11/22/2013
Mind, Vol 54 No 236, Oct 1950
This paper examines the question of whether machines can think. Since it was written when "machines" was still a broad term that could refer equally to a type-writer or an electronic computer, much of the work of the paper is clarifying, and exploring, what kind of machine could fit the bill for being able to learn, and, perhaps, think. Author works on re-phrasing the question to whether a machine (from here on, also "computer") can succeed at the "imitation game" as well as a man could. Here is the baseline game:
Interrogator (C) uses (probably) a keyboard and monitor to communicate with a separate, isolated, man (A), and a woman (B). Both A and B are trying to convince C that each is a woman. In other words, the man is trying to trick C into believing he is a woman. At some point, C makes the assessment on the gender of A and B. It is expected that C will have some degree of success at this.
Author's argument is that if a computer can take A's place and trick C as much of the time as A can, then a computer has played the imitation game as well as a man could, and thus was doing whatever a man was doing just as well. What is interesting is that author spends only a little time discussing the appropriateness of using this kind of game as an alternative to the "can machines think" question (pg435).
After discussing what kind of machine is envisioned (pg435-442), author considers objections (pg443-454):
1. The Theological objection: only humans with souls can think. Response: we're just making another vessel for a soul.
2. The 'Heads in the Sand' objection: if computers thought, humans would not be as special. Response: maybe so but it's possible, no?
3. The Mathematical objection: there are limits to the computing power of machines, cf Godel's proof. Response: and there aren't limits to the computing power of humans?
4. The Argument from Consciousness: thinking is part of understanding, which is part of consciousness, which machines do not have. Response: unless you're charitable, nobody else but you has consciousness. Thus, why not also be charitable about a machine that does what you can do equally well?
5. Arguments from Various Disabilities: machines can't do so many things that humans can do. Response: computers are getting better and much, and furthermore, arguments from disabilities don't hold up when comparing humans to each other. There is an interesting discussion on what kinds of mistakes computers can make (pg448-9) in this section. Author uses a distinction between "errors of functioning" and "errors of conclusion". You can program errors of functioning, but you may want to take that frailty away from computers to the extent possible. However, there is nothing that says a computer can't (and won't, often) make an error of conclusion, e.g. come up with the wrong answer through a flawless method. Author uses the example of inductive reasoning getting an outcome wrong even when used perfectly.
6. Lady Lovelace's Objection: machines do not have learning and cannot come up with anything new. Response: yes, but it isn't hard to see how they will be able to, someday. Furthermore, is novelty the mark of thinking? If so, even humans might not think very much.
7. Argument from Continuity in the Nervous System: the nervous system and a computer are too different, fundamentally. Response: this should not affect the imitation game, or the validity of conclusions, no matter which medium they were reasoned from.
8. The Argument from Informality of Behavior: there is no good way to possibly index all the appropriate behaviors for every situation for a computer, and since humans know the appropriate behaviors for every situation, humans cannot be the same as computers. Response: a computer can know what to do if given the right education and programming. There is also an interesting discussion on the difference between "rules of conduct" and "laws of behavior" here (pg452).
9. The Argument from Extra-Sensory Perception: humans have ESP. Response: since this may be true, to restrict the experiment to a "telepathy-proof room".
The remainder of the paper largely deals with what it would be like (theoretically) to create a learning computer. There includes an interesting discussion (pg454-5) about how the "real mind" is elusive, using a metaphor of the "skin of an onion".
11/15/13
Proudfoot, Diane - Rethinking Turning's Test
11/15/2013
The Journal of Philosophy, Vol 110 No 7, July 2013
Author starts by reviewing the history of Alan Turing's "Computing Machinery and Intelligence" paper in Mind. The central question is whether a computer could "be said to think", but it was replaced with the question: "are there imaginable digital computers which would do well in the imitation game". For Turing, the criterion for thinking morphed into what could be taken for an imitation of human activity, and author sets to give a fresh interpretation of the test as a "response-dependence" approach (pg393).
