In remembrance – the critic of Digital Humans ⇒ Kirno Sohochari

He was the man who had guts said like this,—people are talking about ‘Do’s and Don’ts’ but important is, do it first what you’ve wished to do. Yes, Hubert L. Dreyfus precisely was confident in his ‘Do’s and Don’ts’ when wrote the book ‘What Computers can’t Do’ and a later revision of this book ‘What computers still can’t do’. He wrote both as a rejoinder of AI practitioners, especially to express his philosophical rejection against Marvin Minsky and his companions. Minsky, the father figure of AI today regarded the most controversial person who has a dream of designing such ‘machines’ that can readily stake human behavior in its system, which he believes will lead human society to a new phase of evolution. Minsky was an activate participator in the relay race until his death. He was confident that the days are not remote when intelligent machines can collect and analyze human behavior with pretty confidence. That means a Turinglike Human-Machine is not remote that can operate itself to make decisions about what to do and what is not. 

Human - Machine Interface - The Rise of Artificial Intelligence

Image Source: Machine + Human; Web: freerangestock.com

… AI-based intelligence means not just a transformation of ‘things’ from one state to another, rather it’s a hacking of the slow rated biological mutation and adaptation process what Charles Darwin explained in his book. Besides, it will hack the organic concept of genetic behavioral, what the Englishman Richard Dawkins meant in his searching of the behavioral roots of genes, that they are by evolutionary-nature is selfish or not.
… … …

Hubert L. Dreyfus is considered the finest interpreter of Martin Heidegger and Maurice Merleau-Ponty’s works, sued his objection against AI in the 70 and mid 90 decades of the last century. He accused Minsky when writing his book that AI’s objective of creating a super-intelligent Turing Machine is still going on some vague assumption. Meanwhile, human’s future evolution as Transhuman Being seemed intentionally showing its reluctance to recognize the relational patterns among ‘things’. Reluctance might have made them passive to realize the ‘interaction of things’ and its impact on the worldly life before going further. Dreyfus mentioned his discomfort that it becomes apparent now AI researchers are unwilling to recognize the potentials of human beings as a Naturebond creation. Thereto, they looked aloof to consider the automaton interaction among Naturebond ‘things’ with care;—to figure out how ‘things’ work in the real world under non-deterministic principles. 

The AI critic hired Heidegger’s visionary interpretation to make his objection clear that AI promoters might forget humanlike organic creation and its intelligent patterns are non-deterministic by nature. The visible world is inherently active based on the organic contribution of ‘things’. Interaction between those contributors happened here following the nondeterministic order of ‘things’. Nondeterministic ‘things’ or elements are locomotive without any pre-determinative facts and not liable for adding new ‘things’ in the visible reality. The appearance and disappearance of this visible world as well as follow the same order. So the transformation of organic humans to a Human-Machine accordingly some determinative rules, that’s why it sounds absurd. The whole notion of AI transhumanism as Dreyfus thinks has a severe shortcoming of foresight in that context.

Digital Human_15

Image Source: Huber L. Dreyfus; Web: daily nous.com

… Marvin Minsky’s ironic laughter of dealing Gestalt may sound more rational and optimistic compared to what Hubert Dreyfus means earlier. It beckons why the large group scientists in modern days feel embarrassed to deal with philosophical aphorisms, which they think lost its connectivity to the basic morals that, before drowning in transcendental mystery to understand how ‘things’ works in the real world,—let check it first. Checking is not a certainty that the answer must be debunked, but it may help the seeker to advance further with some solid clues, and his thinking sounds more rational when he philosophizes his findings.
… … …

Hubert Dreyfus started his teaching career by joining MIT in the 50’s decade. The New York Times reporter William Grimes mentioned in his obituary that on those MIT days Dreyfus “…often brushed shoulders with scientists trying to turn computers into reasoning machines.” He felt confused when Minsky and his companions were looking desperate to mean human biology especially the brain is analogical with computers and AI-like digital machines. They’ve started saying publicly that fundamental difference between a bit-based artificial machine and the human brain is very negligible. Both have taken the same trajectory when the information-processing task has happened in the system. The human brain receives inputs from the outer world and sends outputs to its receiver by pursuing the same orderly fashion, what a computer or AI-based machine has followed often. If anybody permits him looking through the universe carefully then it must insist him consider the whole universe a machine for instance. Then, soon or later he should realize how the entire universe system works like a bit-based computer processor. As eminent physicist John Archibald Wheeler phrased it with a notable comment:—‘it from bit’. So rearrange the picture by merging human intelligence and sensorial behavior patterns with an intelligent machine can elevate human species to achieve problem-solving knowledge in quicker ways than the present. 


