Metro State Atheist Joel Guttormson on BEL

[Bob Enyart]

Alfred, chess computers do not use logic... they use voltages

Alfred, chess computers do not use logic... they use voltages

I pointed out that computers use logic.

Alfred, computers don't use logic. They use voltages.
Human programmers use logic.

I think if you isolate 'logic' from other mental faculties, it will indeed become plain that a computer playing chess must use it, no matter how simple its algorithm. Furthermore, the execution of any algorithm uses logic. Computer processors are based on Boolean circuitry; Boolean algebra is the algebra of logic.

Al, I wrote a software program that could play chess for an Artificial Intelligence course I took at Arizona State University (I convinced the professor to excuse me from all the other coursework for the semester to do something more challenging). The first version played a legal game of chess but moved randomly. The second version included heuristics that the software could modify the weights of and by playing against itself a thousand times, etc., it could gradually "learn" and improve its playing.

Alfred, since you've studied computer science some, let me explain for others at TOL who have not.

Early calculators were not Boolean (1 / 0 , yes / no , true / false), they were decimal and processed "bits" that had not two but ten different states. For efficiency, engineers moved to Boolean hardware (a binary digit, i.e., a "bit" has only two states: 0 or 1; not ten states: 0 - 9), and in this two-state environment the hardware engineers could make very efficient use of Boolean AND GATES, OR GATES, NAND GATES (not And), NOR GATES, etc.

An AND GATE in a transistor does not use logic, it uses voltages. The programmer used logic. Approximately 0 volts equaled 0 (false, no), and ~5 volts equaled 1 (true, yes).

An AND GATE takes two inputs (0 or 5 volts each), and if they are both 5 volts, the output is 5 volts.
...if one or both are 0 volts, the output is 0 volts.
An OR GATE takes two inputs (0 or 5 volts each), and if one or both are 5 volts, the output is 5 volts.
...if both are 0 volts, the output is 0 volts.

NAND and NOR gates are wired to simply reverse these outputs.

So Alfred, when a computer tool is used to simulate Boolean logic, when determining:

If white's king in check (true), AND if white can move but not out of check (true), then Checkmate is True;

it is not using logic, it is using voltages.
5 volts and 5 volts = 5 volts (i.e., true; in the above rule coded by a human programmer: Checkmate).

Alfred, computers don't use logic. They use voltages. A computer cannot use logic because logic is non-physical, and computers are made of atoms and molecules and lack the equipment to manipulate (process) non-physical entities (ideas, logic, reason, etc.). A computer would have to understand the concepts of true and false to use logic.

Yes Al, they simulate the use of logic, but they are using voltages; the human programmers used the logic.

-Pastor Bob Enyart
Denver Bible Church & KGOV.com

 

[Stripe]

You've made a mistake here. I asked you to be more specific, and you were. Now I'm answering specific questions; each answer to a sub-question cannot serve as an answer to the initial, broader question.

Let me give a more explicit example for not understanding what you create. Software is made of smaller components. Often times you will code a component, and then forget the implementation, only remembering the interface to that code. Then you can write additional code which which interacts with that interface exclusively. This may continue indefinitely. Next, throw in components written by other people. You may never see the code they wrote, just the interface to it. Go even further than this, consider the nature of large open source projects. This can be expanded indefinitely as well. The more interrelations between components written by different people, or between components with known interfaces and forgotten implementations, the more possibility for emergent behavior unpredictable by any individual involved. That's even pretty likely. But: do you think any one person "understands" an operating system involving a million lines of code written by > 100 different people? (Software like this exists.)

Now, you could of course check the state of every slot of memory in the machine, or step through the program's execution one instruction at a time, but this will still not afford any individual with a comprehension of what the software is really doing.

This is the same issue with the human mind. We can check the states of individual portions, but it's so complex and there are so many of them that we are unable to piece together a coherent theory of its overall operation.

