WEBVTT - Machine Consciousness

0:00:04.240 --> 0:00:07.240
<v Speaker 1>Welcome to Tech Stuff, a production of I Heart Radios

0:00:07.320 --> 0:00:13.840
<v Speaker 1>How Stuff Works. Hey there, and welcome to tech Stuff.

0:00:13.880 --> 0:00:16.880
<v Speaker 1>I'm your host, Jonathan Strickland. I'm an executive producer with

0:00:16.880 --> 0:00:18.760
<v Speaker 1>How Stuff Works in My Heart Radio, and I love

0:00:18.920 --> 0:00:22.400
<v Speaker 1>all things tech. And there's a topic I have touched

0:00:22.440 --> 0:00:26.239
<v Speaker 1>on on several occasions in past episodes, but I really

0:00:26.320 --> 0:00:29.840
<v Speaker 1>wanted to dig down today into this topic because it's

0:00:29.840 --> 0:00:33.400
<v Speaker 1>one of those that's fascinating and is an underpinning for

0:00:33.520 --> 0:00:37.480
<v Speaker 1>tons of speculative fiction and horror stories. And since we're

0:00:37.520 --> 0:00:40.320
<v Speaker 1>now in October, I think here this would be kind

0:00:40.360 --> 0:00:44.720
<v Speaker 1>of thematically linked to Halloween text style. It turns out

0:00:44.760 --> 0:00:48.400
<v Speaker 1>that's pretty hard to do. Halloween technology stories have already

0:00:48.440 --> 0:00:52.519
<v Speaker 1>covered stuff like haunted house technology. So today we're going

0:00:52.560 --> 0:00:56.000
<v Speaker 1>to talk about consciousness and whether or not it might

0:00:56.040 --> 0:01:00.680
<v Speaker 1>be possible that machines could one day achieve consciousness. Now,

0:01:00.960 --> 0:01:04.520
<v Speaker 1>I could start this off by talking about the Turing test,

0:01:04.600 --> 0:01:07.520
<v Speaker 1>which many people have used as the launch point for

0:01:07.560 --> 0:01:11.880
<v Speaker 1>a machine intelligence and machine consciousness debates. The way we

0:01:11.959 --> 0:01:15.120
<v Speaker 1>understand that test today, which by the way, is slightly

0:01:15.160 --> 0:01:19.200
<v Speaker 1>different from the test that Alan Turing first proposed, is

0:01:19.200 --> 0:01:23.080
<v Speaker 1>that you have a human interviewer who through a computer interface,

0:01:23.520 --> 0:01:27.080
<v Speaker 1>asks questions of a subject, and the subject might be

0:01:27.120 --> 0:01:30.800
<v Speaker 1>another human, or it might be a computer program posing

0:01:30.959 --> 0:01:34.559
<v Speaker 1>as a human, and the the interviewer just sees text

0:01:34.600 --> 0:01:37.240
<v Speaker 1>on a screen. So if the interviewer is unable to

0:01:37.280 --> 0:01:40.880
<v Speaker 1>pass a certain threshold of being able to tell the difference,

0:01:40.920 --> 0:01:43.120
<v Speaker 1>to be able to determine whether it was a machine

0:01:43.200 --> 0:01:46.720
<v Speaker 1>or a person, then the program or machine that's being

0:01:46.760 --> 0:01:50.200
<v Speaker 1>tested is said to have passed the Turing test. It

0:01:50.280 --> 0:01:54.360
<v Speaker 1>doesn't mean the program or machine is conscious or even intelligent,

0:01:54.800 --> 0:01:59.200
<v Speaker 1>but rather says that to outward appearances, it seems to

0:01:59.360 --> 0:02:03.680
<v Speaker 1>be intel, religent, and conscious. See, we humans can't be

0:02:03.800 --> 0:02:08.360
<v Speaker 1>absolutely sure that other humans are conscious and intelligent. We

0:02:08.440 --> 0:02:12.560
<v Speaker 1>assume that they are because each of us knows of

0:02:12.600 --> 0:02:16.280
<v Speaker 1>our own consciousness and our own intelligence. We have a

0:02:16.360 --> 0:02:22.000
<v Speaker 1>personal experience with that direct personal experience, and other people

0:02:22.040 --> 0:02:26.760
<v Speaker 1>seem to display behaviors that indicate they too possess those traits,

0:02:26.760 --> 0:02:30.840
<v Speaker 1>and they too have a personal experience. But we cannot

0:02:31.000 --> 0:02:34.320
<v Speaker 1>be those other people, and so we have to grant

0:02:34.400 --> 0:02:38.000
<v Speaker 1>them the consideration that they too are conscious and intelligent.

