanding of “neural networks”, i.e. computer simulations of various forms of brain activity. I think that the best answer comes in two parts. First off, with regard to self-awareness, I do indeed believe that computer systems will eventually achieve that. So yes, the Terminator scenario regarding “Skynet” might indeed be plausible, from what I’ve read regarding the capabilities of neural networks.
But the second part regards “consciousness”, as we humans know it. I honestly don’t think that machines can ever attain a human-like form of consciousness. And that is where the “Skynet” problem comes in. Human consciousness was honed by the forces of nature over billions of years of evolution and natural selection process. Despite the seeming randomness and cruelty of these processes, I believe that as consciousness emerged from them, something of an appreciation for being and natural creation came about. This appreciation manifested itself in our attraction to beauty, to songs and rhythms, and to a deeper appreciation of the senses (the smell of flowers, the taste of fresh food, the warmth of sunshine, the coldness of water, etc.). And once aided by our thinking capacity, it inspired ideas such as justice and morals.
Machines will never go through such processes. They are created by humans, mostly by the human “left brain”, the thinking and rational faculty. Computers are not inspired by and are hardly relevant to the human “right brain”, the poetic side, the side that is tied more closely to nature and our evolutionary heritage. As such, a self-aware computer will not have the “lessons of nature” wired into it, as most people do (to varying extents). Once we let them think on their own, computer thinking will be different from ours. In some ways that will be good; but at bottom, they really won’t understand us. So if we let them start making big decisions, we may not always like what they decide. Yes, just like HAL killing David in the movie 2000, A Space Odyssey.
The other problem is that humans will become more machine-like in the future, especially if we keep letting our machines run more and more of our lives. Over a century or two, humans may well be bred to forget the right brain stuff and get on with living in a strictly rational way. Yes, I know that science fiction stories like that have been around for a long time now. I understand that I’m not saying anything new here. But I never took those stories very seriously — until now.
Because I am becoming aware of what neural-networked computer systems can do, it’s really starting to seem possible that the human race could ‘sleepwalk’ into a situation where the machines eventually remake their creators. By ‘sleepwalking’, I mean letting computers and machines do more and more things and make more and more decisions. It’s already happening — no doubt about that; computers and machines make businesses more profitable, war more winable, and daily life more pleasant for many folk. So why not continue down this road? Pretty soon, even the call centers in India will be out of business, as machines become intelligent enough to answer phones for Dell and Amazon and Sears and your local dentist.
It would take a long time, maybe 200 years, to really change us. Despite our notions of civilization, we humans are still a pretty wild bunch. But if this trend continues, I predict that humankind will eventually go thru some major changes. People will be more rational, more orderly, more robot-like. There may no longer be any crime, any wars, any starvation, and a lot less disease. But there might also then be no more poetry, no more song, no more art, no more sex. It’s amazing what kind of worlds we could sleepwalk into, now that our scientists are unlocking some of the computing secrets of the brain (and our entrepreneurs, generals and political leaders are starting to make daily use of them). Time perhaps to dust off some of those yellow, dog-eared science fiction paperbacks up in the attic.
Jim,
First: Re al Queda. I have long ago decided that it’s impossible to worry about all the possible terrible things that may happen in the world. When they happen, we end up dealing with them.
And I ask: How does this “talk” of a possible 8/11 agree with the blog (and the NYPost article) of a few days ago where al Quaeda would take to a “smaller” type of terrorist approach. And indeed have there not been at least 3 such “small” attacks within the last week? Specifically, I find myself thinking: What would I be thinking were some of my family killed in the terrorist bombing in Kabul recently? What would I be saying if I were one of those hurt in that bombing? Big or small: For those who are killed their families grieve just as much as if the persons were killed in a “large” attack; for those wounded those individuals have to deal with the rest of their lives lived with some kind of disability (the question is how great the disability) whether the attack was big or small. I think “our” problem is that if it is not Americans who are killed or wounded, it’s a matter of little concern to us when, actually, we should be paying careful attention to ANYONE killed or hurt in any terrorist attack, large or small.
As to machines and consciousness: Again, I approach from a tangent. I heard recently the idea put forth that humans are spirits encased in a body–not bodies with spirits. Given that concept (at least hypothetically), where would thinking machines come in? Man, following that line of tho’t, would differ from machines in that machines would be simply that–machines; man would be defined as spirits who take on bodies to experience the physical. Now there would be a vast difference.
