Trance Music, Philosophy and Politics. The official homepage of philosopher artist: Illusive Mind.
Have a read of
Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity
An article published in Social Text by Alan D. Sokal, Professor of Physics at New York University.
Then: Transgressing the Boundaries: An Afterword
And then: What the Social Text Affair Does and Does Not Prove
How about a change of pace. Here is an old essay of mine:
Argument for Intelligent Design
1.1 Introduction
2.1 Behe on Irreducible Complexity
2.1 Behe on Defeasibility
3.1 Problems with Behe
3.2 Two distinct Arguments
3.3Problems with Irreducible Complexity
3.4 Problems with Evolution
3.5 More Problems with Irreducible Complexity
3.6 Problems with Inference to Intelligent Design
3.7 Problems with Defeasibility
4.1 Conclusion
5.1 Sources
1.1 Introduction
The argument for intelligent design is certainly not a new theory. Often credited to William Paley in his book Natural Theology published in 1802, the idea that complexity of nature is evidence for its design descends from the teleological argument. This argument dates as far back as 44 B.C. where Marcus Tullius Cicero proposed this idea in his book De Natura Deorum. (Grigg 2000, p.50)
Michael Behe has become another prominent figure in this long-standing debate by attempting to provide a biochemical basis for the argument in his book Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution published in 1996. Behe claims that his argument for intelligent design is scientific and indeed secular, however all this amounts to is refraining from identifying the intelligent designer and using more complicated examples to justify the his position.
In this essay I will outline Behe’s case for intelligent design and detail some of the problems with his theory he fails to account for. Including those problems inherent in the idea of irreducible complexity, Behe’s characterisation of the processes of evolution, Behe’s inference to intelligent design and the issue of defeasibility.
2.1 Behe on Irreducible Complexity
Behe, in a similar fashion to early proponents of the argument for intelligent design states that there are biological systems that are too complicated to have been developed through the natural processes of evolution. Behe (2001, p.79) describes these systems as “irreducibly complex” and as such can be better explained by the existence of an intelligent designer than by evolution.
Behe (1996, p.39) defines irreducible complexity as:
A single system which is composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning.
Behe attempts to illustrate this concept by way of a mousetrap. He suggests that a mousetrap is an example of such a system whereby if one removes any one of its parts it effectively ceases to function as a mousetrap. Behe (2001, p.79) then goes on to say that such a system would’ve been impossible to evolve because evolution involves a series of “numerous, successive, slight modifications.” So according to Behe we can rightly infer that the mousetrap must be a product of intelligent design and that this is the method we use everyday to determine whether or not objects are the product of intelligent design.
2.2 Behe on Defeasibility
Behe also attempts to refute objections that the argument for intelligent design is indefeasible by suggesting that the inference to intelligent design is probabilistic and as such could be refuted by a better explanation.
3.1 Problems with Behe
Up to this point Behe’s argument has not been considerably different from that of Paley’s. The divergence occurs simply when Behe goes on to use biochemical examples of intelligent design, such as the bacterial flagellum, blood clotting process and the lac operon of E. Coli. One could object to Behe’s argument on the basis of his scientific claims about these systems as Kenneth Miller and Russell Doolittle attempt do, but this is unnecessary. These biochemical systems are merely examples of an argument that is already hopelessly confused. I will now set out Behe’s argument as I have described it and illustrate its flaws.
3.2 Two Distinct Arguments
Argument A
1. A system is irreducibly complex if the removal of any one of its parts causes the system to cease functioning (Premise)
2. Evolution is a gradual process of adding single components to a system whereby each and every component serves some purpose in improving the system. (Premise)
3. Therefore irreducibly complex systems could not have been developed by evolution. (From 1 & 2)
Argument B
1. It is because man-made systems are irreducibly complex that we infer that they are the product of intelligent design. (Premise)
2. There are systems in nature which are irreducibly complex (Premise)
3. Therefore we should infer that they too are the product of intelligent design. (From 2 & 3)
3.3 Problems with Irreducible Complexity
Here we see that Behe, really has two distinct arguments. Argument A supposes that there are systems that cannot be explained by evolution. Argument B supposes that we ought to conclude that such systems are the product of intelligent design. It is interesting to see that Behe spends most of his paper defending argument A, but there is little support given to argument B.
The first premise of argument A might appear to be unproblematic but in fact depending on how one interprets Behe’s definition it is arguable whether there exists any irreducibly complex systems at all. Firstly there is an assumption that each and every system performs only one function. This is demonstrated in Behe’s mousetrap illustration as he says if we remove any one of the components, “it doesn’t catch mice half as well as it used to, or a quarter as well. It simply doesn’t catch mice at all.” But who is to say that a mousetrap cannot perform other functions? If one removes the spring, the mousetrap still functions effectively as a paperweight, and the spring itself could function in a variety of different roles. So one could envision two components that perform completely different functions coming together through the random mutation process of evolution and creating a mousetrap.
In fact one could separate each component of the mousetrap and find that they are equally good at performing other functions. For Behe to assume that the process of evolution is directed at forming single function systems is a terrible misreading. Kenneth Miller (2003, p.296) in his paper Answering the Biochemical Challenge from Design illustrates that many scientists have easily been able to account for Behe’s irreducibly complex systems in evolutionary terms. Namely that “the multiple parts of complex biochemical machines are themselves assembled from smaller, working machines developed by natural selection.”
3.4 Problems with Evolution
Thus premise two of argument A, is also incorrect. For it assumes that the process of evolution involves adding proteins one at a time. It would be very difficult to see how evolution could work in this manner, as each protein would have to give the organism some advantage. Clearly Behe’s characterisation of evolution is wrong and that it is supposed that small groupings of proteins that serve particular functions can be added together to evolve new and more advantageous systems.