Hubert Dreyfus’s reding commentary on Turing Machine

For when Minsky and Turing claim that man is a Turing machine, they cannot mean that a man is a physical system. Otherwise, it would be appropriate to say that planes or boats are Turing machines. Their behavior, too, can be described by mathematically formulable laws relating their intake and output of energy and can at least in principle be reproduced to any degree of accuracy on a digital computer. No, when Minsky or Turing claims that man can be understood as a Turing machine, they must mean that a digital computer can reproduce human behavior, not by solving physical equations, but by processing data received from the world, by means of logical operations that can be reduced to matching, classifying, and Boolean operations. [See: Hubert L. Dreyfus: What computers can’t do, 1972] 


This might be the radix that AI trailblazers always hammering first:—the information processing speed of artificially intelligent machines is much higher rather than the human being. A human brain, indeed it has mind-blowing sensorial organs, has a strength of thinking conscious, be efficient to make any decision or changes its behavior patterns instant if the situation insists. However, it looked sluggish in spite of carrying all this power inside. Biological evolution makes a human being mostly the compatible survivor of the world. But, he is a very incompetent finisher for doing massive logical tasks with optimal speed and accuracy. A bit-based pre-programmed machine can offer itself more appealing in that consideration. It can easily process massive information blocks with larger speed and deterministic accuracy.

Any well-designed machine for instance if grip human behavior then a revolution will happen. Futurist Ray Kurzweil thinks sensorial reaction, situation analysis, decision-making and above all thinking like ‘conscious’ is not a pipe-dreaming task for such kind of machine. The emergence of yonder machines is not so far remote as people think today. Yonder emergence will move human species to embrace a new phase of evolution, where they will appear as nonbiological hyperreal humans for the first time in history. This Transhuman Being due to its tremendous power of digital accuracy and the capacity of reacting like organic human beings will erase the traditional perception that a machine is different from the human being.

Anyway, this simplification and unrealistic attitude of AI planters for predicting the future of human and Naturebond animal species is perhaps molesting Dreyfus sued his objection against them. He discovered him baffled when they claimed:—the future AI is the only alternative that could rectify the problematic reality-picture. The moral is, nothing might remain in the hand of humanlike organic beings that can recover the loss duly happened by them. He thinks a lacking of integrity made the futuristic presumptions of AI vanguards ridiculous for further consideration. Today they looked propagandist, rather than logical and cognitive.

… … … …

Learning and Education - Brain Functions Development Concept

Image Source: Learning and Education – Brain Functions Development Concept; Web: freerangestock.com

… To Dreyfus, the whole AI approach is deterministic by nature. They as well make a dream-plot like Plato’s Ideal and Real World by ignoring the reality that humans as a being is nothing but the possible assemble of Naturebond other things and the whole process of born here being a human is now autonomous, that a machine can never be able to negotiate.
… … …

Hubert Dreyfus spent most of his life chasing the philosophical investigation of ‘being’ but also having attached himself to the latest progress of AI research. This statement is might not enough to understand his objection against AI, which Minsky and his companions were trying to propagate in those early 70 and mid 90 decades. His negative stance on AI positivism increased over time and was continuing until the end of his life. Nicholas Fearn when interviewed him in 2006 about his book ‘Philosophy: The Latest Answers to the Oldest Questions’ he asked him about AI’s future. Certainly, the man delivered his speech by taking the same old stance:—“I don’t think about computers anymore. I figure I won and it’s over: They’ve given up.”

This approach indicates his discomfort but not to the usability and future possibilities of AI. Rather it exhibits his molestation to the attitude of AI propagandists. He pointed his fingers to the manipulative working method of artificial engineering as wrong and alarming for the future humans. AI researchers, he thinks have lost their trajectory by forgetting the basic, i.e.:—any technological paradigm-shift never sustain as partial, until it sees itself through the whole reality of ‘beingness’. He discussed the whole AI matters taking dyad perspectives. One perspective tried to check the technical possibility of human behavioral adaptation by machine-based intelligence. Another perspective flows by considering the philosophical lacking of AI trailblazers an acute loss for human knowledge progress. Both perspectives could be summed up by some bullets:-

• The biological arrangement of human species is different compared to the computer and AI tools. They both have appeared in the visible world as atomic facts but taking different trajectories before appeared here as ‘things’ or adding them in the reality-picture. So merging two different evolutionary facts is technically difficult.

