The great transformation in our culture brought about by the advancing belief in strong A.I.
In this article I wish to speak about the belief that has been at the core of my life, and to which many of the pages of this website are dedicated - this is the belief that man is more than a digital machine.
I have devoted a good deal of my intellectual life to the aim of refuting the claim that digital computers are capable of replicating human intelligence.
Now I wish to explain why this matters.
That man transcends nature is a concept that is important and worthy of defence. I am astounded that so few people have set out to do this. In fact, with the exceptions of Roger Penrose and John Lucas, I don't think I can mention a single living philosopher of note who has set out to refute the claims of strong A.I. I am surprised by the absence of a response from any of the Churches. In order to understand why it matters it is important to appreciate that human life and society are profoundly influenced by ideas. There is a core to human nature that is relatively permanent, but there are also changes. |
Change in human beliefs from age to age
Looking at the work of Chaucer in the Canterbury Tales, one cannot but be impressed by the way in which the characters he draws are so similar to those that we meet in contemporary life. Chaucer gives us a cross-section of what is essentially middle-class society, and these persons sparkle with the same passions, limitations, and narrow-minded rationalizations of their way of living that we meet every day. Each one of them says in his own voice - my way of living is the right and only way of living. Going back even further, who can deny that the passions influencing the ancient Athenian, as evidenced in the writings, say, of Thucydides and Herodotus, do not speak of some underlying core of human nature that might be summarized by a single word: vanity?
Against that, it is clear that the beliefs of mankind alter from epoch to epoch, and that beliefs make a profound impact on living. It is precisely such a profound alteration to the spirit of man that we are addressing today.
To give an example of this process of change, consider this quotation from a novel:
"It is far better to endure patiently a smart which nobody feels but yourself, than to commit a hasty action whose evil consequences will extend to all connected with you; and, besides the Bible bids us return good for evil"
These words, from the novel Jane Eyre by Charlotte Bronte are placed into the mouth of a 13 year old schoolgirl called Helen Burns, who will shortly die of tuberculosis. It is a reflection of a very different way of looking at reality - one that we no longer share. It is difficult to imagine a novelist putting such words into the mouth of a contemporary child. Compare those words with the following.
Looking at the work of Chaucer in the Canterbury Tales, one cannot but be impressed by the way in which the characters he draws are so similar to those that we meet in contemporary life. Chaucer gives us a cross-section of what is essentially middle-class society, and these persons sparkle with the same passions, limitations, and narrow-minded rationalizations of their way of living that we meet every day. Each one of them says in his own voice - my way of living is the right and only way of living. Going back even further, who can deny that the passions influencing the ancient Athenian, as evidenced in the writings, say, of Thucydides and Herodotus, do not speak of some underlying core of human nature that might be summarized by a single word: vanity?
Against that, it is clear that the beliefs of mankind alter from epoch to epoch, and that beliefs make a profound impact on living. It is precisely such a profound alteration to the spirit of man that we are addressing today.
To give an example of this process of change, consider this quotation from a novel:
"It is far better to endure patiently a smart which nobody feels but yourself, than to commit a hasty action whose evil consequences will extend to all connected with you; and, besides the Bible bids us return good for evil"
These words, from the novel Jane Eyre by Charlotte Bronte are placed into the mouth of a 13 year old schoolgirl called Helen Burns, who will shortly die of tuberculosis. It is a reflection of a very different way of looking at reality - one that we no longer share. It is difficult to imagine a novelist putting such words into the mouth of a contemporary child. Compare those words with the following.
"It was just at the time, as luck would have it, that my wife was getting ready to have another abortion. I was telling Valeska about it as we danced. On the way home she suddenly said - "why don't you let me lend you a hundred dollars?" The next night I brought her home to dinner and I let her hand the wife the hundred dollars. I was amazed how well the two of them got along." The first quotation was written in 1847, the second, by Henry Miller, from the Tropic of Capricorn, was written in 1957. There has been a huge sea-change in culture between the two quotations. Culture is not permanent. Human life is in constant flux. Human beliefs and with it human conduct changes from age to age. There is a core to human nature, the passions, vanity and egoism, but there are also profound differences. |
The great transformation
What will be the change brought about when the belief that man is a digital machine comes to be universally accepted?