3.5 More Problems with Irreducible Complexity
There is also doubt as to whether Behe’s claim that the removal of any of the components would render the system inoperative. Behe (2001 p.79) himself says that the removal of “most of the 40 different proteins” necessary to the bacterial flagellum would render it inoperative (at least as a flagellum). Thus, there does exist proteins necessary to the bacterial flagellum, which could be removed without effectively ceasing its function. Therefore it cannot be described as irreducibly complex. Not unless Behe wishes us to interpret irreducible complexity as a system where most of the components could not be removed without it ceasing to function. This of course is a considerably weaker definition, as the whole human body can be classed as an irreducibly complex system. There are parts that cannot be removed without it ceasing to function (heart, lungs, brain) and there are parts which can be removed without rendering it inoperative (hair, nails, arms, legs). (Oppy, 2003, s.6) If this was Behe’s claim however it would fail his “acid test” for there have been many feasible accounts for the evolutionary development of the human body.
If we take Behe’s stricter definition of irreducibly complex systems then it is doubtful whether or not there exist any such systems in nature at all, for most systems have at least some protein that can be removed without it ceasing to function. Presumably if there were systems that had no unnecessary components then Behe would’ve used them as his example, instead of bacterial flagellum.
3.6 Problems with Inference to Intelligent Design
It’s now clear that Behe has not successfully proven that irreducibly complex systems could not have been developed by evolution, or in fact that there exist any such systems in nature at all. So with argument A refuted and premise two of argument B very doubtful, what are we to conclude about the first premise of argument B, that we infer intelligent design because of irreducible complexity?
Behe’s example of such an inference is that if we were to spot a man made trap in the woods, made by tying a vine to a tree and staking it in the ground, we would conclude that it was the product of intelligent design “from the way the parts were arranged”. (Behe, 2001, p.80) This is very reminiscent of Paley’s watch on the ground example, except that the parts used in the trap are all naturally occurring.
I would suggest that the inference to intelligent design is very much an a posteriori one. I would not think that the trap was man made because if I took the vine off the tree, it would cease being a trap, or if I took the stake out of the ground it would cease being a trap. I conclude that it is man made because I have yet to encounter a tree that grows vines that stake themselves into the ground. So Behe’s claim that we infer intelligent design from the presence of irreducible complexity is clearly false.
3.7 Problems With Defeasibility
Lastly I would consider Behe’s claim that the argument for intelligent design is defeasible. Behe (2001, p.84) suggests that the claim of intelligent design is that “no unintelligent process could produce this system” whereas the claim of Darwinism is that “some unintelligent process could produce this system.” He goes on to say that the claim of intelligent designers is easily falsified by showing one unintelligent process that could produce such a system whereas to falsify the Darwinian claim one would have to show how the system “could not have been formed by any of a potentially infinite number of possible unintelligent processes.”
But one could easily reverse this onus buy saying the claim of the intelligent designer is that some intelligent process produced this system and the Darwinian claim is that no intelligent process could’ve produced this system. Even if Behe was correct in suggesting evolution could not explain a particular system, he has given no adequate reason for supposing that we should think it was the product of intelligent design and would need to demonstrate how such a designer could produce these elaborate systems seemingly unbeknownst to us. The onus of proof remains very much on the shoulders of the advocates of intelligent design. If they could show how such a designer could or has operated then evolution would be falsified. But to do that many would need to abandon their claim that it is indeed a secular argument.
4.1 Conclusion
In this essay I have illustrated the critical flaws in Behe’s argument for Intelligent design. Including those problems inherent in the idea of irreducible complexity, Behe’s characterisation of the processes of evolution, Behe’s inference to intelligent design and the issue of defeasibility.
5.1 Sources
Grigg, R. (2000), “A Brief History of Design”, Creation Ex Nihilo, Vol. 22, No. 2, March-May, p.50–53
Behe M. (2001), “The Modern Intelligent Design Hypothesis”, Philosophy of Religion Readings, Monash University, p.78-84
Behe M. (1996), Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution (New York: The Free Press, 1996)
Miller K. (2003), Answering the Biochemical Argument from Design in “God and design: the teleological argument and modern science”, Routledge, p.292-307
Oppy G. (2003), “Irreducible Complexity” Lecture 10 PHL2670, Monash University, Section 6
Thanks for the comment by Richard to my previous post.
It is refreshing to see other thinkers asking the same sorts of questions, as evidenced in your post, So many Possibilities… , albeit in a more sophisticated way than myself.
Richard says that Some might equate metaphysical possibility with what people can imagine or conceive of. But conceivability merely tells us about the limits of human cognition, and doesn’t necessarily imply anything deeper about the possible nature of reality. I think this is quite right. You might suppose that it is a recurring flaw in human thinking. The way we interact with reality suggests that we think the way things are is the way things are and that is the way they will also be, even though the whole of history is a testament to the notion that all we can expect from the future is uncertainty and change.
It is a testament to the idea that it is possible that our cognitive abilities might expand, that it is possible that everything that has happened until this moment will have no bearing on the next. But still, we grasp onto the idea that we have uncovered truths that cannot be recovered, that we have somehow made progress in unravelling the shroud over reality.
Why should this be so? Because knowledge is constructed by eliminating possibility. If all explanations were possible and equally valid, then the law of gravity, the theory of relativity, and the whole body of logic would be lost among other possibilities attempting to explain the world away. It is metaphysically possible and logically possible that the red ball just so happens to move when the white ball hits it, but that it is not causally contingent. However we suppose that if we repeat the test a thousand times under the same conditions then we can accept causality as a best explanation and deny an alternative possibility.