• Human sensorial organs and synaptic transactions of the brain are not deterministic by nature. They could exhibit different behavior patterns in different situations. Electrified channeling of computers and AI tolls cannot acts by going against the deterministic principles. They are just built for showing rigid behavioral patterns with speed and accuracy so the purpose could serve.

• Human biology encoded numerous rigid and repetitive behavior patterns in its evolutionary genetic structure, even though it is very unpredictable to guess human behaviors with pretty certainty. There is no guaranty that a human being will repeat the encoded behavior always by following the same manners. The human being whether he will behave good or not, whether he will showing himself as envious or not, or whether showing both at the same time, all depends on his sensorial interaction with the situation. Computers and AI tools do not have such kind of evolutionary histories that are interactive and able to exhibit situation-driven attributes. Intelligent machines where the situation is pre-defined and pre-programmed to repeat the same behavior patterns overtly, so it can serve the purpose for what it would be created.

• Humans have a strong capacity of going on them by ambiguous emotion, unprecedented innovation, exotic ideas, and ostensibly unimaginable activities. It’s very difficult for a machine to exhibit all these expressions with thrilling uncertainty. There has certain reason must lie beneath those behaviors have often shown by humans. However, the reasons are yet difficult to guess. Contrary, it indicates they have great adaptability to create uncertainty and as well is very clever to handle this with intelligence. The deterministic principles have appeared here problematic for computers and AI intelligence, for doing these tasks likewise humans.

Digital Human_7

Image Source: What computers can’t do by Hubert L. Dreyfus; Web: mitpress.mit.edu

… Hubert Dreyfus, until his death, was skeptical about the masked phrasing of future what Minsky and his companions tried to mean the only way that can break the chain of unexpected aging and death by taking a new conversion of human beings as digital humans. The entire scenario appeared a disturbing humming to Dreyfus. For this reason, he didn’t suppress his discontent in an interview, where his tone was seeming cynical.
… … …

• The bit-based electrified atomic circuitry fabricates intelligence for the computers or AI. Now, for instance, if an AI-based machine enhanced its capacity and grasped all those expressions in its system, nevertheless the system will fail to handle the next uncertain expression that perhaps yet not added to its binary matrix. The meaning is clear here:—human genetic programming achieved autonomous attributes by going through the long course of evolution. It achieved this autonomy because of its consequent interaction between Naturebond ‘things’. The binary matrix of machine intelligence cannot perform autonomously; nor does it have experiences to deal with a priori ‘things’ for achieving autonomous attributes like humans.

• The border of human expression is the border of its language and consciousness. However, human language patterns always have to show a trend to leave some feelings or thoughts that may difficult to express by words or sentences. This insufficiency of language, on the contrary, reflects human’s higher cognitive sensorial capacity that led him to generate abstraction. The abstraction of feelings and thoughts helped human species diversified his expression through all possible forms of arts and sciences. Contrary it makes an impact to expand the language border for him, so he can express his real cognitive feeling through all types of possible and even impossible ways. The human world is fantasized and as well as rationalized by linguistic arrangements of abstraction. Machine language and the matrix it followed are certainly looking pale in that context.

• A machine and its relation with the worldly border yet affixed within the input-output-based modeling system. The relation of the intelligent machine and the worldly ‘things’ depends on how much information has given to the machine so it can proceed maximum. That means the amount of logic it has given to express its relation with the worldly things. It beckons the intelligent machine yet not gained independency to collect information arbitrarily;—to sensitizing its relation to the worldly ‘things’ and the situation by applying its ‘will power’ and so on. A lunatic in human society, for example, he can exhibit his ambiguous relationship with worldly things by using his self-independent will off course.

• The variation, contradiction, opposition, denial, and different propositions of how a human being feels the world underneath his skin and how his mind response to this makes him non-deterministic by nature. This non-deterministic attitude makes him unpredictable and as well as problematic for all other living beings. The machine world seems indifference in that contextual. Machine beings are indifferent to each other. Enabling humanlike diversity in machine hardware might be the most difficult task for AI trailblazers.