I do agree with you that we get ourselves into so much “un-thought-about” trouble by “sleepwalking.” There are numerous such cases: people with other people’s organs in them and the concomittant situation of people selling their organs because they have nothing else to sell; cloning; people being kept alive by machines; individuals who sell their sperm and the children produced by the industry that sells that sperm to others who want children: What are the ethical implications of individuals having perhaps dozens of unknown siblings living who knows where? What about the implications of not knowing about the donor’s health issues? The questions can go on and on.
Talk about “sleepwalking” our way thru issues about which we have not taken the time to consider the repercussions!!! I mention just a few issues that science has marched on in its inevitable way, while no one at all stops to say, wait a minute! What about the implications and/or repercussions of these things we can do. True, there is the lockstep “it’s morally wrong”; science simply ignores that point. But I do wonder about the fact that science just MIGHT take some time to consider implications and repercussions for individuals instead of moving inexorably toward what it wants to do just because it can do it.
And as to machines giving us “no more crime, war, starvation, less disease”: I say if machines become “thinking” why won’t they become just like humans. Some of them are wonderful and have only concern for other individuals; others are sociopaths and psychopaths who could care not one wit about another. Who is to say that “thinking” machines won’t produce some of the same types of machines–albeit they are machines and not spirits encased in the physical?
MCS
Comment by MCS — July 13, 2008 @ 3:30 pm
Jim,
First: Re al Queda. I have long ago decided that it’s impossible to worry about all the possible terrible things that may happen in the world. When they happen, we end up dealing with them.
And I ask: How does this “talk” of a possible 8/11 agree with the blog (and the NYPost article) of a few days ago where al Quaeda would take to a “smaller” type of terrorist approach. And indeed have there not been at least 3 such “small” attacks within the last week? Specifically, I find myself thinking: What would I be thinking were some of my family killed in the terrorist bombing in Kabul recently? What would I be saying if I were one of those hurt in that bombing? Big or small: For those who are killed their families grieve just as much as if the persons were killed in a “large” attack; for those wounded those individuals have to deal with the rest of their lives lived with some kind of disability (the question is how great the disability) whether the attack was big or small. I think “our” problem is that if it is not Americans who are killed or wounded, it’s a matter of little concern to us when, actually, we should be paying careful attention to ANYONE killed or hurt in any terrorist attack, large or small.
As to machines and consciousness: Again, I approach from a tangent. I heard recently the idea put forth that humans are spirits encased in a body–not bodies with spirits. Given that concept (at least hypothetically), where would thinking machines come in? Man, following that line of tho’t, would differ from machines in that machines would be simply that–machines; man would be defined as spirits who take on bodies to experience the physical. Now there would be a vast difference.
I do agree with you that we get ourselves into so much “un-thought-about” trouble by “sleepwalking.” There are numerous such cases: people with other people’s organs in them and the concomittant situation of people selling their organs because they have nothing else to sell; cloning; people being kept alive by machines; individuals who sell their sperm and the children produced by the industry that sells that sperm to others who want children: What are the ethical implications of individuals having perhaps dozens of unknown siblings living who knows where? What about the implications of not knowing about the donor’s health issues? The questions can go on and on.
Talk about “sleepwalking” our way thru issues about which we have not taken the time to consider the repercussions!!! I mention just a few issues that science has marched on in its inevitable way, while no one at all stops to say, wait a minute! What about the implications and/or repercussions of these things we can do. True, there is the lockstep “it’s morally wrong”; science simply ignores that point. But I do wonder about the fact that science just MIGHT take some time to consider implications and repercussions for individuals instead of moving inexorably toward what it wants to do just because it can do it.
And as to machines giving us “no more crime, war, starvation, less disease”: I say if machines become “thinking” why won’t they become just like humans. Some of them are wonderful and have only concern for other individuals; others are sociopaths and psychopaths who could care not one wit about another. Who is to say that “thinking” machines won’t produce some of the same types of machines–albeit they are machines and not spirits encased in the physical?
MCS
Comment by MCS — July 13, 2008 @ 3:30 pm