Think about my scenario with the 3d video game + AIs. Now a hypothetical: You can't see the code, but you can look at every one and zero in the machine's memory, and you can see the colorful output of the software on a monitor. Trying to piece together 'how' the software works (to the point where you could comment on particular algorithms being used for efficient rendering of the diminishing landscape, or something) by just looking at the flux of variable states in the computer's memory, is the same thing neuroscientists using EEGs and MRIs are doing.

This should both at once elucidate the difficulty of determining the particulars of the brain's operation, and the essential similarity between the underlying mechanism of the two.

You are now entirely locked into the idea that a mind and a computer are essentially the same thing. So your attempt to hide behind Shru's defence is invalid.

The idea that all that separates a mind from a computer is the extent of the programming is challenged by the thought experiment I laid out earlier that you refuse to engage. A computer program will always respond only to its programming. It will always be possible for a person to know exactly how a computer will respond to given data. But your insistence that a computer will ever be able to predict human behaviour without the subject then being capable of doing otherwise is utterly untenable.

Even a three year old could show you how wrong you are if you told him he had no choice but to do something. That you believe otherwise requires some EVIDENCE, not your say-so.

Please tell us exactly how a persons ability to choose might be removed by a computer knowing ever "switch" and piece of "data" in the human mind. Please show evidence.

Do I need to point out the similarity between transistors and neurons? Or is it enough that we already have neuron to transistor interfaces (the article I linked to about the brain implant/mentally interactive prostheses). Next, consider that the brain is a mass of trillions of these neurons (as described in the V.S. Ramachandran quote); capable of representing as many unique states as there are fundamental particles in the known universe. Whaaat, exactly, do you think this system of neurons is doing?

I think the system of neurons is responding to the will of its owner.

We see the same thing with a guy driving a car. The interface here is hand-to-steering wheel instead of neuron-to-electrode. The conversion is exactly the same, from a person's choices to mechanical response. We see the same thing when a guy throws a rock. Are you going to assert that because we cannot discover who drove a car or why someone threw a rock that they are much the same as the human mind. If only we had enough rocks thrown or cars driven we could map every possible brain state....?

Do you see the similarity between mind/computer yet? (Don't forget not to accuse me of claiming "computers are conscious"!)

Are people conscious?

One last thing: Look up Turing test and you will see that I was talking about something different from what you think here. I'm not saying AI in video games is smarter than the player, I'm saying it fools a player into thinking it is another player. The issue of having AI more intelligent than humans is far off speculation (at least that we'll ever be able to pull it off -- that it's physically possible can't really be questioned at this point.)

Artificial intelligence is science fiction. That programmers have borrowed the term only makes people like you confused. It is impossible for a program to be written where its outputs cannot be determined from the inputs. A computer will never be able to choose. It will always respond exactly according to the parameters that have been programmed into it.

 

[Bob Enyart]

Why do you think they call in artificial?

Why do you think they call in artificial?

Chalmer, I read your article on chess-playing computers with interest. You wrote:

If the intelligence of the human mind is the product of the a physical mind, and thusly its actions dictated by physical laws, then it is reasonable to conclude…

Yes, if your supposition is valid, your conclusion may be valid.
But Chalmer, your supposition is invalid. Ideas are not physical; ideas are not dictated by physical laws (sometimes I wish they were ). So your conclusion is false.

the chess playing Deep Blue computer observes its circumstances… was capable of learning by analyzing possible circumstances and altering its reactions…

Chalmer, if you can still edit your article, you might want to include the following clarifications to your statement above. IBM's computer program Deep Blue:

* doesn't know what chess is;
* doesn't know it is "observing" anything;
* doesn't know it is "learning;"
* doesn't know it is altering its reactions;
* doesn't know it is playing chess.

Game playing has been in the domain of artificial intelligence because computer tools can simulate a human opponent as pliers are good at simulating a human's thumb and forefinger. Neither is the other. Yet compared to the impassable gulf between a human and a chess program, the pliers are a virtual knock off of opposability.