0:02:38.320 --> 0:02:42.040
<v Speaker 1>And I agree that is very big of us. This

0:02:42.120 --> 0:02:46.240
<v Speaker 1>is actually called the problem of other minds in the

0:02:46.280 --> 0:02:49.360
<v Speaker 1>field of philosophy, and the problem is this, it is

0:02:49.400 --> 0:02:53.000
<v Speaker 1>impossible for any one of us to step outside of

0:02:53.000 --> 0:02:58.080
<v Speaker 1>ourselves and into any other person's consciousness. We cannot feel

0:02:58.360 --> 0:03:02.480
<v Speaker 1>what other people are feeling or experience their thoughts firsthand.

0:03:02.840 --> 0:03:05.799
<v Speaker 1>We are aware of our own abilities, but we are

0:03:05.880 --> 0:03:10.839
<v Speaker 1>only aware of the appearance that other people share those abilities.

0:03:11.160 --> 0:03:14.919
<v Speaker 1>So assuming that other people also experience consciousness rather than

0:03:15.040 --> 0:03:18.760
<v Speaker 1>imitating it, really, really, well, that's a step we all

0:03:18.880 --> 0:03:23.440
<v Speaker 1>have to take. Turings point is that if we do

0:03:23.560 --> 0:03:27.400
<v Speaker 1>grant that consideration to other people, why would we not

0:03:27.560 --> 0:03:31.120
<v Speaker 1>do it to machines as well? I mean, the machine

0:03:31.160 --> 0:03:34.440
<v Speaker 1>appears to possess the same qualities as a human. This

0:03:34.520 --> 0:03:38.440
<v Speaker 1>is a hypothetical machine, so we cannot experience what that

0:03:38.480 --> 0:03:41.200
<v Speaker 1>machine is going through, just as we can't experience what

0:03:41.320 --> 0:03:45.440
<v Speaker 1>another person is going through, at least not the intrinsic

0:03:45.560 --> 0:03:49.680
<v Speaker 1>personal level. So why would we not grant the machine

0:03:50.000 --> 0:03:53.600
<v Speaker 1>the same consideration that we would grant to people. And

0:03:53.840 --> 0:03:56.960
<v Speaker 1>Touring was being a little cheeky, But while I just

0:03:57.000 --> 0:03:59.800
<v Speaker 1>gave kind of a super fast, high level description of

0:03:59.800 --> 0:04:03.120
<v Speaker 1>the Herring test, that's not actually where I want to start.

0:04:03.600 --> 0:04:07.640
<v Speaker 1>I want to begin with the concept of consciousness itself. Now,

0:04:07.640 --> 0:04:10.160
<v Speaker 1>the reason I want to do this isn't just to

0:04:10.760 --> 0:04:13.920
<v Speaker 1>make a longer podcast. It's because I think one of

0:04:13.920 --> 0:04:18.640
<v Speaker 1>the most fundamental problems with the discussion about AI intelligence,

0:04:18.920 --> 0:04:22.480
<v Speaker 1>self awareness, and consciousness is that there tends to be

0:04:22.560 --> 0:04:26.600
<v Speaker 1>a pretty large disconnect between the biologists and the doctors

0:04:26.600 --> 0:04:30.960
<v Speaker 1>who specialize in neuroscience, particularly cognitive neuroscience, and does have

0:04:31.080 --> 0:04:35.120
<v Speaker 1>some understanding about the nature of consciousness and people. And

0:04:35.160 --> 0:04:38.080
<v Speaker 1>then you have computer scientists who have a deep understanding

0:04:38.080 --> 0:04:41.800
<v Speaker 1>of how computers process information. And while we frequently will

0:04:41.839 --> 0:04:46.560
<v Speaker 1>compare brains to computers, that comparison is not one to one.

