Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!mcvax!ukc!etive!aipna!edai!cam
From: cam@edai.ed.ac.uk (Chris Malcolm)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: elementary AI philosophy
Keywords: Artificial Souls
Message-ID: <244@edai.ed.ac.uk>
Date: 18 Jan 89 18:05:38 GMT
References: <18464@santra.UUCP> <1241@arctic.nprdc.arpa> <904@ubu.warwick.UUCP>
Reply-To: cam@edai (Chris Malcolm)
Organization: University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh
Lines: 75

In article <904@ubu.warwick.UUCP> mirk@emerald.UUCP (Mike Taylor) writes:

>To my mind, if Searle's conclusion that we have no evidence for the Strong AI
>hypothesis, (that correctly programmed machines can "understand" in roughly
>the same sense in which we do), is correct at all, then the difference
>between the human mind and an AI program is something far more fundamental
>than the mere fact of the physical composition of the substrate.
>
> ....
> 
>Whether or not you accept the existance of the Christian God,
>I think that it is unscientific to dismiss out of hand the idea that there
>is something "supernatural" (read: "operating by mechanisms as yet unknown
>to mankind") about the mind.
>

Speaking as a godless AI researcher, let me see if I've got this right.
Accepting for the sake of argument that computational machinery in
principle can't understand in the way people can, then there must be
something special about people.  If we accept further for the sake of
argument that the organ of understanding is (in) the mind/brain [which I
happen to doubt], then there must be something special about the human
mind/brain as opposed to computational machinery.  And it would be
unscientific to reject the notion that this "something special" might be
supernatural, where "supernatural" means "operating by as yet unknown
mechanisms".  In other words, it would be unscientific to reject the
notion that something we don't yet understand - i.e. how people
understand - might be due to mechanisms we don't yet understand.

So far so good, and I agree with all of this despite being an AI
researcher, although "due to mechanisms we don't yet understand" seems
to be a strange meaning for "supernatural" - one could say, for example,
that steam engines when first invented (before the elaboration of
thermodynamic theory) operated by supernatural principles. Although lots of
people did say that at the time, I always supposed them to have been
mistaken, but the supernatural is not my field.

>I think that the reason for this is clear.  If AI researchers decided that
>the mind was "magical", and that they were unable to synthesise one for very
>fundamental and immutable reasons, then there wouldn't be any point in doing
>what they do.  Accepting a soulist position undermines strong AI to the
>point of collapse.

It does not follow that supposing that the magical ingredient of mind is a
soul undermines strong AI: you must also suppose that it is impossible
for an artificial machine to acquire a soul.  Advocates of the "soulist"
position have suggested various ways in which this could be
accomplished, ranging from natural consequences (a soul automatically
materialises (sorry - immaterialises) in any computational machinery of
greater than a certain complexity, or possessed of certain architectural
features, etc.), through to special intervention (compelling or asking
supernatural entities to help, to "inhabit" the machine, etc.).

Of course, advocates of strong AI might be unwilling to contemplate such
things, but that doesn't affect the possibilities.  Speaking for myself,
while doubting that evidence of the need or efficacy of enlisting
supernatural help in my research is likely to appear, as an honest
scientist I would have to accept it, however reluctantly, if it did
appear.

Consequently the "soulist" position is weaker than Searle's position,
since Searle has reasons which forbid strong AI without making any
further assumptions - the special causal powers of brain-stuff; while
further assumptions to the dependence of understanding on souls must be
introduced before soul-endowed artificial machines become in principle
impossible. Indeed, if, as Mike Taylor suggests, souls are supernatural
in the sense of "operating by as yet unknown mechanisms", then it
doesn't sound as if there will be much difficulty actually _building_
souls into our artificial machines.

>Mike Taylor - {Christ,M{athemat,us}ic}ian ...  Email to: mirk@uk.ac.warwick.cs

Can't help feeling I must have got this wrong somewhere....

Chris Malcolm