The first and actually most profound consequence of this will be that humanity will come to believe something that simply is not true. It is an immeasurable injury to believe something which is not true. Furthermore, at this time, there is simply no reason whatsoever to believe that computers are capable of being conscious. To suggest that my pocket calculator is capable of thinking is simply absurd, and yet, there is nothing in a digital computer that is essentially any different from the workings of a pocket calculator. As a fact, no computer even remotely approaches human intelligence, and all the claims about A.I. are exaggerated as are the predictions.
But I do not rest my answer to the question, why does it matter? on the enormity of the illusion that it would create. Besides, not everyone does agree that to believe a falsehood is an injury. So let us be clear as to the consequences of this belief. There are some gawky attempts to claim that computers will have a religious life, but once we truly come to believe that we are nothing but digital computers, then the belief in transcendence, on which religious life is based, will come to an end. |
This is not for any logical reason. In philosophy it is usual to argue that no value follows from a fact. This was introduced by David Hume. Thus, fact: Man is a machine; therefore, value: we ought to have sex with everyone we possible can before we are 30 years old so as to avoid the bitter disappointment of old age, is not a valid argument. Putting it the other way around, once it comes to be held as a general belief that man is a digital computer, then there will be no logical reason not to carry on believing in life after death or behaving in any particular ethical manner, including the extreme forms of altruism.
The answer to the question: why does it matter? lies in psychology, and what is akin to it, ethics.
A child is born. By the age of four, not long after she can speak, she is using the ipod.* She communicates digitally with Facebook friends that she has never met in the physical word. She goes to school and she is taught that she is a machine. She is encouraged to play digital games by his peers. Now what attitude to death and what rules of moral conduct does she acquire? |
[* See, for example, http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1265637. What is the age of the child in the photo?]
Concerning ethics, it is possible to claim that as the belief in man as digital machine gathers momentum it will provide a great impetus to egoism. That people have always been selfish is without question, but there can also be an increase in egoism, and such an increase must surely be connected to some life-changing attitude to the very nature of the world. To believe that man is a digital machine is just such a life-altering attitude. After that belief is accepted, what is the answer to the question: for whom and what do I live for? For god, for society, for your family, for your parents, for your children? But there is the reply: God does not exist, society is an abstract notion akin to god; I live for these things so long as they provide satisfaction of my egocentric concerns. In short, I live for myself.
For the philosophers, I do not make this claim as a logical deduction that the world is composed of matter, therefore, I must live for myself only. That is not logically valid, but psychologically egoism does not cohere well with a belief in transcendence. "What we do in life echoes in eternity." But there cannot be an echo if there is no eternity.
The great transformation and death
Concerning death, the child is already a master of digital communication before he even begins to grasp the nature of death.
A child begins to understand that death is an irreversible process around the age of four. Only by the age of seven does a child grasp the idea of 'nonfunctionality' - that the dead body can no longer do things that a living body can do. It is much later (my sources do not provide an average age for this) that a child grasps that death is universal. Children persist in the belief that there are certain people who are exempted from death, and believe that they are one of those.
Those opposed to the religious way of living claim that to believe in the afterlife is a form of illusion. They call it a kind of sop.
"I regard the brain as a computer which will stop working when its components fail. There is no heaven or afterlife for broken down computers; that is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark." Stephen Hawking - interview in the Guardian newspaper, 15 May, 2011.
The conclusion that Stephen Hawking has reached will be the conclusion that the majority will reach. Reinforced by the culture of the day, it will be perceived as abnormal to believe anything else.
Having grasped the inevitability and universality of death there is hardly anyone who does not think about his death from time to time, and this consideration increases with the ageing process, as the natural end of life looms. Faced with the prospect of annihilation, oblivion, the utter cessation of conscious life, how will people respond?
Concerning ethics, it is possible to claim that as the belief in man as digital machine gathers momentum it will provide a great impetus to egoism. That people have always been selfish is without question, but there can also be an increase in egoism, and such an increase must surely be connected to some life-changing attitude to the very nature of the world. To believe that man is a digital machine is just such a life-altering attitude. After that belief is accepted, what is the answer to the question: for whom and what do I live for? For god, for society, for your family, for your parents, for your children? But there is the reply: God does not exist, society is an abstract notion akin to god; I live for these things so long as they provide satisfaction of my egocentric concerns. In short, I live for myself.