First author reviews the "canonical" view, which employs behaviorism as the criterion: if the machine behaves as a thinking creature would in a given context, it is thinking. Author argues that Turing did not mean to give even sufficient (let alone necessary) conditions for thinking using behaviorism. The interrogator's (the human's) response to the behavior is a necessary part to success in the imitation game. Turing used a different game, one of a man trying to fool an interrogator into believing he was a woman, as the benchmark for how well a computer could fool an interrogator into believing it was thinking. Author discusses how puzzling this emphasis on the interrogator's response is for behaviorists. Instead of writing off this crucial element as misguided, author suggests that the behavoristic interpretation is what is misguided.
The new interpretation author puts forward starts with Turing considering the "idea of 'intelligence'" (pg396) as an "emotional" one, but meaning specifically that we apply the label "intelligent" partly due to our own mental state and perspective; it is response-dependent (pg397). The trick now is to indicate what kinds of subjects and what kinds of conditions are "normal" to elicit the prototypical response, which was Turing's point with the imitation game (pg398). Author argues that common objections to Turing's thesis is that it fails to capture response-independent notions of intelligence miss the point (pg399).
Author reviews an objection to Turing's test, first from Ned Block's "Aunt Bubbles" thought experiment (pg400-2). Block's thought experiment points out the logical possibility of a (very) large index of conversations, which would emulate intelligence if there was an (impossibly) fast search and probability mechanism. Author responds by putting the operator "actually" into the Turing schema.
Next discussed are rival views to the behavioristic one; the first is Moor's response-independent view (pg402-3). Moor wants the test to be evidence for thinking, which would be internal to the mechanism. Stuart Shieber argues that the test is an "interactive proof" of intelligence. Author also believes this view misses the response-dependence of the test (pg404).
Author talks about how response-dependence doesn't need to undermine objectivity, or that it is compatible with "qualified" realism (pg405). Author then talks about more the more recent understanding that "intelligence is in the eye of the observer", a form of (perhaps) illusionism, with comments on the Chinese Room from Jordan Pollack. Further discussion is about a problem with response-dependent concepts: that humans anthropomorphize (just about anything) (pg407-8) "the forensic problem of anthropomorphism". Author believes the Turing test has a two-part solution to this: (1) create a situation where there is a disincentive to anthropomorphize (the judge's accuracy would decline), and (2) making anthropomorphism into a controlled variable (pg409).
The Journal of Philosophy, Vol 110 No 7, July 2013
Author starts by reviewing the history of Alan Turing's "Computing Machinery and Intelligence" paper in Mind. The central question is whether a computer could "be said to think", but it was replaced with the question: "are there imaginable digital computers which would do well in the imitation game". For Turing, the criterion for thinking morphed into what could be taken for an imitation of human activity, and author sets to give a fresh interpretation of the test as a "response-dependence" approach (pg393).
First author reviews the "canonical" view, which employs behaviorism as the criterion: if the machine behaves as a thinking creature would in a given context, it is thinking. Author argues that Turing did not mean to give even sufficient (let alone necessary) conditions for thinking using behaviorism. The interrogator's (the human's) response to the behavior is a necessary part to success in the imitation game. Turing used a different game, one of a man trying to fool an interrogator into believing he was a woman, as the benchmark for how well a computer could fool an interrogator into believing it was thinking. Author discusses how puzzling this emphasis on the interrogator's response is for behaviorists. Instead of writing off this crucial element as misguided, author suggests that the behavoristic interpretation is what is misguided.
The new interpretation author puts forward starts with Turing considering the "idea of 'intelligence'" (pg396) as an "emotional" one, but meaning specifically that we apply the label "intelligent" partly due to our own mental state and perspective; it is response-dependent (pg397). The trick now is to indicate what kinds of subjects and what kinds of conditions are "normal" to elicit the prototypical response, which was Turing's point with the imitation game (pg398). Author argues that common objections to Turing's thesis is that it fails to capture response-independent notions of intelligence miss the point (pg399).
Author reviews an objection to Turing's test, first from Ned Block's "Aunt Bubbles" thought experiment (pg400-2). Block's thought experiment points out the logical possibility of a (very) large index of conversations, which would emulate intelligence if there was an (impossibly) fast search and probability mechanism. Author responds by putting the operator "actually" into the Turing schema.
