I would agree that humans are, in a manner of speaking, programed by society - similarly to the way that computers are programmed. We come into the world with certain hardware. Our processing speed (intelligence), and the wiring of our brains is partially determined by our DNA. The quality control of the factory we are produced in (our home environment and the type of parenting we receive) is another factor. The family, community and country that we grow up in determine our belief systems and operating system (language). However, the similarity only goes so far. I think one of the major differences between a human and a computer is that that our hardware (brain) is actually changed by our software (societal programming). It’s not as easy for us to alter or switch to a new software or operating system. For example, it becomes much more difficult to learn a foreign language, as an adult, once our brains have been hardwired. Changing the way we do anything is hard once we have gotten used to a certain method. I have a feeling that artificial intelligence will progress more rapidly if it can incorporate the ability to evolve as biological species do or alter its own hardware, like the human brain does, based on experience. Maybe there is something in the intertwined nature of our hardware and software that encourages greater complexity.
This week’s study has gotten me pretty interested in Functionalism as a philosophy. The focus on the importance of the function of an object instead of its material composition has me intrigued. In functionalism, consciousness does not necessarily have to exist only in a carbon based life form. Consciousness could exist in a machine, in a brain composed of elements that don’t exist here on earth, or in some other form that we can’t even conceive of.
The idea occurred to me that we practice a kind of Functionalism when we refer to the self or the identity of any individual. Throughout the lifespan, we are continually changing our physical composition. We grow, we age, and the material composition of our bodies never stays the same. The cells that composed my body when I was an infant are long dead. I’m not even the same size. My thoughts and my memories are always changing too. Yet, there is some kind of continuity. I am still functioning as Renee even though I’m continually changing my form and material composition.
This week we learned about the “Turing test”, a method of determining whether or not an artificial intelligence has achieved the ability to think. The one thing that seems to be often discussed as a distinction between current artificial intelligence and human intelligence is emotion. No artificial intelligence has ever provided evidence of possessing emotion. If it ever did, this would be a marker of a major shift in consciousness. It would signify that there is some level of complexity happening that is on par with the human brain. Our class discussion about this got me thinking about autism. People diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder are often presented as having a lack of emotion and empathy and are impaired when it comes to relating to other human beings. Yet, no one would ever deny that they were fully conscious, thinking individuals. I’ve done a little bit of reading about this disorder and some autistic people on the more highly functioning end of the spectrum are able to verbalize how they experience emotion. It isn't true that they completely lack any emotions or empathy, they just experience them and display them very differently than most people.
The animal behaviorist, Temple Grandin, is autistic and became an expert in that field because she could identify strongly with the way animals, such as cows and horses, appeared to experience and respond to their environment. She felt more of a kinship with them than other humans. Many autistic people, Temple Grandin included, are savants. They have a remarkable, seemingly superhuman skill or ability in mathematics or computer programming or design or any number of other skills. The ability to relate to other human beings appears to be impaired seemingly in inverse proportion to their remarkable skills. I wonder if it always has to be that way. Perhaps as the fields of artificial intelligence and neuroscience continue to develop, we might find out more.
The animal behaviorist, Temple Grandin, is autistic and became an expert in that field because she could identify strongly with the way animals, such as cows and horses, appeared to experience and respond to their environment. She felt more of a kinship with them than other humans. Many autistic people, Temple Grandin included, are savants. They have a remarkable, seemingly superhuman skill or ability in mathematics or computer programming or design or any number of other skills. The ability to relate to other human beings appears to be impaired seemingly in inverse proportion to their remarkable skills. I wonder if it always has to be that way. Perhaps as the fields of artificial intelligence and neuroscience continue to develop, we might find out more.
Excellent post Renee! You show that you're able to wrestle with the broader implications of the idea in question (functionalism). What I think is interesting about autism is that it shows us how much intelligence is in play in everyday social interaction, and it is precisely this that people with autism struggle with.
ReplyDelete