Report R5.9 Research on Artificial Intelligence: Issues in Science and Philosophy Seminar Leader: Rajakishore Nath, Department of Humanities and Social Sciences, IIT Mumbai nath[at]hss.iitb.ac.in Nath enquires into the possibility of emulating a human brain by a physical symbol system. In particular, he examines the claims made by the researchers in the domain of artificial intelligence (AI). AI deals with the design and development of intelligent systems--systems having the computational ability to solve problems, take decisions, and so forth. The ultimate objective of AI researchers is to develop a physical symbol system which can function like a human mind. In fact, many researchers believe that a lot of advancement has already been made in this regard and soon it is going to be a reality. AI researchers have put forward various models to explain the human mind. One of the most widely accepted models is the functionalist model of mind ("Philosophy of mind," 2007). The functionalist model of mind suggests that different mental states such as beliefs, desires, and pain are constituted solely by their functional role, that is, their causal relations to other mental states, sensory inputs, and behavioural outputs. One of the important accounts of functionalism is the idea of multiple-realizability. Multiple-realizability suggests that mental states are not dependent upon the underlying physical medium, rather it is an outcome of higher level functions in the cognitive system. Since mental states are not limited to any medium, they can be realized in multiple ways, including non-biological systems such as computer systems. Similarly, another model, namely the multi-draft model, suggests that there is nothing such as a central command center in the brain where some sort of director controls the self. On the contrary, all activity is developed by distributed subprocesses concurrently created in the brain. The multi-draft model rejects any kind of conscious content in the brain. These models and explanations are widely accepted in the domain of AI and reinforce the belief that machines can emulate the human mind. However, Nath presents a philosophical critique of this view. According to Nath, consciousness and creativity are central to mind and cannot be emulated by any machine. Consciousness is essentially a first person, subjective phenomenon, and conscious states cannot be reduced to a third-person perspective. A machine can show some intelligence by performing certain assigned functionalities, but it will not be able to show intentionality, free will, or creativity, which are quite intrinsic to consciousness. Nath points out that there is an explanatory gap existing between physical processes and mental processes, and the reason behind this gap is consciousness or subjectivity. According to Nath, the models presented by the AI researchers leave aside the subjective experiences associated with consciousness and hence are only concerned with the third-person perspective. The intrinsic quality of conscious experience or qualia is lost while trying to understand it through the third-person perspective. Researchers in AI have a different perspective towards qualia. According to them, qualia are ineffable, intrinsic, and quite private to an individual (Nath, 2007, p. 14). These are nothing but functional states of the brain. It is possible that qualia are actually the aberrations and may not have much importance. According to AI researchers, mind should be considered as nothing but a machine which can be functionally represented by another machine. It seems that the third-person functionalist view and the first-person subjective view of mind have inspired some interdependent streams of enquiry. Nath has predominantly used the so-called critical method of research to conduct his study. He has raised questions at different levels of abstractions and tried to answer them through critical reasoning. While doing so, he has also drawn heavily from previous works to support and justify his point of view. If we look into the history of enquiry, different methods of philosophical enquiry have been used in different contexts. Some of the methods of philosophical enquiry are as follows: (a) Dialectical Method: The dialectical method is essentially a method of conversation or debate. It has a long history and owes its origin to the Socratic method of philosophical enquiry through questions and answers. The objective is to resolve the disagreement through rational discussion. (b) Critical Method: The critical method encourages one to be critical of the theories formulated so far. In the critical method, a researcher usually subjects the theories, general concepts to critical review, and measure their validity according to how well they withstand the criticism. (c) Speculative Method: Speculative thinking expresses human curiosity about the world while striving to understand the reality in natural terms. The method encourages the researcher to reflect upon different aspects of human experience such as rational, social, ethical, aesthetic, and religious experience and then theorise based upon that. (d) Scientific Method: In the scientific method one proposes a hypothesis as a possible explanation of some phenomena and then designs experimental studies to test the hypothesis. If the experiments do not bear out the hypothesis, it must be rejected or modified. The scientific method attempts to minimise errors while carrying out experiments. (e) Phenomenological Method: Phenomenology studies conscious experience as experienced from the subjective or the first person point of view. It studies the structure of various types of experience ranging from perception, thought, memory, imagination, emotion, and desire--striving to extract from it the essential features of experiences. (f) Existential Method: The central proposition of existentialism is that existence precedes essence. A human being’s existence is more fundamental and real than any other meaning that can be ascribed to human life. Existentialism suggests that the existential experience or personal experience is superior to any other experience. (g) Positivistic Method: Positivism (or logical empiricism) states that the only authentic knowledge can come from empirical observations, against which statements can be verified. Central to positivism is empiricism and verificationism. Positivists seek to systemise the acquisition of knowledge through empirical methods. (h) Hermeneutics Method: Hermeneutics may be described as the development and study of theories of interpretation and understanding of texts or any other object of interpretation. Hermeneutics also involves cultivating the ability to understand things from somebody else's point of view, and to appreciate the cultural and social forces that may have influenced their outlook. All the above methods of philosophical enquiry have come into existence at different points of time to cater to specific needs. For example, the earlier methods such as dialectical, critical, or speculative methods were developed to assist in theological studies. Later the scientific and phenomenological methods were developed when the individual's capacity to observe and experience gained importance. Similarly the existential method gained ground after the Second World War. Clarification of thought is the essence of philosophical inquiry. All the enquiry methods start with questioning or doubting common beliefs and end with either obtaining an answer to the question raised or changing the question asked. The methods differ in their focus and scope. For example, while the speculative approach is purely based on reflection, the positivist approach is primarily based on empirical verification. In management research, the positivist method is relevant for studying the operating principles of an existing system whereas the critical method is perhaps more relevant for studying whether the operating principles are appropriate to the circumstances in which the system operates. A researcher should have an appreciation of different methods. References Nath, R. (2007). Machine intelligence (MI), competence and creativity. AI & Society, Online First. Philosophy of mind. (2007). In Wikipedia. Retrieved October 30, 2007 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_mind
Xavier Institute of Management, Xavier Square, Bhubaneswar 751013, India Research World (ISSN 0974-2379) http://www1.ximb.ac.in/RW.nsf/pages/Home |