Next discussed are rival views to the behavioristic one; the first is Moor's response-independent view (pg402-3). Moor wants the test to be evidence for thinking, which would be internal to the mechanism. Stuart Shieber argues that the test is an "interactive proof" of intelligence. Author also believes this view misses the response-dependence of the test (pg404).
Author talks about how response-dependence doesn't need to undermine objectivity, or that it is compatible with "qualified" realism (pg405). Author then talks about more the more recent understanding that "intelligence is in the eye of the observer", a form of (perhaps) illusionism, with comments on the Chinese Room from Jordan Pollack. Further discussion is about a problem with response-dependent concepts: that humans anthropomorphize (just about anything) (pg407-8) "the forensic problem of anthropomorphism". Author believes the Turing test has a two-part solution to this: (1) create a situation where there is a disincentive to anthropomorphize (the judge's accuracy would decline), and (2) making anthropomorphism into a controlled variable (pg409).
11/1/13
Lovejoy, Arthur - Plentitude and Sufficient Reason in Leibniz and Spinoza
11/01/2013
The Great Chain Of Being, Ch 5 Harvard University Press, 1936
Author sets out to discuss the relationship between Leibniz's principle of plenitude and his principle of sufficient reason, and whether Leibniz can avoid "absolute logical determinism" that characterizes Spinoza. Author starts by reminding us of Leibniz's writings on the 'single chain' of 'natural beings', that is a gradation and not strict species and genus divisions (pg145). The discussion moves to the principle of sufficient reason, and an inspection of the various (imprecise) formulations of it that Leibniz uses. Author argues that Leibniz's primary motivation is not to justify the particulars of the universe as "goods" but merely as non-arbitrary (pg146-8). Most thinkers of the time held a division between concepts (roughly, Platonic ideas) and objects, with concepts being maintained (for Leibniz) in the mind of God: it was here where ultimate reasons for existence "were to be sought" (pg147-8). The strategy here was to combine the two realms into one, and to add to the realm of objects the reason for their existence, in which case their existence would be self-justifying (pg148-9).
Author explores the thinking of the time relating to the origin of the universe and the "first cause", which must have been internal to itself and independent of other causes, in a word, God (pg149-151). The next question, answered in the affirmative by Spinoza, is whether only God's existence is justified, or whether such justification extends to all objects (pg151-3). The problem for Spinoza, as presented by author, is that the principle of plenitude should have resulted in all beings existing all at once, and not the creation and cessation of things over time (pg154-5). The alternative to Spinoza, according to author, is not to deny the necessary existence of God, but to deny the necessary existence of creation (pg156-165) (cf Duns Scotus, Aristotle, Augustine). In this conception, God creates the universe without motive. Author discusses Milton's struggles with these two ideas for some time (pg160-2).
Author turns back to Leibniz to explore his principle of sufficient reason (pg166-8). Leibniz agrees with Spinoza, against the previously discussed philosophers, that God must have some reason for creating things. Author imputes two reasons for Leibniz's beliefs: (1) as a principle of psychology all conscious choices must have motivating reasons and (2) practically, it is intolerable to believe that chance is the principle of the universe. Author reviews the challenge of Buridan's ass leveled by Clarke against Leibniz (pg168-9), and Leibniz's clumsily response. Author then introduces Leibniz's third alternative, between the determinism of Spinoza and the chance of his critics: that the world so created must not only be logically possible but also "compossible", consistent with each other. Thus the formation of "sets" of entities, and thus many different possible worlds, from which God chooses one, using God's will (a concept Spinoza seems to leave out from God) (pg170-1). The second feature that he needed, above the concept of compossibility, is that of "moral necessity" instead of metaphysical necessity (pg172-3). Author concludes this second distinction has no "logical substance" and that Leibniz is thus mostly equivalent to Spinoza (pg174-6).