For the philosophers, I do not make this claim as a logical deduction that the world is composed of matter, therefore, I must live for myself only. That is not logically valid, but psychologically egoism does not cohere well with a belief in transcendence. "What we do in life echoes in eternity." But there cannot be an echo if there is no eternity.
The great transformation and death
Concerning death, the child is already a master of digital communication before he even begins to grasp the nature of death.
A child begins to understand that death is an irreversible process around the age of four. Only by the age of seven does a child grasp the idea of 'nonfunctionality' - that the dead body can no longer do things that a living body can do. It is much later (my sources do not provide an average age for this) that a child grasps that death is universal. Children persist in the belief that there are certain people who are exempted from death, and believe that they are one of those.
Those opposed to the religious way of living claim that to believe in the afterlife is a form of illusion. They call it a kind of sop.
"I regard the brain as a computer which will stop working when its components fail. There is no heaven or afterlife for broken down computers; that is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark." Stephen Hawking - interview in the Guardian newspaper, 15 May, 2011.
The conclusion that Stephen Hawking has reached will be the conclusion that the majority will reach. Reinforced by the culture of the day, it will be perceived as abnormal to believe anything else.
Having grasped the inevitability and universality of death there is hardly anyone who does not think about his death from time to time, and this consideration increases with the ageing process, as the natural end of life looms. Faced with the prospect of annihilation, oblivion, the utter cessation of conscious life, how will people respond?
"The Alcor Life Extension Foundation is the world leader in cryonics, cryonics research, and cryonics technology. Cryonics is the science of using ultra-cold temperature to preserve human life with the intent of restoring good health when technology becomes available to do so. Alcor is a non-profit organization located in Scottsdale, Arizona, founded in 1972." www.alcor.org. "This guide is intended as a companion to the ACS article "Freeze A Jolly Good Fellow," which provides answers to the most frequently asked questions about cryonics and the American Cryonics Society's suspension program." www.americancryonics.org. |
More and more people will invest in methods to preserve their physical bodies in the hope of a physical cure to death.
"September 18, 2013 – Google today announced Calico, a new company that will focus on health and well-being, in particular the challenge of aging and associated diseases. Arthur D. Levinson, Chairman and former CEO of Genentech and Chairman of Apple, will be Chief Executive Officer and a founding investor." www.businessinsider.com Human nature is always in flux. The idea of the permanence of death has already lead to changes in human behaviour. People are investing in the cure for death. This is a change, and it is a change for the worse. Contrast this with the words of C.G. Jung when asked about death. |
"You see I have treated many old people, and it is quite interesting to watch what the unconscious is doing with the fact that it is apparently threatened with the complete end. It disregards it. Life behaves as if it were going on. And so I think it is better for old people to live on, to look forward to the next day, as if he had to spend centuries, and then he lives properly. But when he is afraid, when he does not look forward, and he looks back, he petrifies, he gets stiff and he dies before his time. But when he is living on, looking forward to the late adventure that is ahead, then he lives, and that is about what the unconscious is tending to do" C.J. Jung
A belief in transcendence is psychologically healthy, and the stripping away of this belief that is currently under way will lead to changes in the way we behave and the way in which we approach death. Rather than looking on death as an extension of life, it seems that people as they approach death are becoming consumed by regret. Since it is impossible to avoid making mistakes in life, the healthy way to approach the end of life is to embrace each mistake as a mistake, as if life were infinite and the mistakes were just part of life's learning experience - life's pilgrimage as it used to be called. In other words, to be psychologically healthy is to behave as if one were an infinite being.
And it is the same for ethics as it is for death. To embrace a moral life it to live like an immortal being.
I am not advocating here reincarnation or some particular conception of the afterlife. I agree with what Jung says in the interview, that the psyche is not confined to space and time as a fact, and that to live "properly" is to live as if one were an infinite being - in some sense or other. That is the essence of moral life too.
The advocates of strong A.I. in fact strip away from humanity this belief, robbing Man of his Dignity. If it were true, it might be something we had to swallow, like a bitter pill, but as it is not true, to advocate it on the basis of the flimsy knowledge we have of brains and the paltry performance of digital computers is not justified.