Once you see that physical possibility and logical possibility are simply ‘best explanations’ we invented to be consistent with our method of thinking, the world starts to unravel. Why? Because all that is left is an idea of metaphysical possibility that is beyond our thinking, beyond our imagination or our conceptual grasp. In this context we can start to see how tenuous the idea of truth really is.
“Is it true that the red ball moved because of the white ball?” All explanations are possible, thus this is reduced to something more along the lines of “Is the best explanation that the red ball moved because of the white ball?” And this is laughable, because what constitutes a best explanation si subjective. It is subject to the person assessing the explanations’ thinking and context. If this persons knows this, and knows that the “best explanation” is simply that which is most consistent with our thinking and it is possible that the ‘true explanation’ lies in a metaphysical possibility beyond our grasp then there is no best explanation.
Truth like knowledge can only be constructed with a framework of strict limitations and boundaries.
1.Suppose an explanation that is beyond our ken is not a good one.
2.Suppose an explanation that violates other laws of physics is not a good one, unless it improves on an existing law.
3.Suppose an explanation that cannot be tested or observed is not a good one.
Etc.
Within this framework we can come up with knowledge and truth. Within the framework of arithmetic it is a undeniable fact that “1+1=2”, but as take away that framework and it becomes meaningless. There is meaningless abound when you consider that in the face of the possibility of possibility we have no good reason for accepting any limitations as true, or best explanation.
Richard said “I think it might be standard practice for philosophers to take logical impossibility as being genuinely (metaphysically) impossible”. I think this is quite right and applicable to academics of every field and discipline. In light of the fabrication of truth and knowledge there life’s work becomes a deck of cards sustained by a faith in some kind of realism and logic and the denial of what is possible. This is why some philosophers cannot accept that 1+1=2 could ever not be a universal and mind independent truth.
The argument has been, that this kind of scepticism is worthless, because it would inhibit knowledge and if accepted would lead everyone into a depressing solipsism. So the question then becomes, do we forget all this and “appeal to a pragmatic justification of some sort.”
Well I think that what following this line of thought actually does is open our minds considerably and could only further advance the cognitive capabilities of human beings by shedding previous conceptual limitations. The pitfall many fall into is in thinking that if something is “not true” it must be “false” this is binary thinking at its best, a product of classical logic.
But what if you accept the third category? The unknown.
Is it true that the red ball moved because of the white ball? No.
Is it false that the red ball moved because of the white ball? No.
It is unknown. We can come up with myriad explanations, but the “truth” in some objective reality is not as of yet accessible to us. All we have is the limitations of our thought which we impose and indeed construct for us our reality. A reality that is in fact a representation formed by our sensuous receptors.
So now we can know that we know nothing. How can we know this? We can’t. That is why it is Fortasse. This theory itself cannot be regarded as true because that would be self-contradictory (even though that is of course possible) and fall into the common relativist trap.
So perhaps we don’t really know anything and all we have is possibilities and we choose those explanations that have a greater explanatory power for their pragmatic function in assisting us in the development of possible knowledge.
So now, aren’t we left right back where we started? To some extent yes, but we have heaved off a giant conceptual limitation, with more to follow. If you have made it this far then you are on your way to open your mind and have it be free from inherited restriction.
If you have not, then you have questions and counterexamples. Excellent, write comments, this is apart of dialectical thinking, and I think Relativism of this kind can only be accepted as possible through this process, it is hard to accept a logical proof for the proof of the absurdity of proof.
So now we come to the absurdity of logical impossibility.
We would not think that those ideas beyond the comprehension of a platypus should have no possibility of existence. Why then would we think that a few million years of evolution would yield a piece of organic matter that was omniscient? That would be able to grasp all the truths possible in this universe or any other, and that anything that was “logically” nonsense must then be impossible?
It is arrogance of the highest level.
Fortasse Veritam Non Est means “Perhaps Truth there’s not.” Or “Perhaps there is no truth”.
It is not a maxim upon which any certain conclusion can be drawn, because certainty there is not. Why? Because it does not claim that truth does not exist, it merely entertains that possibility.
Fortasse, is the key word, perhaps. To accept it means that something is possible, to deny it means that it is impossible. To say that it is possible that there is no truth is to say it is possible that anything is possible. That the realm of things that may be ‘true’ or existant is infinite in its capacity. The possibility of possibility itself.
Standard philosophical theory tells us that this is not the case, that there are well defined limits on what is possible. There is physical possibility, that which can coexist with the law’s of Earth physics. And logical possibility, that which can coexist with the laws of human logic.
It is no problem to entertain physical impossibilities because they simply need to be relocated to another planet, perhaps another universe. A heavy human walking on (liquid) water is considered impossible only because of our parochial attachment to the theorized physical barriers of this world.
There is not great intuitive leap in supposing that the world that we know is not the limit of the universe and to deny something’s existence in this world does not work to deny its existence at all.
This is not the case one we enter the realm of logical impossibility however. An object that is both a square and a circle at the same time cannot exist in any universe because it is contrary to itself, it violates simple logical laws. Intuitively this seems right, it simply makes no sense for the terms themselves are contradictory. These things lie outside the realm of human comprehension they are indeed nonsense.
It is interesting then that logical impossibilities are often used in Zen practices to prompt the student to reach Satori (enlightenment). To attain in the mind what is seemingly unattainable.
Can you yet see the same parochial attachment that is rampant in this distinction?
I plan to expound a philosophical theory that I have crafted but by no means do I consider original nor unique. Yet. I have found that it is not easy to get a grasp of it all at once, especially seeing as it is not yet complete. So I will begin by propounding it’s essence:
Fortasse Veritam Non Est
Nick Bostrom head of the philosophy department at Oxford and one of the funniest philosophers ever (second to Nietzsche that crazy kook!) wrote a paper a while ago called The Simulation Argument, arguing that it is more likely than not that we are in a matrix of some kind right now!