0:04:46.720 --> 0:04:50.360
<v Speaker 1>It is largely a comparison of convenience, and in some

0:04:50.440 --> 0:04:53.400
<v Speaker 1>cases you could argue it's not terribly useful, it might

0:04:53.440 --> 0:04:57.000
<v Speaker 1>actually be counterproductive. And so I think at least some

0:04:57.160 --> 0:05:00.880
<v Speaker 1>of the speculation about machine consciousness is based on a

0:05:00.960 --> 0:05:05.160
<v Speaker 1>lack of understanding of how complicated and mysterious this topic

0:05:05.320 --> 0:05:08.599
<v Speaker 1>is in the first place, and this ends up being

0:05:08.640 --> 0:05:14.520
<v Speaker 1>really tricky. Consciousness isn't an easily defined quality or quantity.

0:05:14.680 --> 0:05:17.320
<v Speaker 1>Some people like to say, we don't so much define

0:05:17.360 --> 0:05:21.040
<v Speaker 1>consciousness by what it is but rather what it isn't

0:05:21.480 --> 0:05:23.240
<v Speaker 1>and this will also will will kind of bring us

0:05:23.240 --> 0:05:27.000
<v Speaker 1>into the realm of philosophy. Now, I'm gonna be honest

0:05:27.000 --> 0:05:30.400
<v Speaker 1>with you, guys, the realm of philosophy is not one

0:05:30.600 --> 0:05:34.920
<v Speaker 1>I'm terribly comfortable in. I'm pretty pragmatic, and philosophy deals

0:05:34.920 --> 0:05:38.680
<v Speaker 1>with a lot of stuff that is, at least for now, unknowable.

0:05:38.960 --> 0:05:43.080
<v Speaker 1>Philosophy sometimes asks questions that we do not and cannot

0:05:43.160 --> 0:05:46.640
<v Speaker 1>have the answer to, and in many cases we may

0:05:46.760 --> 0:05:50.040
<v Speaker 1>never be able to answer those questions. And the pragmatist

0:05:50.080 --> 0:05:53.839
<v Speaker 1>emmy says, well, why bother asking the question if you

0:05:53.920 --> 0:05:56.440
<v Speaker 1>can never get the answer. Let's just focus on the

0:05:56.440 --> 0:06:00.760
<v Speaker 1>stuff we actually can answer. Now, I realize this is

0:06:00.800 --> 0:06:04.839
<v Speaker 1>a limitation on my part. I'm owning that I'm not

0:06:04.960 --> 0:06:08.320
<v Speaker 1>out to upset the philosophical apple cart. I'm just of

0:06:08.320 --> 0:06:12.360
<v Speaker 1>a different philosophical bent. And I realized that just because

0:06:12.400 --> 0:06:16.640
<v Speaker 1>we can't answer some questions right now, that doesn't necessarily

0:06:16.680 --> 0:06:20.080
<v Speaker 1>mean they will all go unanswered for all time. We

0:06:20.200 --> 0:06:23.080
<v Speaker 1>might glean a way of answering at least some of them,

0:06:23.240 --> 0:06:27.080
<v Speaker 1>though I suspect a few will be forever unanswered. If

0:06:27.080 --> 0:06:31.200
<v Speaker 1>we go with the basic Dictionary definition of consciousness. It's

0:06:31.320 --> 0:06:35.240
<v Speaker 1>quote the state of being awake and aware of one's

0:06:35.320 --> 0:06:39.720
<v Speaker 1>surroundings end quote. But what this doesn't tell us is

0:06:39.760 --> 0:06:43.520
<v Speaker 1>what's going on that lets us do that. It also

0:06:43.520 --> 0:06:47.719
<v Speaker 1>doesn't talk about being aware of oneself, which we largely

0:06:47.760 --> 0:06:51.560
<v Speaker 1>consider consciousness to be part of. Is not just aware