Digital Human_10

Image Source: AI: Don’t panic! Future of work is still human; Web: gadget.co.za

… we rarely consider this, if non-deterministic human beings could absorb all sorts of deterministic behaviors in its genetic cells and brain chamber then why not a machine? There needed some innovative logical inputs in the machine that can help it to feel and think like a human or other lively terrestrial beings. We still think a machine is for service and nothing else. This slavery approach reflects our genetic memory fault which we were forced to adapt in our memory cells through the history of enslavement. Nothing is impossible but we needed first to change our attitude and perception about machine-behavior.
… … …

This way Hubert Dreyfus figured out the ultimate difference between machine and human intelligence in his book and lectures. The subtle meaning of the difference may recognizable by reading the following paragraph what he noted in the middle of his book:-

The human world, then, is prestructured in terms of human purposes and concerns in such a way that what counts as an object or is significant about an object already is a function of, or embodies, that concern. This cannot be matched by a computer, for a computer can only deal with already determinate objects, and in trying to simulate this field of concern, the programmer can only assign to the already determinate facts further determinate facts called values, which only complicates the retrieval problem for the machine. [See: Hubert L. Dreyfus: What computers can’t do, 1972] 

However, AI Futurists claimed the Transhumanism concept has developed considering the holistic meaning of Gestalt with care. In the AI perspective, Gestalism means a clear recognition of the relation between parts and whole so the digital system can make it viable and effective for further reading of human values. AI researchers also claimed they are concerned when they’ve gone studied human biological patterns and genetic functions. They’ve taken some holistic views for mapping the loss and difficulties before going such revolutionary conversion of human beings to Transhuman.

Dreyfus thinks the calculation of human values may not be impossible for today’s AI but merging those values in a machine system is most probably repulsive due to the simple fact that both machines and humans have evolved trailing different tracks. He punched his thumbs for a reminder that a careful reading of human biology and seeing the ‘whole’ technical process of AI by taking some philosophical shudders maybe not a bad proposal for today’s AI trailblazers. It led him to criticize Minsky and his companions where he sharpened his nail to scratch the grounding approach of AI-based futurism with irony and denial.

… … …

Artificial Intelligence Concept - Machines as Humans

Image Source: Artificial Intelligence Concept – Machines as Humans; Web: freerangestock.com

… Term ‘machinelike’ should be abandoned because it provoked the human mind to think a machine either purpose server or inhuman. Minsky thinks both approaches may appear problematic for designing such machines that are nonbiological in its structure but not insensitive and lifeless. We need machines not for slavery, rather than to across the limitation yet we’ve suffered due to some biological and socioeconomic factors.
… … …

Let take a look to see how Marvin Minsky and his MIT-based AI companions defend al these criticism sued by Hubert Dreyfus and many other philosophers. Minsky and his colleagues believe the safe conversation of human biochemical organs to the electrified one is technically difficult but not an impossible task. The moral reasoning of this AI prophecy might be grounded there what AI vanguards tried to propagate for the past few decades. They are hoping human biological conversion as Transhuman Being will concurrently change thousand years old perception about reality and its philosophical recognition practiced by the traditional human.

As Marvin Minsky grounded the reasoning in his book ‘The society of mind’, for saying why it is necessary to leave human’s trendy perceptions about the machine, intelligence, and artificial transmutation as well. The book is mind twitching in many ways; especially for its affinity where the philosophy-hater sounds appealing when he pointed his fingers that the term ‘machine’ is not fair enough to realize the modern scientific venture which is now waiting for a new revolution.

Minsky claimed they are as well concern about the consciousness and its ambiguities that may make human species a complex pattern for machine intelligence. He thinks The problem is not this that we are worried about the transfiguration of a human being to a machine, rather we are yet whirling into the conceptual waves that human being is not a machine due to its organic features, and it cannot be. Albeit, a human being has not so far different from a machine if we reading of both carefully. There have several passages found in his book (lectures and interviews as well) where he made interesting comments about the wrong perception that allows philosophers to mislead people about the objective of machine learning. His arguments could be summed here with bullets:  

We are livingly active in this world based on some incredible functions of our body organisms. It may develop by going through the million years evolutionary process. However, we happily carried on without knowing any detail about how this complex structure works with so certainly. Misky preferred to read it as commonsense, which means if we can live life without knowing much about the internal machinery of our bodied self then why not a machine operate itself by adapting the same commonsense principles in its logic gate! 