The whole discussion of death with Jung is very interesting, and I provide a transcript below. The comments left by people on YouTube are also illustrative. Most of those people believe, as the interviewer did himself, that death is final, and they cannot grasp what Jung is saying, or accept his claims about how the psyche is not entirely confined to space and time. The comments are highly illustrative of the transformation taking place in our culture at this time. I do not doubt, also, that most of the readers of this page simply will not accept that death is not final.
A belief in transcendence is psychologically healthy, and the stripping away of this belief that is currently under way will lead to changes in the way we behave and the way in which we approach death. Rather than looking on death as an extension of life, it seems that people as they approach death are becoming consumed by regret. Since it is impossible to avoid making mistakes in life, the healthy way to approach the end of life is to embrace each mistake as a mistake, as if life were infinite and the mistakes were just part of life's learning experience - life's pilgrimage as it used to be called. In other words, to be psychologically healthy is to behave as if one were an infinite being.
And it is the same for ethics as it is for death. To embrace a moral life it to live like an immortal being.
I am not advocating here reincarnation or some particular conception of the afterlife. I agree with what Jung says in the interview, that the psyche is not confined to space and time as a fact, and that to live "properly" is to live as if one were an infinite being - in some sense or other. That is the essence of moral life too.
The advocates of strong A.I. in fact strip away from humanity this belief, robbing Man of his Dignity. If it were true, it might be something we had to swallow, like a bitter pill, but as it is not true, to advocate it on the basis of the flimsy knowledge we have of brains and the paltry performance of digital computers is not justified.
The whole discussion of death with Jung is very interesting, and I provide a transcript below. The comments left by people on YouTube are also illustrative. Most of those people believe, as the interviewer did himself, that death is final, and they cannot grasp what Jung is saying, or accept his claims about how the psyche is not entirely confined to space and time. The comments are highly illustrative of the transformation taking place in our culture at this time. I do not doubt, also, that most of the readers of this page simply will not accept that death is not final.
That man is in some sense a machine is true. If we perform surgery we find mechanical parts. But we have always known this. It was known to Galen. What is difficult to grasp nowadays that as a machine man is more than a digital machine; that there is still something special about him, and that there is no need to deny the sense of transcendence that his own unconscious psyche supplies. If it becomes accepted that computers are conscious, then our attitudes to death and ethics will change. It will be perceived as irrational not to believe that death is final and it will be perceived as rational to act out of pure self-interest. On the one hand, our psyche becomes a mere object to us, and on the other hand, all sentient beings become mere objects to us as well. We are just one object living among others. This is what a contemporary nurse writes about people who are dying. |
"When people realize that their life is almost over and look back clearly on it, it is easy to see how many dreams have gone unfulfilled. Most people had not honoured even a half of their dreams and had to die knowing that it was due to choices they had made, or not made." www.thefinancialphilosopher.com/2013/10/the-most-common-regret-of-the-dying.html
This illustrates the great transformation that is taking place in our society in our attitude to death. That transformation makes us backward looking; it encourages a hostile attitude to ageing and goes hand-in-glove with the cult of youth that now pervades our society. As we are conditioned by society, it is impossible for us to look on this issue indifferently, and perhaps my reader also simply cannot accept that death is an extension of life.
Most people are unaware of the great transformation because they do not read the literature of the past, and therefore do not see that even one hundred years ago a different system of thinking and explanation was then natural. Because they know nothing else than the material way of explaining things, they take it for granted that any other system or type of explanation must be simply stupid.
If man ever comes to truly believe that he is nothing more than a digital machine, his conduct will be altered in ways that will be unimaginably different from the conduct of the past.
Appendices
The video of Jung follows below. Firstly, in case this article is misinterpreted, I address a few additional issues.
1. Let me clarify where I stand on religion generally. Unlike some religious people I did not have a religious upbringing, so I have very little reaction to organized religion for or against. For example, not having had anyone attempt to beat Christianity into me as a child, I find I have no antipathy towards Christianity whatsoever, whose founder, as evidenced by the words and deeds recorded in the Gospels, strikes me as a Man worthy of the most profound respect, and most worthy of all men to be called the Son of God. Against that, the issue of how much of orthodox Christian worship is founded on the words of Jesus of Nazareth, and the observation that the Church in whatever form it takes is open to the charge of hypocrisy have caused me never to take up orthodox Christian worship. I also deeply admire the Eastern religions, while not in agreement with them on the issue of asceticism. Thus, I am not writing to defend a particular Church, but writing to defend the Dignity of Man. To summarize: I am not a bigot: I do not identify religion with any creed or sect, and above all, what I like in religious people is what I like in atheists - sincerity. I particularly detest those who claim to worship a god but really worship their own self-interest.