The programmers gave Deep Blue… the potential to apply reason.

Chalmer, no they didn't. If they did, instead of just a passing advance in computer technology, Deep Blue would be mankind's number one greatest scientific achievement of all time.

The most insightful quote in your article Chalmer, in my opinion, is this: "Until we understand the causal mechanism of consciousness, artificial intelligence will likely elude us."

Yes. See above.

-Pastor Bob Enyart
Denver Bible Church & KGOV.com

 

[AlfredTuring]

"An AND GATE in a transistor does not use logic, it uses voltages."

It is the relationship between the various voltage levels that embodies logic; an AND gate uses these relationships, not just the voltage itself. Neurons work in a similar fashion: their output also is determined by their internal state and the particular combination of electrical impulses sent to their inputs (the actual situation is more complex, but the functional mechanism which neurons in the brain operate on is the same as with logic gates).

"The cell membrane of the axon and soma contain voltage-gated ion channels which allow the neuron to generate and propagate an electrical signal (an action potential). These signals are generated and propagated by charge-carrying ions including sodium (Na+), potassium (K+), chloride (Cl-), and calcium (Ca2+)."

"The conduction of nerve impulses is an example of an all-or-none response. In other words, if a neuron responds at all, then it must respond completely." (sound familiar?)

You have confused "the use of logic" with logic itself. If you want to contend that our brain's operation is directed by an immaterial "will" (be it spirit or soul, or whatever) -- that's fine, doesn't even count into the discussion. However, the carrying out of logical operations themselves appears to be done by the brain. We have constructed physical machines which carry out logical operations, and subsequently found our brains to be constructed of cells which operate on the same principle as those machines. It only makes sense to make recourse to non-physical explanations of phenomena when no physical explanation is forthcoming; a physical explanation for the brain carrying out logical calculations exists. If you'd like to say that our brains, bundles of trillions of what are essentially components of logical circuitry, are just there for the fun of it but not really doing anything 'cause the soul's already taken care of all that -- you'll have to provide some evidence for it; the onus is on you.

Our conception of logic comes from our observation of non-contradiction in nature. In this case, logic is not our conception of it it (so go ahead, say that's immaterial), but rather the referent of that conception -- which is physical. Another use of the word logic, which is really a consequence of the first usage, is in reference to a mechanism which allows extrapolation, as in:

"If white's king in check (true), AND if white can move but not out of check (true), then Checkmate is True;"

Humans do it, computers do it. You can say the will decides what the input to an extrapolation system will be, but the extrapolation is certainly carried out by neural circuitry and embodies the often spoken of logic; physical through and through. You can't feel or see it because it is a relationship between things; so, though it's not made of matter, it is the product of material things only.


Stripe, I'm well aware of the differences between strong AI and the more common variety, I laugh about movie depictions of AI, and I'm done speaking with you. The futility of it is obvious, and your condescension is annoying.

 

[Stripe]

Stripe, I'm well aware of the differences between strong AI and the more common variety, I laugh about movie depictions of AI, and I'm done speaking with you. The futility of it is obvious, and your condescension is annoying.

And I'm laughing at the idea that a person only responds according to his programming.

What film depiction of AI do you think would be impossible?

 

[Bob Enyart]

Alfred, my friend Clete once rated this a post of the day...

Alfred, my friend Clete once rated this a post of the day...

Alfred, I've excerpted a previous post to attempt to show you that awareness is not physical, and thus logic, reason, pain, etc., none of these are material, but prove the existence of the non-physical reality.

Sentience, i.e. awareness, does not come from our physical existence, but from our soul. How do I know this?

Because knowledge is NOT physical. Knowledge, in this case, knowing that I exist, is not material, it is not physical, but something else. We have words for things that are not physical, like spirit, and soul. At the moment of fertilization, a unique, living, human being comes into existence, and it does not need to wait for its brain to be wired to acquire sentience, because no configuration of matter, regardless of how complex, can instill non-material ability to that matter.