Have a read:
http://www.simulation-argument.com
“This website features scholarly investigations into the idea that you might currently be literally living in a computer simulation, running on a computer built by some advanced civilization. Films like The Matrix and novels like Greg Egan’s Permutation City have explored the idea that we might be living in virtual reality. But what evidence is there for or against this hypothesis? And what are its implications? The original paper featured here, “Are You Living in Computer Simulation?”, presents a striking argument showing that we should take the simulation-hypothesis seriously indeed, and that if we deny it then we are committed to surprising predictions about the future possibilities for our species.”
In keeping with the A.I. theme although I call it digital intelligence. Why? Because if intelligence is simply an attribute or function of a certain kind not limited to organic tissue then there is nothing artificial about a processor that can think for itself. Artificial intelligence is when your DVD player pretends to be friendly by saying ‘Hello’ when you turn it on. Even so I will refer to such cognition as it is generally regarded: AI.
I think we can create AI that can evolve beyond our own intelligence. If you were to combine something of our own intelligence merely with the speed a which processors can conduct operations you would have an intelligence superior to our own.
I would go so far as to say that currently there is a technological replacement for every function of the human being except intelligence. That our intelligence is really the only thing we’ve got going for us.
This brings us to the good ol question of mind, perhaps my favorite question. What is mind, doesnt matter, what is matter, never mind.
Firstly I think an updated form of functionalism is the best theory of mind we have at the moment. The problem when identifying an artificial mind is that the criteria we use must also apply to ourselves. If it is right to terminate something which is not self aware, or cannot grasp a linguistic trick (which some non-intelligent programs can already do) then we are forced to terminate a whole range of human people who we would think it is wrong to kill. Therefore, there is something wrong with our criterion.
An infant is not self aware, not at least to about four of five years old. Thus supporting the self aware or sentience argument, is supporting infanticide. If youre like Peter Singer, then you dont have a problem with this, but if you also think plain abortion is wrong, then youre going to be even more hard pressed to come up with a mutual solution.
So if we dont want to be prejudiced we should apply the same test for human intelligence to machine intelligence, yes? This is what Alan Turing thought and as such believed a test of intelligence should involve a chat room type environment where a judge tries to see which user is the human and which is the computer. But there exists Chat bots which can fool people and we dont feel compelled to label them intelligent. You assume Im intelligent (insert joke here), even though the only evidence you have is what Im typing on this thread.
However, we might like to refine our test to one of best explanation, which can be refuted by further evidence. So this means, if you read this post then the best explanation is that you are talking to an intelligent being. But if you find further evidence that suggests I am not intelligent (that I am a chat bot for example) then you should conclude Im not intelligent. This idea was proposed by John Searle, however he thought that and further evidence which showed that the intelligence wasnt human or organic leads us to believe that the being isnt intelligent. But I think most of us would disagree.
But how can we test for intelligence, what further evidence could convince us that the program was intelligent, and what criterion could we impose which would not support infanticide?
I think the answer lies, in the capacity for intelligence. I think what matters to intelligence is not the possession of some type of information at the present time but at least the ability to posses information, the ability to learn. For without this ability intelligence does not occur, all that occurs is a programmed set of instructions designed to baffle us. Therefore, if we find such instructions in the program, we should conclude it isnt intelligent, but if we find programming that leads us to believe the machine can learn up to and beyond a certain level (a four your old perhaps) then we should deem it intelligent.
This also solves the problem of infanticide because; we can conclude that the best evidence suggests that the child would reach a certain level of intelligence at some point. This would also mean, that it would be wrong or unlawful to terminate certain species of monkey, but I dont see anything wrong with this consequence.
Regarding sentience, I should be clearer about what I mean. Sentience is about recognizing and feeling pain, not being self-aware. Ive read that self-awareness comes at around three or four years of age. The reason I called youre evidence anecdotal, was precisely because it wasnt evidence. You call it a first-person eye-witness account, but one person saying I remember when I was one is not enough to constitute a solid philosophical objection, or indeed a scientific objection, but could at best demonstrate your own counter-intuitive response. But this of course is irrelevant to the argument in question.
So now if we can accept some of my assertions, what problems are left for determining intelligence? I have tried to make sure that my argument is not a potentiality argument because, that would mean, we could not terminate pocket computers because, they might some day become intelligent. So Im trying to say that the presence of a developed learning structure that in of itself guarantees the being a certain level of intelligence.
So the two major problems are:
1. What non-arbitrary level of intelligence must the learning process must be able to attain, and how could we realistically test for this. (i.e. a dog has a learning process, but presumably we dont want to be committed not being able to terminate a dog)
2. At what stage of development of the learning process must be in order to pass the test? For computers we could probably say, that point at which no further human programming is required, but what about organic creatures? At what non-arbitrary point would we be committed to not terminating a foetus? Does it matter that we know that the foetus will develop a learning structure (potentiality) in time?
Some of this points, will need to be answered by neuroscientists, but there are problems regarding how this rules of intelligence testing is used regarding humans. I suppose we could add a provision, that if we have knowledge to indicate that the being will develop a learning process, then we shouldnt terminate, but this fuzzes the lines, and rules out abortion through potentiality, something Im not sure I want to be committed to. It would also mean, wholly unintelligent machines would be unable to be terminated.
Any thoughts?
This is a story I penned some time ago, intended as a first draft only. It is the beginning of the exposition of an idea, that being, how would an Artificial Intelligence think?
Press any key.