Author goes on to argue that Leibniz's principle of sufficient reason "pass[es] over explicitly into the principle of plenitude"(pg177), which author discusses next (pg177-180). The problem for Leibniz is that sometimes he speaks of a degree of perfection in monads (in things), and thus might be caught into having to argue that a world with more eg, human monads, is better than one with eg, crocodile ones. But Leibniz needs to justify crocodiles, so he asserts that all monads have equal rights to existence (pg179). Instead, Leibniz places value on diversity of essence, not just quantity of more perfect ones. Author finally discusses Leibniz's response to those who believed in the possibility of a physical vacuum. Here Leibniz seems to eschew the principle of plenitude in favor of panpsychism and anti-materialism, which argues that minds, not matter, are the fundamentals of the universe (pg181-2).
The Great Chain Of Being, Ch 5 Harvard University Press, 1936
Author sets out to discuss the relationship between Leibniz's principle of plenitude and his principle of sufficient reason, and whether Leibniz can avoid "absolute logical determinism" that characterizes Spinoza. Author starts by reminding us of Leibniz's writings on the 'single chain' of 'natural beings', that is a gradation and not strict species and genus divisions (pg145). The discussion moves to the principle of sufficient reason, and an inspection of the various (imprecise) formulations of it that Leibniz uses. Author argues that Leibniz's primary motivation is not to justify the particulars of the universe as "goods" but merely as non-arbitrary (pg146-8). Most thinkers of the time held a division between concepts (roughly, Platonic ideas) and objects, with concepts being maintained (for Leibniz) in the mind of God: it was here where ultimate reasons for existence "were to be sought" (pg147-8). The strategy here was to combine the two realms into one, and to add to the realm of objects the reason for their existence, in which case their existence would be self-justifying (pg148-9).
Author explores the thinking of the time relating to the origin of the universe and the "first cause", which must have been internal to itself and independent of other causes, in a word, God (pg149-151). The next question, answered in the affirmative by Spinoza, is whether only God's existence is justified, or whether such justification extends to all objects (pg151-3). The problem for Spinoza, as presented by author, is that the principle of plenitude should have resulted in all beings existing all at once, and not the creation and cessation of things over time (pg154-5). The alternative to Spinoza, according to author, is not to deny the necessary existence of God, but to deny the necessary existence of creation (pg156-165) (cf Duns Scotus, Aristotle, Augustine). In this conception, God creates the universe without motive. Author discusses Milton's struggles with these two ideas for some time (pg160-2).
Author turns back to Leibniz to explore his principle of sufficient reason (pg166-8). Leibniz agrees with Spinoza, against the previously discussed philosophers, that God must have some reason for creating things. Author imputes two reasons for Leibniz's beliefs: (1) as a principle of psychology all conscious choices must have motivating reasons and (2) practically, it is intolerable to believe that chance is the principle of the universe. Author reviews the challenge of Buridan's ass leveled by Clarke against Leibniz (pg168-9), and Leibniz's clumsily response. Author then introduces Leibniz's third alternative, between the determinism of Spinoza and the chance of his critics: that the world so created must not only be logically possible but also "compossible", consistent with each other. Thus the formation of "sets" of entities, and thus many different possible worlds, from which God chooses one, using God's will (a concept Spinoza seems to leave out from God) (pg170-1). The second feature that he needed, above the concept of compossibility, is that of "moral necessity" instead of metaphysical necessity (pg172-3). Author concludes this second distinction has no "logical substance" and that Leibniz is thus mostly equivalent to Spinoza (pg174-6).
Author goes on to argue that Leibniz's principle of sufficient reason "pass[es] over explicitly into the principle of plenitude"(pg177), which author discusses next (pg177-180). The problem for Leibniz is that sometimes he speaks of a degree of perfection in monads (in things), and thus might be caught into having to argue that a world with more eg, human monads, is better than one with eg, crocodile ones. But Leibniz needs to justify crocodiles, so he asserts that all monads have equal rights to existence (pg179). Instead, Leibniz places value on diversity of essence, not just quantity of more perfect ones. Author finally discusses Leibniz's response to those who believed in the possibility of a physical vacuum. Here Leibniz seems to eschew the principle of plenitude in favor of panpsychism and anti-materialism, which argues that minds, not matter, are the fundamentals of the universe (pg181-2).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