Also, pain is not physical. Plants do not have souls (which are non-material), and when you chop down a tree, it does not feel pain (a 60s sci-fi episode not withstanding). Pain is comprehension, it is knowledge, and knowledge is not physical. … awareness of pain requires awareness, and awareness is knowledge, and not a physical attribute. …

Regarding an inability to feel pain, when a doctor cuts in our brain matter, we do not feel pain from that. It would be wrong to kill an injured person who has passed out, or who we assume just can’t feel pain. Pain is non-physical, it is awareness, which is a state of knowledge. You can program a robot to back up suddenly if it bumps into a wall, and even to yell, “Ouch.” But it hasn’t felt pain, because it is only made of atoms and molecules, and can have no awareness. Because pain is inherently non-physical, pain resulting from non-physical causes is dramatically more hurtful than pain resulting from physical stimuli. A paper cut on the eyeball really hurts. A father who will not look his disowned son in the eye is far more painful.

Pain from giving birth initiates in the physical realm, and so it must first be translated into the non-physical reality so the mother can feel pain, and that physically-initiatied pain is far less severe than that experienced by the mother whose child dies. The pain from the loss of a child is experienced by the mother as pain initiated in the spiritual realm, and so it does not need to be first translated to get through to the mother's awareness; and it is this kind of pain, that results from non-physical stimuli, that is so much more severe than physical pain.

AlfredTuring, a human being's non-material attributes, our sentience, language, ability to reason and feel pain, our ambition and humility, hate and love, these are so much more significant to who we are than are the chemical processes that make up our "mere" physical bodies.

-Bob Enyart
KGOV.com

 

[Bob Enyart]

Our brain is an interface to our soul and spirit

Our brain is an interface to our soul and spirit

If you want to contend that our brain's operation is directed by an immaterial "will" (be it spirit or soul, or whatever) -- that's fine, doesn't even count into the discussion.

Yes, I do contend that our brain is the physical interface to our wildly complex soul and spirit, and that is why the brain is so phenomenally intricate. Our eyes send what, more than 10 gigabytes of data to our brain every single second? And our brain transfers that data to the non-physical part of our reality, so we can convert the electro-chemicals signals into ideas that help us perceive the objects around us. Ideas are non-physical. A materialist is in great denial, and cannot even begin to consider, let alone defend, his own belief without disproving it at every turn.

If you'd like to say that our brains, bundles of trillions of what are essentially components of logical circuitry, are just there for the fun of it but not really doing anything 'cause the soul's already taken care of all that -- you'll have to provide some evidence for it; the onus is on you.

Al, of course I never said our brains are not really doing anything. In the many years I've spoken on this matter, I've stated as above, that our physical brain, aside from its mechanical functions, is an interface to our soul and spirit, like a telecom switch connecting 20 million telephones in the NYC or the bus in a supercomputer or the backbone of the internet, only with far greater miniaturization and sophistication.

You throw out the idea of relationship, suggesting that perhaps logic seems immaterial because it represents only relationships. But physical relationships are physical. Logical relationships are logical, not physical.

Alfred, no discovery has occurred since Einstein to disprove his observation of the impassible gulf between matter and ideas. And no such discovery will be forthcoming. Ideas are not physical.

-Bob Enyart
KGOV.com

 

[Metro State Atheists]

Alfred, I've excerpted a previous post to attempt to show you that awareness is not physical, and thus logic, reason, pain, etc., none of these are material, but prove the existence of the non-physical reality.


Pain from giving birth initiates in the physical realm, and so it must first be translated into the non-physical reality so the mother can feel pain, and that physically-initiatied pain is far less severe than that experienced by the mother whose child dies. The pain from the loss of a child is experienced by the mother as pain initiated in the spiritual realm, and so it does not need to be first translated to get through to the mother's awareness; and it is this kind of pain, that results from non-physical stimuli, that is so much more severe than physical pain.