• Consider the human mind an organic mystery of biological evolution or transcendental reflection of some incorporeal soul ultimately leads us nowhere. A rational investigation of the human brain and sensitivities with patience is more effective here. Consistent studies only can help us to look at the mind with a rational sense rather than believing in nonsense. Rational looking can supply some clues that by what elements a mind has composed of, or why it looks whimsical sometimes. We need to follow each part of the mind which means a billion nerve-cells of the human brain, to examine how an individual part acts separately. We need as well observe what happened when a situation moves them to connect through synaptic channels. This might not be possible for an observer until he enabling himself to treat each or every part of the neuronal cell as a mindless ‘thing’. Minsky commenting:-

Good theories of the mind must span at least three different scales of time: slow, for the billion years in which our brains have evolved; fast, for the fleeting weeks and months of infancy and childhood; and in between, the centuries of growth of our ideas through history… To explain the mind, we have to show how minds are built from mindless stuff, from parts that are much smaller and simpler than anything we’d consider smart. Unless we can explain the mind in terms of things that have no thoughts or feelings of their own, we’ll only have gone around in a circle. [See: Marvin Minsky, The Society of Mind, 2006] 

Digital Human_11

Image Source: Marvin Minsky; Web: percyacunhavigil.blogspot.com 

… We are livingly active in this world based on some incredible functions of our body organisms. It may develop by going through the million years evolutionary process. However, we happily carried on without knowing any detail about how this complex structure works with so certainly. Misky preferred to read it as commonsense, which means if we can live life without knowing much about the internal machinery of our bodied self then why not a machine operate itself by adapting the same commonsense principles in its logic gate!
… … …

• We haven’t got much progress to consider Kantian ‘thing-in-itself’ as axiomatic to understand the nature and quality of things in reality. Kant’s aphorism may help a human get some clues about the source of ‘things’, that made its appearance possible in the real world as ‘a priori’ before anybody has observed it. Any transcendental presumption of why ‘things’ exist as ‘a priori’ or how they’ve appeared in this apparent world is different from the know-how that why ‘things’ work. So transcendental preference cannot be helping further to trace how ‘things’ work as a part or how they connect to add new ‘things’ in the reality-picture. The observer must enable himself to look over the ‘things’ in mechanical ways, so he can realize the nature of ‘things’ before jamming his head with transcendental stuff. Except for, he could not grasp the rational point that why the machine like a computer and human being are pretty similar, where both have worked in the same manner. 

If we consider the capabilities between human beings and machines they ought to have differences, but in which ways both systems have functioning it just reminds mechanical. Rational thinking, feeling and emotion, response to the everchanging situation and adaptability, and the manifestation of all these expressions by language, that could never recognizable until we know how to look at the ‘things’. We have to realize the principle that there is nothing in the universe system that has a conscious mind to act based on some pre-defined principles. 

However, human beings act consciously doesn’t mean they are pre-consciously have made for this. Rather it sounds rational to examine every fraction of the human brain and its consequent biological development by going through the entire evolution process of humans. Besides, the observer must be dutiful there seeing other animal behaviors; even nonliving pieces of stuff may help him to realize how consciousness works in the human system. Then he realized why it sounds incompatible when we consider other beings or nonliving stuff unconscious. The panpsychism that everything is conscious through its systematic connection to the world, consider such aphorism may not absurd in today’s context. If our observer tried to recognize how an unconscious system getting conscious through the connectivity of individual ‘things’.

Consciousness is something wired but an accumulation of connection between ‘things’ can create such cognitive feelings in a machine that human being achieved by evolution and now the machine is capable to adapt such behavior that may lead it to act consciously. So a computer or AI machine can act consciously if we have such know-how in our hand which can help it to connect the situation by self-operated programming. Minsky said in his book:-

Most peoples till believes that no machine could ever be conscious or feel ambition, jealousy, humor, or have any other mental life-experience. To be sure, we are still far from being able to create machines that do all the things people do. But this only means that we need better theories about how thinking works [See: Marvin Minsky, The Society of Mind, 2006]

Marvin Minsky thinks the time is coming to leave traditional perception, so we can enter the dark chamber of the mind with openness. We should enter into the mind-machine just like entered in a machine, to realize how every part of it played individual rules in the system and how they work in both means of partial and the whole.