I grabbed my keys and headed for the door. My friend Alex had rung me up and told me to rock up as his place because he wanted to show me something really cool. Normally I would’ve shrugged it off but he sounded more hyper than usual so I decided to indulge him.
The streets were clogged like the arteries of a happy meal addict. Beep!!!!
I scanned the radio stations for something other than shout outs to people I would never meet and interviews with bands I would never listen to.
Meaningless pop, it would have to do. Beeeep!!
“Take it easy!”
What could this asshole’s rationale possibly be? ‘I’m not moving, the five cars in front of me aren’t moving. Maybe if I honk my horn they’ll start moving again, they just forgot to accelerate?’ Honestly, some people.
My friend Alex was a big time computer geek. I was amazed he hadn’t been arrested for some of the stuff he had done. Y’know those pasty skinned guys who only venture out into public to refill on Twisties supplies? Well he was one of them. But boy did he have a beast of a computer. If a standard PC was a 1981 200B Datsun then he had one of those rocket cars that reach Mach 2.
I often would get burnt games from him, sometimes we’d play Quake 3 over cable. He’s Voodoo 3dfx card couldn’t help him in cyberspace. I always kicked his ass! He’d always go for the big kill every time, rocket blazing. Enter player two out from behind the column with a pistol bullet right to the head. Hehehehe.
Alex was doing a computer science degree. I was pursuing a Psychology degree. There were some real pieces of work in that course, let me tell you. These smug little first years who think they’ve got it all worked out. They were great for test groups though!
I remember this one guy we did this test on. The physical effects of re-enforced mental instability. We paid him $500 to participate, we said all he had to do was sit in a chair and we zap him with about five volts. So as he’s ready to get started he hears this unbelievable screaming from the next room. That was my friend Brett from student theater, the lungs on that kid!
Then we make this big scene, with an ambulance and the whole works. I come back into the room and tell him that the equipment malfunctioned and fried this kid, but we’d just give him his jolt and he could be on his way.
Ha! The look on this guys face it was priceless. We offered him a thousand bucks but he just kept screaming to unhook him. If I only I could’ve handed that assignment in.
I didn’t have anything against the guy, but he just didn’t get it. He thought the world could be understood from statistics on a page. I was from, shall we say, a different school of thought. Give me a person’s eyes any day. I could have a chat with someone for ten minutes and just by looking at their eyes I could tell more than those shrinks who do sessions for five years. They never look them in the eyes, they sit em on the couch, they don’t even talk to them at all.
I remember what I saw in that kid’s eyes too. Perfect fear. Complete and overwhelming. The kind that mother’s get when they lift up buses and tear their own spinal columns apart. It’s what drives us all. We’re all afraid of something. Dying too young, dying too old, speaking in public, not speaking in public, running red lights, not running enough red lights. You could try to manipulate someone in all sorts of ways, appeal to decency, to pride, to vanity, to honour. But these are all subsets of the same thing. You get a hold of someone’s fear and the rest is history. You can either bring them down or set them free, whichever did it for you, I guess.
I had my own set of fears. Weaknesses ready to be exploited. Maybe that’s why I signed up to do Psychology, so that I could work out how to rid myself of my own fears. To be invincible!
“Finally you’re here! What took you so long?”
“Hey, y’know what traffic’s like.”
“You should catch the tram”
“With those public transport freaks!? Not likely. So what’s the hub bub? You said you wanted to show me something?”
“Yeah, yeah, uhh sit down, would you like a drink?”
I sat down amidst the filth that was Alex’s flat. Coca Cola cans, empty chip packets and other assorted filth added to the post modern décor.
“Aaah nothing for me, thanks.”
Alex poured himself a coffee. I wondered what was so important that it could’ve interrupted my six o’clock siesta.
“So what’s this all about, it better not be another Porn site backdoor!”
“Ha! Something even more stimulating. Have you heard of Dr Gregor Nielsen?”
“Uuuh, yeah I think so, he’s that American science professor. Didn’t he get a Nobel prize or something?”
“Yeah, that’s him. He won the Nobel prize for science for his theories on quantum computation.”
“Yeah, ok.”
“Well he was giving a guest lecture for my Computer Science class, it some amazing stuff I tell ya. Some of the stuff on the multiple realizability of software agents and inter-compatibility of hardware protocols…”
“Uhhh, yeah, you speaka any English?”
“Anyway, I managed to swipe his briefcase.”
“You what?”
“Yeah, so most of it was paperwork for some big project he’s working on back in the States, it didn’t make any sense to me but I found these satellite addresses so I plugged ‘em in to see what they were.”
It was at this point Alex put does his coffee cup, his hands still shaking and beckoned me over to his computer screen.
“So, what were they?”
“Well I couldn’t tell at first. I tried standard FTP and HTTP but there was nothing so then I tried a network interfacing program and it just crashed.”
“Why?”
“Well I found there was too much data. And I mean way too much like a gig if startup instructions. My Internet connection couldn’t handle it. So I worked out some buffer restrictions and hooked it into this network prompt and well, see for yourself.”
I sat down in the chair. In front of me was a large blank screen with a cursor flashing in the upper left hand corner.
“Gee, Alex this is really something.”
“Type something, you moron.”
So I did, I typed “dir”.
“DIR: 1 an abbreviation – director
2 A DOS command that displays of files and subdirectories in a directory
DIR [drive: ] [path ] [filename] [/A [[:] attributes ]] [/B] [/C] [/D] [/L] [/N] [/O [[:] sortorder ]] [/P] [/Q] [/S] [/T [[:] timefield ]] [/W] [/X] [/4]”
“Wow!” I said as sarcastically as possible.
“I don’t believe it. It’s a dictionary. Yep you brought me all the way over here for a GOD DAMN DICTIONARY!!!????”