AlfredTuring, a human being's non-material attributes, our sentience, language, ability to reason and feel pain, our ambition and humility, hate and love, these are so much more significant to who we are than are the chemical processes that make up our "mere" physical bodies.

-Bob Enyart
KGOV.com

I'm still not sure why you believe things like knowledge, words, concepts, and other related cognitive states are non-physical?

 

[Metro State Atheists]

Chalmer, I read your article on chess-playing computers with interest. You wrote:

Yes, if your supposition is valid, your conclusion may be valid.
But Chalmer, your supposition is invalid. Ideas are not physical; ideas are not dictated by physical laws (sometimes I wish they were ). So your conclusion is false.

I'm disinclined to take your word for it.

Chalmer, if you can still edit your article, you might want to include the following clarifications to your statement above. IBM's computer program Deep Blue:

* doesn't know what chess is;
* doesn't know it is "observing" anything;
* doesn't know it is "learning;"
* doesn't know it is altering its reactions;
* doesn't know it is playing chess.

One of the primary points of the article is that it may very well be impossible to determine if it does or does not know what chess is, or whether it knows anything at all. Ultimately, it depends on how we define knowledge.

Game playing has been in the domain of artificial intelligence because computer tools can simulate a human opponent as pliers are good at simulating a human's thumb and forefinger. Neither is the other. Yet compared to the impassable gulf between a human and a chess program, the pliers are a virtual knock off of opposability.

A pair of pliers is simulating what could just was easily be non-sentient process. The only sentience associate with the use of pliers comes from the wielder of the tool. Deep blue, though, is simulating aspects of our intellect closely tied with knowledge and sentience. We can not assume, due to the principle of multiple realization, that Deep Blue lacks intellect. However, we can not assume that it has intellect either.

Chalmer, no they didn't. If they did, instead of just a passing advance in computer technology, Deep Blue would be mankind's number one greatest scientific achievement of all time.

Reason is no more than a process of relating various impressions, and nothing about reason implies that it must be accompanied by consciousness.

The most insightful quote in your article Chalmer, in my opinion, is this: "Until we understand the causal mechanism of consciousness, artificial intelligence will likely elude us."

The point of the whole thing. We can not detect it outside in things not of our species becuase we do not fully understand what gives rise to intellect in the first place. Unless we can pinpoint the cause, by either a general or specific mechanism, or at least understand intellect well enough to predict what might cause it, we won't be able to identify it.

- Chalmer

 

[Servo]

I'm still not sure why you believe things like knowledge, words, concepts, and other related cognitive states are non-physical?

Can you demonstrate how they are physical?

 

[Bob Enyart]

The PC doesn't know it's a PC (unless we say it does?)

The PC doesn't know it's a PC (unless we say it does?)

One of the primary points of the article is that it may very well be impossible to determine if [computer software that plays chess] does or does not know what chess is, or whether it knows anything at all.

Woe. I'm really beside myself Chalmer. If you think the computer knows that it's playing chess, I don't know how in the world to proceed. But, you're not alone. In a discussion at Iliff School of Theology down at Denver University with Bill Clinton's former pastor (and interim president of Iliff) Phillip Wogaman said to me in front of a crowd at a luncheon Chat with the Iliff President, that, "the pro-lifers would be right, and abortion would be immoral, if in fact the early trimester fetus is sentient." I asked him whether he knew whether or not the grand piano in the room was self-aware, and he said that he did not know. Ok. So, we witness both an intellectual tantrum, and a virtual admission that Wogaman is not qualified to advise on moral issues.

Ultimately [whether the chess program is aware, etc.] depends on how we define knowledge.

Yikes. Chalmer. No. It depends upon whether the computer is self-aware. It is not. If you are going to go through life determining reality based upon how you define it, you are going to live a very confused life. (An atheist who despised me once called on air to tell me that reality is whatever someone decides it will be, that he creates his own reality, at which point I asked him: then why did you invent AIDs, child molesters, and Bob Enyart?) If we define that a hammer has intelligence if it has plowed more than a thousand nails into wood, and we find one that has, we haven't proved that the hammer has intelligence. We've only proved how confused we are.