2. I would like also to be precise about what I am arguing against. I am not denying that man is in some sense a machine, but I am denying that he is a computer. I agree with Jung that as a fact, man lives partly in the "physical world" of space and time, and partly in the transcendent world not confined to space and time. I am not a dualist in the sense of Descartes either. The particularly reductive form of mechanism that we are witnessing today is precisely the claim that we may build a computer that can be conscious. Asserting that man is a machine does not in itself strip man of his Dignity, because as a machine man may still have what we may call a divine aspect. The claim of strong A.I. is immensely arrogant as well - we've had the myth of Frankenstein ever since we've had myths - to warn us of consequences of such an arrogant attitude. We are setting ourselves up as gods. A computer is a digital mechanism that works in binary. That a human being is also a binary machine is what I am denying, and all that I am denying.
3. I am not claiming that there is a conspiracy to force little children into being "narrow-minded materialists". However, there is clearly a cultural process that is tending to teach them that they are one thing rather than another. Religious education may be compulsory in the United Kingdom, but it is not taught with half as much vigour as science. Actually, science is neutral as to philosophy. Science does not oppose religion, but the material philosophy is communicated nonetheless. There are all the unconscious cultural forces that make materialism into the all-pervading dominant cultural force of our age. It's like any other evolution of a culture. No one consciously sets out to do this, but it happens nonetheless.
C.G. Jung - on death
This is the video clip of Jung talking about death. After it I provide a transcript. Not all the words of the interviewer can be heard distinctly. This version of the interview is more audible than the other available at YouTube, but if you are interested in how the public perceives Jung's words and the comments left, then look at the other version (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOxlZm2AU4o).
TRANSCRIPT
Interviewer: You’ve said that death is psychologically just as important as birth, and like it, it is an integral part of life, but surely it can’t be like birth if it’s an end, can it?
Jung: Yes, if it’s an end, and there we are not quite certain about this end, because you know there are these peculiar faculties of the psyche that it isn’t entirely confined to space and time. You can have dreams or visions of the future, you can see long cause and such things, only ignorance can deny these facts; it’s quite evident that they do in fact exist and have existed always. Now these facts show that the psyche in part at least is not dependent upon these confinements. And then what? When the psyche is not under that obligation to live in time and space alone, and obviously it doesn't, then to that extent the psyche is not subjected to those laws and that means a practical continuation of life of a sort of psychical existence beyond time and space.
Interviewer: Do you yourself believe that there is ?? at the end, or do you believe…?
Jung: Well, I can’t say… You see the word belief is a difficult for me. I don’t believe, I must have a reason for a certain hypothesis. Either I know a thing, and then I know it, I don’t need to believe it. I don’t allow myself to believe a thing just for the sake of believing it. I can’t believe it. But when there are sufficient reasons for a certain hypothesis, I shall accept these reasons naturally. As you say, we have to reckon with the possibility of so and so.
Interviewer: Well now, you've told us that we should regard death as being a goal, and to shrink away from it is to evade life, and its purposes. What advice would you give to people in later life in order to do this when most of them must in fact believe that death is the end of everything.
Jung: You see I have treated many old people, and it is quite interesting to watch what the unconscious is doing with the fact that it is apparently threatened with the complete end. It disregards it. Life behaves as if it were going on. And so I think it is better for old people to live on, to look forward to the next day, as if he had to spend centuries, and then he lives properly. But when he is afraid, when he does not look forward, and he looks back, he petrifies, he gets stiff and he dies before his time. But when he is living on, looking forward to the late adventure that is ahead, then he lives, and that is about what the unconscious is tending to do. Of course, it’s quite obvious that we are all going to die and this is the sad finale of everything, but nevertheless there is something in us that doesn't believe it apparently. But this is merely a fact, a psychological fact. Does it mean to me that it proves something? It is simply so. For instance, I may not know why we need salt, but we prefer to eat salt to, because you feel better. And so when you think in a certain way you may feel considerably better. And I think that if you live along the lines of nature, then you think properly.