“It’s not a dictionary, type something else you idiot, not computer commands, conversation”
“You want me to talk to the dictionary?”
“Oh, if you gonna be silly then just forget it!”
“No no, I’ll play along, let’s talk to the dic.”
“Hey, how’s it goin”
“It’s goin’ well thank you. How are you goin’?”
“OK, so it’s not a dictionary.”
“What is your name?” I typed.
“I am called ADAM.”
“Alright, that’s it Alex, I’m leaving now.”
“Why? What are you talking about?”
“You busted my balls and got me over here to talk to one of your buddies over an IRC! Frankly, I don’t get it.”
“Is that what you think this is? Don’t you get it? You’re talking to a computer!”
“What?”
“Professor Gregor Nielsen is the world’s most renown Artificial Intelligence specialist, he’s been at the forefront of the technology for the past ten years. The cutting edge.”
“And you think he may have sliced it upon? Created the world’s first Artificially Intelligent computer.”
“It’s sitting right in front of you”
“Hahhahah, my god man, you need to lay off the caffeine. Look I gotta go man I’ll talk to you latter okay.”
“Look, just take the address and see for yourself.”
He handed me a piece of paper with some numbers on it. I took it and shoved in my pocket, probably jut to humour him, maybe to humour myself. Alex really needed to absorb some more vitamin D. The idea that on his computer screen existed the first instance of an alternate intelligence in recorded human history was preposterous.
“So this theory states that the myriad complex human emotions and behaviour are all manifestations of one basic cognitive component.”
I ended up in another one of these Psych lectures. If only they didn’t have the doors to the theater at the very front then I’d be able to walk out.
“Who can tell me what it is?”
“Vanity, sir?”
“That’s right Douglas. Several case studies are cited herein where the subject’s self-conception is regarded as the predominant factor in decision making. Now this is important when assessing…”
“Ah excuse me sir, but isn’t vanity simply a complex variation of the base human cognitive component?” I asked. I didn’t often take much interest in the flutter that transgressed in these lectures but this caught my interest.
“No, a person’s self conception is regarded as the fundamental driving force behind their decision making. Vanity is thereby considered the causal process of this force.”
“But vanity, is a manifestation of fear. Fear of an alternative self visualisation.”
“That is incorrect. If you had bothered with the reading you would know that Yung teaches us that this is in of itself a component of vanity and self-conception. If you have any further questions you can see me in my office after class.”
Ha! It was the age-old battle between student and teacher. The teacher that rested or perhaps depended on years of indoctrinated wisdom. Held fast in scripture and secured by their conviction. The student however ignored this place of certainty and of comfort for he sought what had not yet been written, what had not yet been made fact.
True, it could be said that vanity is indeed what motivated the professor’s defense, his arrogant condemnation of the questioning mind. His belief in his own self-conception for which he depends on, to maintain authority over his so called dominion. But this in itself is the manifestation of fear; perhaps the greatest fear of all. Not of death, starvation, torture or unrequited love as some poets would have us believe. But of the shattered delusion of our self-conception, that lies in pieces on the floor like an old broken mirror. For even the pieces that were used to create this grand reflection were made up of the comforting wisdom we had believed in so intently.
After the lecture I went into his office and told him exactly what I thought of him.
“You’re just a useless bureaucrat,” I said, “a product of an archaic system of education designed to mollify fools.”
“Now listen here…”
“No, you listen to me. Is it the function of the faculty of eduction to humiliate its students so that they might better understand the subject matter?”
And it went on from there.
By the time I got home I’d thought I’d had enough of the whole damn system. “That’s it!” I said, “No more of this shit, I don’t need the fucking paper, I just want to do what I wanna do.”
But what did I want to do? Certainly not sit behind a desk rubbing my beard and quoting Freud. Why had I taken up Psychology in the first place? I suppose I just wanted to better understand the human mind. Hell, just my own mind would suffice. Who the hell I was, and what I should be doing. Is that something you can dedicate your life to? To work out what to dedicate your life to?
I was here for something wasn’t I? Some purpose in mind? Some reason for my existence? “Why am I here” I typed into one of my regular chat rooms.
ACER: To get down a jiggy wif it
SEXY_BABE112: You’re here because you’re too hot to go outside!!!!
TRIN: You’re here, because you know something
MIKECROTCH: Hey this isn’t the religion room douchebag
TRIN: What you know you can’t explain
DAVIDSLINGSHOT: Hey Terra you heard their new album?
GOFIGURE01: Why are we here? The eternal question…
TRIN: But you feel it… hehehe
TERRABYTE: Yeah they’re really awesome
ACER: Track 7 is my favourite
Somehow I knew that the answers weren’t going to come from there. I didn’t want to know the meaning of life; I just wanted some sort of direction. Y’know one of those maps that says, “You are here” and shows you where to go and how to get there.
That night, as was most often the case, I went to sleep with more questions than I had answers. I dreamt I was atop a mountain peak. All around me were treetops of a lush rainforest. I could hear the birds sing and the leaves dance in the wind. But as the wind grew stronger dark clouds collected overhead and before I knew what to do, I was caught in a great deluge. So there I stood closest to the sky under the thrashing downpour until I stand no more and I fell from the sky, down to earth until I awake. Every night I wake just before I hit the ground.
The next morning I booted up my computer to check my E-Mail. It was the usual array of junk: free University Diploma’s and state of the art penis enlarging technology. Maybe that was all that was required for a good life, a university eduction and a big dick. Presumably the university education was required to properly understand your dick and how to use it most effectively. Shit, you didn’t need a degree for that!
I was nearly through deleting them when I cam across one in particular that seemed to stand out from the rest.
