As a result of
artificial intelligence, complex modern machines – computers and robots – will
start doing more and more human mental tasks, and in many cases, doing them
better than humans can do. This is
particularly predicated on a task being based on defined discrete instructions
and being susceptible to being broken down into defined discrete steps. Yes, I know that scientists and engineers would
like to create machines that can handle ambiguity, but this work has to be
based on the translation of ambiguous blendable continual stimuli into defined
discrete stimuli – something that can only be done with great conceptual
distortion. Ambiguous human thoughts and
statements are based on multiple levels of symbolic meaning – some personal,
some group-based – that are not going to be easily replicated by the software
in computers and robots, no matter how complex it may be. Computers and robots can’t deal with
blendable continual stimuli. And the notion
that a computer psychotherapist can be created that focuses on specific
discrete behavior problems free from the ambiguous influences of the total
personality with its ambiguous thoughts and blendable continual feelings just won’t
work. However, with its digital foundation, it is
possible that a machine can have complex levels of discrete digital
instructions and capabilities that can give the appearance of a capacity for
ambiguity.
All this means that
modern machines can give the illusion of ambiguity, and of an organic
complexity that suggests human mental responses. And although it is still not the same as
being human, the increasing approximation of machines to humans makes machines,
on some levels, less and less distinguishable from humans in their external
presentation, and more compelling of a model for humans. Being like humans on some levels makes
machines more accessible as a model for humans, who unconsciously as well as
consciously aspire to become like machines in the non-human aspects that the
latter demonstrate. It is not only
trying to become like machines in areas where they have superior skill sets in
terms of doing very complex defined discrete tasks. When a machine beats a human at chess, it can
inspire the human to try to outlast the machine in their next match. But the human is also trying to imitate what
appears to be superior fortitude in surviving effectively the growing sensory
distortion that is a part of the field of experience of modern technological
society.
Although many modern
complex machines have sensors, it is precisely because they are not organic
sentient beings that can truly experience pain and discomfort and numbness
subjectively, that they become such appealing models for modern humans. And not being able to experience pain,
discomfort and numbness, machines are not vulnerable to making the associations
that humans make of highly negative mental states with vulnerability to
death. Pain, discomfort, and numbness
are warning signs to humans. Get rid of
the source of these experiences or one can be subject to significant injury or
even death. By not experiencing these
psychological states, a person in the posture of a robot, can maintain the
illusion of physical immortality here in this primary experience world.
Once a person assumes a
robot pose, many different kinds of behavior manifest themselves. I have talked about modern random violence as
a growing defense against numbness. However,
I am beginning to think that another set of causal factors could be at play
with random violence. In particular,
among adolescent and young adult men, random violence may carry the message:
“You are vulnerable to injury and death, but I, as a robot, am impervious to
the aggression that I am inflicting on you.
It is you who is being hurt and/or threatened with death, not I.” Much of the aggression being inflicted in
modern society is not that of excited animals but rather that of detached
robots. There is a particular game being
played out in the streets of many cities in the United States. It is called the “knockout game” and the
object is to knock out an unsuspecting person with one blow. To keep the victim unsuspecting, the attacker
is totally calm and detached until the moment when he strikes. After all, the attacker is not actually angry
at the victim. The victim is a random
unknown person. By demonstrating the
vulnerability of the victim, the attacker experiences a rush of positive feelings
based on his own sense of robotic indestructability.
On a more fundamental
level, a robot does not have a coherent subjective sense of self. It is not a creator or receiver of the
organic blendable continual stimuli that are crucial to the sense of self of a
human being. So when a youth acts
robotic in an activity like the knockout game, he is giving up something
fundamental to his human essence. He
becomes a series of defined actions with a weak organic core, with a weak
subjective unity. To act like a robot
means to deny his larger human consciousness.
So when a youth knocks his victim into unconsciousness in the knockout
game, he is knocking out his own consciousness as well.
So young people today
need strong human models to counteract the effects of these strong machine
models. It used to be that parents were
needed as strong models, so that their children wouldn’t degenerate into
animals. Now parents are needed so that
children don’t descend into becoming robots.
Which means that parents have to start emphasizing moral principles and
life experiences that are distinctly non-machine-like. Parents have to be able to explain that
humans are the entities with intrinsic value, even if there are machines that
can beat humans at chess. Machines will
never be able to have the depth of subjective experience that humans can have
as complex primates. I would be highly
skeptical that machines will be able to write a Shakespearean play, compose a
symphony like Beethoven or paint a picture like Picasso. The humanities are distinctly non-robotic.
Unfortunately, the
principal way that stories are displayed to people today is through the
electronic media of movies and television.
With rare exceptions, stories in these media are presented as objective
narratives, without delving directly into the subjective experiences of the
participants in the story. In some
plays, there are monologues that reveal the subjective inner life of principal
characters. In novels, there are
detailed descriptions of the thoughts and inner lives of many of the
characters. These plays and novels model
a subjective inner life for a person.
They help to stimulate the subjective inner lives of the people
experiencing them. And a strong
subjective inner life is crucial to making a person distinct from a
machine. It is this strong subjective
inner life, built on the organic blendable continual stimuli of the mind, that is not going to be truly replicated by
artificial intelligence, no matter how much complexity is built into the
response patterns of the machine.
© 2014 Laurence Mesirow
No comments:
Post a Comment