0:06:51.560 --> 0:06:55.640
<v Speaker 1>of your surroundings, but aware that you exist within those surroundings,

0:06:56.000 --> 0:06:59.720
<v Speaker 1>your relationship to your surroundings, and things that are going

0:06:59.760 --> 0:07:03.320
<v Speaker 1>on within you, yourself, your feelings, and your thoughts. The

0:07:03.360 --> 0:07:05.280
<v Speaker 1>fact that you can process all of this, you can

0:07:05.320 --> 0:07:09.840
<v Speaker 1>reflect upon yourself. We tend to group that into consciousness

0:07:09.840 --> 0:07:13.440
<v Speaker 1>as well. So how is it that we can feel

0:07:13.560 --> 0:07:16.600
<v Speaker 1>things and be aware of those feelings? How is it

0:07:16.800 --> 0:07:21.000
<v Speaker 1>that we can have intentions and be aware of our intentions.

0:07:21.280 --> 0:07:24.760
<v Speaker 1>We are more complex than beings that simply react to

0:07:24.840 --> 0:07:29.040
<v Speaker 1>sensory input. We are more than beings that respond to

0:07:29.080 --> 0:07:33.280
<v Speaker 1>stuff like hunger, fear, or the desire to procreate. We

0:07:33.360 --> 0:07:38.240
<v Speaker 1>have motivations, sometimes really complex motivations, and we can reflect

0:07:38.240 --> 0:07:40.880
<v Speaker 1>on those, We can examine them, we can question them,

0:07:40.920 --> 0:07:45.720
<v Speaker 1>we can even change them. So how do we do this? Now?

0:07:45.720 --> 0:07:48.120
<v Speaker 1>We know this is special because some of the things

0:07:48.200 --> 0:07:52.000
<v Speaker 1>we can do are shared among a very few species

0:07:52.280 --> 0:07:56.040
<v Speaker 1>on Earth. For example, we humans can recognize our own

0:07:56.080 --> 0:08:00.400
<v Speaker 1>reflections in a mirror, starting it around age two or so.

0:08:01.120 --> 0:08:03.760
<v Speaker 1>We can see the mirror image and we recognize the

0:08:03.760 --> 0:08:08.280
<v Speaker 1>mirriage images of us. Now, there are only eight species

0:08:08.440 --> 0:08:12.040
<v Speaker 1>that can do this that we know about anyway. Those

0:08:12.080 --> 0:08:17.800
<v Speaker 1>species are the great apes. So you've got humans, gorillas orangutans, binobos,

0:08:17.800 --> 0:08:22.760
<v Speaker 1>and chimpanzees, the magpie, the dolphin, and that's it. Oh,

0:08:22.800 --> 0:08:27.120
<v Speaker 1>and the magpies are birds, right, That's that's all of them.

0:08:27.120 --> 0:08:30.040
<v Speaker 1>Recognizing one's own form and a mirror shows a sense

0:08:30.080 --> 0:08:35.360
<v Speaker 1>of self awareness, literally, of awareness of one's self. Now,

0:08:35.360 --> 0:08:38.319
<v Speaker 1>there are a lot of great resources online and offline

0:08:38.360 --> 0:08:42.120
<v Speaker 1>that go into the theme of consciousness. Heck, there are

0:08:42.240 --> 0:08:47.040
<v Speaker 1>numerous college level courses and graduate level courses dedicated to

0:08:47.080 --> 0:08:49.520
<v Speaker 1>this topic. So I'm not going to be able to

0:08:49.559 --> 0:08:53.400
<v Speaker 1>go into all the different hypotheses, arguments, counter arguments, et

0:08:53.440 --> 0:08:58.160
<v Speaker 1>cetera in this episode, but I can cover some basics. Also,

0:08:58.920 --> 0:09:02.880
<v Speaker 1>highly recommend you check out v Sauces video on YouTube

0:09:02.880 --> 0:09:08.000
<v Speaker 1>that's titled what is Consciousness? Because it's really good. And no,

0:09:08.160 --> 0:09:10.520
<v Speaker 1>I don't know, Michael, I have no connection to him.