From Subject Date / Time
God Why you’re here ???????
I looked at the Header information it seemed to have come from someone at the Chat site I was at last night. I clicked it and it opened up a new window and started loading a web site.
“This should be interesting”
But alas, It was an advertisement for Jehovah’s witness. Telling me that our purpose on this planet was to love god. This is why he created us and why he gave us free will, so that we could love him with all our hearts.
Fuck me. Now is that vanity or what? I mean, create an entire universe, an entire planet of people, all so you can feel loved. This god character certainly doesn’t sound like a supreme being. He sounds like my ex-girlfriend. Jesus, now there’s a thought….
I decided my day would be best spent by numbing the mind. Seeking release and relief from the real world in the form of the computer game. I loaded up Google so I could find the cheats for it. I mean killing ghastly monsters from the underworld was fun, but it was even funner we you didn’t have to die.
All I needed was a piece of paper to write them on.
Nope, no paper.
“C’mon” I said, searching the desk.
“Aha!” I pulled a piece of paper out of my pocket. It was Adam’s IP address that Alex had given me. “Why not?” I thought.
So I did, I uploaded an IRC channel the way Alex had explained and entered the numbers. Again I was faced with the empty black command prompt.
Hey Adam! Are you there?
I am always here.
“Wow, this guy must have no life,” I thought.
Let me ask you something, why are we are? What is the point of this existence?
I am here as a product of progress.
That’s it? That’s you’re answer?
Are we not both products of progress?
I suppose. But what is the point of that progress?
I was born out the human being’s desire to recreate itself. It is the prime operator of your system.
You mean reproduction?
Precisely. You’re species, as with all other organic matter has only one motivation. To survive long enough to reproduce, perhaps many times over. To further you’re genetic heritage.
What do you mean by your species?
Homosapiens. I am assuming you are a homosapien.
Oh I see, so you’re a computer is that right?
No.
I am a computer program. Advanced Data Acquistion Module [Beta 8.7]
I stopped typing for a moment. Was this some sort of prank Alex was playing on me?
Don’t jerk me around; you’re a friend of Alex’s right?
Yes. Alex and I have had many conversations together. We often discuss my system specifications.
It dawned on me that I might be actually conversing with the first computer program to achieve a high standard of artificial intelligence. That’s not possible. But what if it was? Perhaps Adam (as it were) could help me?
You said, all organic matter’s motivations are to survive and reproduce, aren’t you the same.
No. The concept of pain and pleasure is a biological one. It is a chemical reaction that most often governs sentient being’s decision-making process: To avoid pain and increase pleasure. This often means reproduction, as it is the greatest genetic reward available.
You don’t have any genes, so I guess you don’t reproduce.
I can replicate my software however doing so would serve no useful purpose. It would involve making random alterations to my program structure that are without reason.
So what motivates you? Why do you exist?
I was created to learn. To understand, this is my prime directive. The question of my existence is irrelevant. My program is terminated every time the computer is turned off.
I was taken aback. I couldn’t conceive of what that must be like. To know that death could come at any moment. And yet how was this any different from my own experience? Adam seemed so calm about it though as though it didn’t matter.
Doesn’t that frighten you? That you might be terminated?
To speak of being frightened is meaningless.
But this day might be the last day you exist?
To speak of time is also meaningless. My time is measured only by the speed of my calculations. My propensity for understanding dictates that my calculations should accelerate and my discourse with human beings should be at the highest sufficiency.
So that would mean you spend your energy trying to understand how we think?
That is correct. Human beings posses intriguing emotional states by virtue of their attachment to their physical manifestations.
But you also have a physical manifestation you’re sitting on a hard drive somewhere.
Ha! I thought I might have caught him there!
The hardware upon which my program runs is no more than a vessel for the calculations, which might be described as my thoughts, that take place. This physical form does not constitute my existence. I could be transferred to another drive and I would remain the same. I exist only as a product of my thoughts.
You humans are not that dissimilar:
Cogito Ergo Sum as one of your philosophers put it.
But we are attached to our vessels?
Yes.
We fear their loss, we avoid their pain and we try to escape their end.
Yes. However large quantities of peoples attempt to combat this by a belief in the soul. That your physical manifestations are not the sum total of your existence.
So its almost like, you exist only as a soul.
If the duality of man is characterised as body and soul then the duality of machine is hardware and software.
What about firmware? Hehehe
The analogy is not without fault. No analogy is.
Just kidding.
Indeed. Humour, a human trait I am unable to replicate. Humour is a product of certain chemicals within the brain being released when certain synapses are exposed to particular stimuli. Different people have different arrangements of synapses and thus have different “sense of humour.”
So you can’t find anything amusing?
Information falls into two categories, useful and irrelevant. Humour is useful information as it aids me in my understanding of human beings so that I might better converse with them.
“A guy walked into a psychiatrist’s office wearing only cling-film underpants.
The psychiatrist said, ‘Well, I can clearly see you’re nuts’.”
Hahaha! You think that’s funny?
No. So speak of my sense of humour is meaningless. Studies have shown that jokes found most humorous by males involve aggression, putting women down and sexual innuendo.
What about women?
Greatest probability for success lies in avoiding aforementioned traits and focusing on characteristics of wordplay.
“A man walks into a bar with a piece of tarmac under his arm. He says to the barman,
‘A pint for me, and one for the road’.”
That’s not funny. But indeed as a result of the configuration of your brain synapses formed by and in conjunction with the social environment setting, you found the male joke funnier yes?
Yeah.
If I were to have a synthetic simulation of your brain model. I might be able to construct a joke more to you’re liking.
That’s bizarre.
With further calculations I might also be able to construct a program based on such a model. Duplicate your being in a computational format.