• Let remember people’s rigid perception which Minsky quoted in his book over and over. People think a machine is designed based on some deterministic principles, so it can serve specific goals and objectives without doing mistakes. They are habitual with this that a human being can do many rational and irrational things instantly without any approval of pre-programmed rules; while a machine can never do such thing by ignoring pre-programmed rules and deterministic logic.

Digital Human_16

Image Source:  Marvin Minsky, artificial intelligence pioneer, RIP; Web: boingboing.net

… Dreyfus punched his thumbs for a reminder that a careful reading of human biology and seeing the ‘whole’ technical process of AI by taking some philosophical shudders maybe not a bad proposal for today’s AI trailblazers. It led him to criticize Minsky and his companions where he sharpened his nail to scratch the grounding approach of AI-based futurism with irony and denial.
… … …

Minsky defends this position by sued alternative arguments. He phrased all these nondeterministic uncertain behaviors as ‘commonsense’. Human beings have manifested these behaviors without any predetermined recognition of the mind, and as well as always doing this by being unaware of it. If it’s true that human beings are comfortable with this, Minsky raised a tricky question here:—then why not a machine could do the same tasks if it designed in such deterministic orders that can exhibit uncertain behavior and contrary be efficient to handle all these by itself? He made comment in his book:

Many people reasons that machines do only what they’re programmed to do–and hence can never be creative or original. The trouble is that this argument presumes what it purports to show: that you can’t program a machine to be creative! In fact, it is surprisingly easy to program a computer so that lt will proceed to do more different things than any programmer could imagine in advance. This is possible because of what we’ll call the “puzzle principle.” Puzzle Principle: We can program a computer to solve any problem by trial and error, without knowing how to solve it in advance, provided only that we have a way to recognize when the problem is solved. [See; Marvin Minsky, The Society of Mind, 2006] 

• And finally, Marvin Minsky sounds so confident when he denied philosopher’s arguments on AI by mean it flawed. To Minsky, philosophers verified them with scented wordings but for nothing. He welcomed his readers to consider the following:

I. To think it first how humanlike complex machine when it works with great simplicity which we often even do not recognize. The greatness of a complex machine is that it can work with extreme simplicity to produce amazing outputs. So a machine made by human beings, its advancement depends on the condition that how they set their goal to make a complex but simple machine that can simulate human behaviors with spontaneity and easiness.

II. Term ‘machinelike’ should be abandoned because it provoked the human mind to think a machine either purpose server or inhuman. Minsky thinks both approaches may appear problematic for designing such machines that are nonbiological in its structure but not insensitive and lifeless. We need machines not for slavery, rather than to across the limitation yet we’ve suffered due to some biological and socioeconomic factors. So Minsky suspects “…once we give machines the ability to alter their own abilities we’ll have to provide them with all sorts of complex checks and balances.” 

… … …

Digital Human_6

Image Source: Les Masques, Artist: Giorgio de Chirico; Courtesy: Posthuman Prospects; Web: counter current.com;

… The variation, contradiction, opposition, denial, and different propositions of how a human being feels the world underneath his skin and how his mind response to this makes him non-deterministic by nature. This non-deterministic attitude makes him unpredictable and as well as problematic for all other living beings. The machine world seems indifference in that contextual. Machine beings are indifferent to each other. Enabling humanlike diversity in machine hardware might be the most difficult task for AI trailblazers.
… … …

The above-mentioned bulleted summation might help us to realize why AI vanguards are so stubborn to ignore the philosophical arguments placed by Dreyfus and the same-minded AI critics. The opposition stance led Marvin Minsky and Hubert Dreyfus to trail the fate of humanity by tracking two apparent different paths. The summary could be this:

Philosopher’s argument: To Dreyfus, the whole AI approach is deterministic by nature. They as well make a dream-plot like Plato’s Ideal and Real World by ignoring the reality that humans as a being is nothing but the possible assemble of Naturebond other things and the whole process of born here being a human is now autonomous, that a machine can never be able to negotiate. 

AI’s antiphon: To Minsky, it’s a thinking faultline of humans. We are whirling into the waves that a machine must act ‘deterministic’ because it pre-programmed by such logical algorithms. We never think twice about the myriad behaviors of humans that they’ve taught from infancy by following the same deterministic principles. To the opposite, we rarely consider this, if non-deterministic human beings could absorb all sorts of deterministic behaviors in its genetic cells and brain chamber then why not a machine? Why not it be possible for the machine to behave non-deterministic despite some pre-conditions that a machine cannot be functioning without determinism?