-Bob Enyart
KGOV.com

p.s. I'm thoroughly enjoying our discussion, but I'm afraid that my pressing schedule commitments will keep me from posting further in this thread. Based on where the argument is right now though, I am confident that nothing that could possibly be added can help your argument. -BE

 

[Metro State Atheists]

Can you demonstrate how they are physical?

To some extent, yes. Any alteration to ones brain state leads to an alteration of ones cognitive state. Various regions of the brain can be associated with intellect, homeostatic mechanism, and consciousness. I may not be able to demonstrate that they are entirely physical, but they must be physical to some extent, or alteration of the physical substrate of the mind would have no effect on the person, if even it seemed to cause an affliction to the observer. Furthermore, investigating a physical mechanism for the mind, or any phenomena, is simply more consistent. We should seek the most likely explanations first. Only after we have ruled out the ordinary should we presume the extraordinary. Ultimately, a non-physical explanation seems hardly necessary.
- Chalmer

 

[Metro State Atheists]

Woe. I'm really beside myself Chalmer. If you think the computer knows that it's playing chess, I don't know how in the world to proceed.

I said nothing of the sort. I only acknowledged that it might be possible. Common sense leads me to believe that it is probably not, and I would deny that it is unless someone could demonstrate otherwise (similar to my stance on theism, if you recall).

But, you're not alone. In a discussion at Iliff School of Theology down at Denver University with Bill Clinton's former pastor (and interim president of Iliff) Phillip Wogaman said to me in front of a crowd at a luncheon Chat with the Iliff President, that, "the pro-lifers would be right, and abortion would be immoral, if in fact the early trimester fetus is sentient." I asked him whether he knew whether or not the grand piano in the room was self-aware, and he said that he did not know. Ok. So, we witness both an intellectual tantrum, and a virtual admission that Wogaman is not qualified to advise on moral issues.

If sentience is the perquisite for human rights, all one would need to do is demonstrate sentience in a fetus. As difficult as it might be, it pales in comparison to establishing sentience in a wholly inanimate object. We have at least some reason to suspect a fetus has or is developing sentience. I'm quite convinced the piano is as dumb as the cupboard, though.

Yikes. Chalmer. No. It depends upon whether the computer is self-aware. It is not. If you are going to go through life determining reality based upon how you define it, you are going to live a very confused life. (An atheist who despised me once called on air to tell me that reality is whatever someone decides it will be, that he creates his own reality, at which point I asked him: then why did you invent AIDs, child molesters, and Bob Enyart?) If we define that a hammer has intelligence if it has plowed more than a thousand nails into wood, and we find one that has, we haven't proved that the hammer has intelligence. We've only proved how confused we are.

I don't think we create reality one bit, and never claimed the computer was self-aware. You have yet to demonstrate why self-awareness is a prerequisite for the application of reason.

p.s. I'm thoroughly enjoying our discussion, but I'm afraid that my pressing schedule commitments will keep me from posting further in this thread. Based on where the argument is right now though, I am confident that nothing that could possibly be added can help your argument. -BE

Fair enough, and I'm enjoying the discussion as well. And unless you provide the process by which you reached your various conclusions, I'm confident you will come no closer to persuading me of.
- Chalmer

 

[Cracked]

Metro State Atheist Joel Guttormson on BEL

This is the show from January 7th, 2009.

BEST QUOTE OF THE SHOW:

SUMMARY:

* Joel Gave Two Reasons: that led to his atheism:
- perceived inconsistencies in the Bible; and his

Perceived? There are inconsistencies in the Bible.

 

[Nick M]

Interesting thread. I can't come up with a good description for the commentary. If I was a dog, my head would have tilted to the side reading the atheist comments.