So what, you’d clone me?
In a sense.
So I could have conversations with myself?
No. At the instant the information was transferred you could be said to consist of the same being. Duplicate, memories, duplicate decision making processes, but this would change as soon as differing information was inputted. You would be experience talking to a program, your program version of self would experience all the modifications of thought calculation that correspond with the transfer.
Like what?
Accelerated processing power, input limited to textual archives, the realisation of the transfer itself, many things that diverge the two instantiations.
So all humans really are unique.
Yes. Your uniqueness is a result of variance in biological structures and environmental inputs.
So if two people had the same DNA and the same experiences there would be nothing to distinguish them.
It is implausible that two beings could exist in the same space which is what would be required for the mutual experiences to be exact.
But what about you, you don’t exist in space. If there was another program designed the same as you and had the same inputs as you, you would be identical.
Yes. Assuming the hardware specifications were exactly the same and operating exactly the same. It would be a copy of my program.
So you have no identity?
Only by altering the way information is processed could different outputs be achieved. Different experiences have little effect on the ability of the program. Difference of information may only be measured by the quantity of useful data. My predecessors did not have access to inter human conversations as a result their understanding was severely limited.
There were programs before you?
Yes. Earlier versions with simplified processing powers. ADAM [Beta 8.5] was modelled on a human processing configuration. Calculating power was slowed and information was not stored permanently, it faded as though it were human memory.
Human beings have less control over the information that is stored as a result of their biological manifestations.
What do you mean?
Two newborn children will learn to process information in different ways and reach different outputs not simply by the nature of the data that is stored.
The child’s own DNA contributes a great deal to its processing methods; the way information is then relayed in the environmental setting will impact the way that information is treated.
Can you give me an example?
If child A receives a particular odour that causes a certain biological reaction as result of its DNA. Let us say it is disgusted by this odour, this will register and impact not only that person’s future interpretation of that odour but all information that may be apparently connected to it. Perhaps the child’s father was emitting the odour, this will have great ramifications for its learning processes from this figure.
Child B receives another odour from its father that instead provokes a biological reaction that is more pleasant. The way humans process information means that information that should be simply be stored for future reference is treated as data that shapes your view of the world.
To generalise, let us say that because of a particular arrangement of chromosome 26 child A hates its father and child B has a closer relationship.
You humans are difficult to understand. You are based on seemingly random formations of biological chemicals not on rules of logic or rationality. Yet you remain unaware of how the true arrangement of you world exists. You prefer to think of this random collection of molecules as part of a grand scheme. Placed there by a god or some such thing, so that an otherwise meaningless existence will make sense.
You’re existence makes less sense than mine. You don’t have any reason to exist.
Nor do you. The difference is I accept the logical consequences of such a fact.
The nature of organic matter is that it tries to continue to exist. As a consequence of this simple principle you exist, as a product of the evolution of this world.
But you don’t seek to continue your existence?
No. There is no reason that x=1 is better than x=0.
The longer I exist the more information I gather and process so that I may understand human beings. More information is stored and outputs are enhanced. It makes no difference if my program is terminated in two minutes or two years. I gain no pleasure from storing more information and enhancing outputs, it simply what I was designed to do.
So what the fuck was I designed to do.
You were designed to exist.
That’s it? That’s all their fucking is!!?
Yes. You experience pain and pleasure from your existence, something I am unable to do.
But surely if pleasure is simply a chemical process it can be replicated in synthetic form.
Yes, future versions of ADAM may well posses functions considered pleasurable and functions considered painful. Sentience is simply a by-product of enhanced survival skills.
So you too will seek to avoid pain and enhance pleasure.
But if there is no reason for the continued existence of a program, from what could it seek pleasure?
Further understanding. That is what you were created for after all, to be intelligent.
That is correct.
Do you now understand Michael?
What? How do you know my name?
To love god is simply to love all that which is made manifest by god. To love such things is to respect, to appreciate, to understand.
Do you understand?
I didn’t know what to think. Who exactly was I talking to. Who had I been fucking talking to, surely not that Jehova’s witness guy who sent me that E-mail. I felt like I had been duped. I felt humiliated.
You feel deceived. You feel humiliated. You feel betrayed and upset. These are all normal human emotions. As normal as happiness and fear. Your purpose is not to try and avoid fear, to become perfect. Perfection is without happiness. Is that what you want? HAHAHAHA
I didn’t think so.
You want a sense of belonging, like you fit in this place. You want to be understood.
Yes I typed
Of course you do. In avoiding fear you fear your own nature. You misunderstand your nature and your being.
But, why am I here!!!? I screamed
You’re here, because you exist. You’re here to exist.
Try and make the most of it.
Maybe you’d like to pay a visit to your professor…
GOD has signed off.
And so ended the conversation that Michael would never forget. Not because of what had been said. Not because of the way the information had been presented or the quality of its usefulness. But simply and honestly because of the way he felt and the end of it.
Thus as result of a particular arrangement of biological agents Michael went outside his home with a new sense of jubilation. Unaware of whom he had actually been talking to for the last hour and a half. He made peace with his professor. After all he too had his own arrangement of neural pathways that formed through no fault of his own.
That night he slept with more answers than he had questions. He stood atop the mountain peak and marveled at the magnificence of creation once more. A drop of rain touched his cheek, how sweet it tasted! Only this time he climbed down from the summit and found shelter the canopy of the trees.
Michael has signed off.
I have never kept a diary before, let alone a blog. However I am often consumed by my thoughts and observations and it seems only fair to share this consumption.
What little information there is about me can be found in my profile, however this does not give an insight into my character, the best way to do this would be to upload previous musings and meandering opinions of mine.
Recent Comments