0:09:10.679 --> 0:09:13.760
<v Speaker 1>I've never met him. This is just an honest recommendation

0:09:13.840 --> 0:09:16.840
<v Speaker 1>from me, and I have no connection whatsoever to that

0:09:16.960 --> 0:09:20.000
<v Speaker 1>video series. The video includes a link to what v

0:09:20.120 --> 0:09:23.440
<v Speaker 1>Sauce dubs a lean back, which is a playlist of

0:09:23.800 --> 0:09:27.720
<v Speaker 1>related videos on the subject at hand, in this case, consciousness.

0:09:27.720 --> 0:09:30.160
<v Speaker 1>Those are also really fascinating. But I do want to

0:09:30.200 --> 0:09:33.040
<v Speaker 1>point out that, at least at the time of this recording,

0:09:33.360 --> 0:09:35.800
<v Speaker 1>a couple of the videos in that playlist have since

0:09:35.840 --> 0:09:38.920
<v Speaker 1>been delisted from YouTube for whatever reason. So there are

0:09:38.920 --> 0:09:41.480
<v Speaker 1>a couple of blank spots in there. But what those

0:09:41.559 --> 0:09:46.200
<v Speaker 1>videos show, and what countless papers and courses and presentations

0:09:46.240 --> 0:09:50.400
<v Speaker 1>also show, is that the brain is so incredibly complex

0:09:50.480 --> 0:09:54.240
<v Speaker 1>and nuanced that we don't know what we don't know.

0:09:54.920 --> 0:09:57.360
<v Speaker 1>We do know that there are some pretty funky things

0:09:57.440 --> 0:09:59.640
<v Speaker 1>going up in the gray matter up in our noggins,

0:10:00.000 --> 0:10:02.920
<v Speaker 1>and we also know that many of the explanations given

0:10:02.960 --> 0:10:08.559
<v Speaker 1>to describe consciousness rely upon some assumptions that we don't

0:10:08.559 --> 0:10:13.240
<v Speaker 1>have any substantial evidence for. You can't really assert something

0:10:13.280 --> 0:10:16.440
<v Speaker 1>to be true if it's based on a premise that

0:10:16.559 --> 0:10:19.680
<v Speaker 1>you also don't know to be true. That's not how

0:10:19.720 --> 0:10:22.640
<v Speaker 1>good science works. This is also why I reject the

0:10:22.720 --> 0:10:27.000
<v Speaker 1>arguments around stuff like ghost hunting equipment. The use of

0:10:27.000 --> 0:10:31.079
<v Speaker 1>that equipment is predicated on the argument the ghosts exist

0:10:31.440 --> 0:10:34.560
<v Speaker 1>and they have certain influences on their environment. But we

0:10:34.600 --> 0:10:37.800
<v Speaker 1>haven't proven that ghosts exist in the first place, let

0:10:37.800 --> 0:10:40.840
<v Speaker 1>alone that they can affect the environment. So selling a

0:10:40.920 --> 0:10:45.640
<v Speaker 1>meter that supposedly detects a ghostly presence from electromagnetic fluctuations

0:10:45.840 --> 0:10:48.920
<v Speaker 1>makes no logical sense. For us to know that to

0:10:49.000 --> 0:10:52.160
<v Speaker 1>be true, we would already have to have established that

0:10:52.240 --> 0:10:55.920
<v Speaker 1>one ghosts are real and two that they have these

0:10:55.960 --> 0:11:00.560
<v Speaker 1>electromagnetic fluctuation effects, and we haven't done that. It's like

0:11:00.720 --> 0:11:04.000
<v Speaker 1>working science in reverse. That's not how it works. Anyway.