There needed some innovative logical inputs in the machine that can help it to feel and think like a human or other lively terrestrial beings. This would appear significant for the machine to deliver some weird nondeterministic behaviors. It is more urgent to think about the machine as a living being rather than utility. We still think a machine is for service and nothing else. This slavery approach reflects our genetic memory fault which we were forced to adapt in our memory cells through the history of enslavement. Nothing is impossible but we needed first to change our attitude and perception about machine-behavior.

Philosopher’s argument: The AI Futurists when they are talking about the philosophical ground of Transhuman Being they tried to attach it with Gestalt. AI Positivists, for instance, Minsky and Neisser consider Gestalt a global recognition for future human-machine. Neisser, according to the commentary of Dreyfus, redefined the term ‘Gestalt’ as calling it a ‘Temporal Rhythm’, where “The parts (individual beats) get their meaning (relative position) from the whole, even though that whole does not exist at any moment of time. It exists, as one might say, in the subject’s mind, as an intent…Gestalt…” [See: Hubert L. Dreyfus: What computers cannot do, 1972]

Dreyfus read Minsky and Neisser’s definition of Gestalt in terms of some vague dream-plotting. That, he thinks is highly ambitious to convert humanly activities into a digital system. His attitude indicates a disturbing distance between AI trailblazers and their critics. Dreyfus thinks the problem might be there that Minsky and his companions when discussed Gestalt by taking some holistic (or wholistic) approaches, either they misinterpret it or mistakenly missed the whole perspective of this psychological phenomenon. He criticized:

The crucial feature of this gestalt interpretation, that each part gets its meaning only in terms of the whole, is missing in Minsky’s example, as it must be, since, as we have seen, for a digital computer, each complex whole must be constructed by the logical combination of independently defined elements. [See: Hubert L. Dreyfus: What computers cannot do, 1972]

AI’s antiphon: Minsky’s lucid explanation of Gestalt beckons Hubert Dreyfus was going bit overthinking mode when he sued his objection against Minsky and Neisser for the wrong interpretation of such term. Firstly to Minsky Holistic or Gestalt is nothing but a ‘pseudo-explanation’ of how a system works. It may help to exercise some philosophical notions but cannot be evidential until anybody has going out to check this that how a system is worked. For instance, if anybody wanted to know how a wall or tower works, he should ‘point out’ first in which ways every block of bricks placed and interacts in there by balancing with gravity and so on. This is the basic physics to understand the principles of how ‘things’ have made them interactive to build a machine or whatever it could be. Misky cleared his position about Gestalt in his book with ironic laughter: 

What is Life? One dissects a body but finds no life inside. What is Mind? One dissects a brain but finds no mind therein. Are life and mind so much more than the “sum of their parts” that it is useless to search for them? To answer that, consider this parody of a conversation between a Holist and an ordinary Citizen.

Holist: “I’ll prove no box can hold a mouse. A box is made by nailing six boards together. But it’s obvious that no box can hold a mouse unless it has some ‘mouse tightness’ or ‘containment.’ Now, no single board contains any containment, since the mouse can just walk away from it. And if there is no containment in one board, there can’t be any in six boards. So the box can have no ‘mouse tightness’ ‍at all. Theoretically then, the mouse can escape!”

Citizen: “Amazing. Then what does keep a mouse in a box?”

Holist: “Oh, simple. Even though it has no real ‘mouse tightness’, a good box can ‘simulate’ it so well that the mouse is fooled and can’t figure out how to escape.” [See: Marvin Minsky, The Society of Mind, 2006]

Marvin Minsky’s ironic laughter of dealing Gestalt may sound more rational and optimistic compared to what Hubert Dreyfus means earlier. It beckons why the large group scientists in modern days feel embarrassed to deal with philosophical aphorisms, which they think lost its connectivity to the basic morals that, before drowning in transcendental mystery to understand how ‘things’ works in the real world,—let check it first. Checking is not a certainty that the answer must be debunked, but it may help the seeker to advance further with some solid clues, and his thinking sounds more rational when he philosophizes his findings. To Minsky, “…the word life has already lost its mystery—at least for modern biologists, because they understand so many of the important interactions among the chemicals in cells. But mind still holds its mystery-because we still know so little about how mental agents interact to accomplish all the things they do.” [See: Marvin Minsky, The Society of Mind, 2006]

Digital Human_17

Image Source: World chess champion: Deep Blue vs. Garry Kasparov, May 1997; Web: Courtesy: stuff.co.nz

… The emergence of yonder machines is not so far remote as people think today. Yonder emergence will move human species to embrace a new phase of evolution, where they will appear as nonbiological hyperreal humans for the first time in history. This Transhuman Being due to its tremendous power of digital accuracy and the capacity of reacting like organic human beings will erase the traditional perception that a machine is different from the human being.
… … …

Leap on to the digital ocean that AI trailblazers think is inevitable for nonbiological cognition of digital humans would utterly impact the trendy reality-picture when the first Transhuman Being will appear in the world. AI-based intelligence means not just a transformation of ‘things’ from one state to another, rather it’s a hacking of the slow rated biological mutation and adaptation process what Charles Darwin explained in his book. Besides, it will hack the organic concept of genetic behavioral, what the Englishman Richard Dawkins meant in his searching of the behavioral roots of genes, that they are by evolutionary-nature is selfish or not.

AI vanguards today tried to saying conveniently that the digitalization of human biological capacity will elevate them experiencing a different world where the behavioral patterns would differ from the past. They were traditional at the nearest past but from now staying as a digital being, this experience might enough to feel the difference, i.e.—they are from now is capable to process every bit of information with lucid accuracy and speed. Indeed, it will enhance their thinking and consciousness to a higher degree than the past.

… … ….

Digital Human_2_2

Image Source: Illustration: Human Wave Digital; templatemonster.com;

… If anybody permits him looking through the universe carefully then it must insist him consider the whole universe a machine for instance. Then, soon or later he should realize how the entire universe system works like a bit-based computer processor. As eminent physicist John Archibald Wheeler phrased it with a notable comment:—‘it from bit’. So rearrange the picture by merging human intelligence and sensorial behavior patterns with an intelligent machine can elevate human species to achieve problem-solving knowledge in quicker ways than the present.
… … …

Hubert Dreyfus, until his death, was skeptical about the masked phrasing that AI-based intelligence can break the chain of unexpected aging and death by taking a new conversion of human beings as digital humans. AI Futurists believe this metamorphosed being can handle all human-readable behaviors using its self-governed power of sensitivities. The future digital humans would neither be a human, nor it would be the replica of today’s human, it will appear as a completely different being, a fine-tuned combination of human and machine. James R. Wilson and Paul R. Daugherty like modern AI researchers now stated the being by using an incognito term, that is, Human+Machine. Transhumanists have treated this term as the proto evolutionary phase of future Transhuman. The entire scenario appeared a disturbing humming to Dreyfus. For this reason, he didn’t suppress his discontent in an interview, where his tone was seeming cynical:

“They said they could program computers to be intelligent like people…They came to my course and said, more or less: ‘We don’t need Plato and Kant and Descartes anymore. That was all just talk. We’re empirical. We’re going to actually do it.’…I really wanted to know, could they do it? If they could, it was very important. If they couldn’t, then human beings were different than machines, and that was very important.” [See: William Grimes, Hubert L. Dreyfus, Philosopher of the Limits of Computers, Dies at 87, The New York Times, May 2017]

Contrary, Marvin Minsky was optimistic in his arguments that developing such kind of machines will act as a lighthouse for the futurists to grasp all human behavior and situation analysis power in a digital machine. This machine will appear as a proto-transhuman machine and its gradual improvement will ensure the smooth confluence between biological humans and electrified transhuman to achieve the ultimate self-sufficing transhuman. Is it? Maybe we have nothing in hand except waiting for the upcoming days to draw the apparent ending of this hotpan controversial dispute. 

… … …

Digital Human_4

Image Source: Artificial Intelligence ushers: Artist: Bruno Mangyoku; Courtesy: newscientist.com
… Dreyfus discovered him baffled when they claimed:—the future AI is the only alternative that could rectify the problematic reality-picture. The moral is, nothing might remain in the hand of humanlike organic beings that can recover the loss duly happened by them. He thinks a lacking of integrity made the futuristic presumptions of AI vanguards ridiculous for further consideration. Today they looked propagandist, rather than logical and cognitive…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.