0:11:04.040 --> 0:11:07.000
<v Speaker 1>There are a lot of arguments about consciousness that suggests

0:11:07.080 --> 0:11:11.520
<v Speaker 1>perhaps there's some ineffable force that informs it. You can

0:11:11.559 --> 0:11:14.680
<v Speaker 1>call it the spirit or the soul or whatever. So

0:11:14.760 --> 0:11:17.960
<v Speaker 1>that argument suggests that this thing we've never proven to

0:11:18.080 --> 0:11:22.960
<v Speaker 1>have existed is what gives consciousness its own and that's

0:11:22.960 --> 0:11:26.080
<v Speaker 1>a problem. We can't really state that. I mean, you

0:11:26.120 --> 0:11:28.880
<v Speaker 1>can't say the reason this thing exists is that this

0:11:29.080 --> 0:11:32.960
<v Speaker 1>other thing that we've never proven to exist makes it exist. Well,

0:11:33.679 --> 0:11:36.040
<v Speaker 1>that you've just made it harder to even prove anything,

0:11:37.160 --> 0:11:40.200
<v Speaker 1>and we have evidence that also shows that that whole

0:11:40.240 --> 0:11:44.000
<v Speaker 1>idea doesn't hold water. The evidence comes in the form

0:11:44.120 --> 0:11:47.760
<v Speaker 1>of brain disorders, brain diseases, and brain damage. We have

0:11:47.840 --> 0:11:51.920
<v Speaker 1>seen that disease and damage to the brain affects consciousness,

0:11:52.120 --> 0:11:57.360
<v Speaker 1>which suggests that consciousness manifests from the actual form and

0:11:57.480 --> 0:12:02.040
<v Speaker 1>function of our brains, not from any mysterious force. Our

0:12:02.080 --> 0:12:06.080
<v Speaker 1>ability to perceive, to process information, to have an understanding

0:12:06.160 --> 0:12:09.360
<v Speaker 1>of the self, to have an accurate reflection of what's

0:12:09.360 --> 0:12:13.640
<v Speaker 1>going on around us within our own conceptual reality, all

0:12:13.679 --> 0:12:18.000
<v Speaker 1>of that appears to be predicated primarily upon the brain. Now,

0:12:18.040 --> 0:12:20.600
<v Speaker 1>originally I was planning to give a rundown on some

0:12:20.640 --> 0:12:24.320
<v Speaker 1>of the prevailing theories about consciousness. In other words, I

0:12:24.320 --> 0:12:27.360
<v Speaker 1>want to summarize the various schools of thought about how

0:12:27.400 --> 0:12:33.040
<v Speaker 1>consciousness actually arises. But as I dove down into the research,

0:12:33.480 --> 0:12:37.000
<v Speaker 1>it became apparent really quickly that such a discussion would

0:12:37.040 --> 0:12:41.679
<v Speaker 1>require so much groundwork and more importantly, a much deeper

0:12:41.800 --> 0:12:46.040
<v Speaker 1>understanding on my part than would be practical for this podcast.

0:12:46.360 --> 0:12:49.360
<v Speaker 1>So instead of talking about the higher order theory of

0:12:49.360 --> 0:12:54.920
<v Speaker 1>consciousness versus the general workspace theory versus integrated information theory.

0:12:54.960 --> 0:12:58.240
<v Speaker 1>I'll take a step back, and I'll say there's a

0:12:58.240 --> 0:13:01.360
<v Speaker 1>lot of ongoing debate about the subject, and no one

0:13:01.600 --> 0:13:05.920
<v Speaker 1>has conclusively proven that any particular theory or argument is

0:13:06.000 --> 0:13:10.080
<v Speaker 1>most likely true. Each theory has its strengths and its weaknesses.

0:13:10.400 --> 0:13:13.880
<v Speaker 1>And complicating matters further is that we haven't refined our

0:13:14.000 --> 0:13:19.600
<v Speaker 1>language around the concepts enough to differentiate various ideas. That

0:13:19.679 --> 0:13:23.400
<v Speaker 1>means you can't talk about an organism being conscious of

0:13:23.440 --> 0:13:28.160
<v Speaker 1>something and that degree of consciousness is somehow inherently specific,

0:13:28.200 --> 0:13:31.640
<v Speaker 1>it's not. That's the issue. So, for example, I could

0:13:31.679 --> 0:13:35.200
<v Speaker 1>say a rat is conscious of a rat terrier, type

0:13:35.200 --> 0:13:38.320
<v Speaker 1>of dog that hunts down rats, and so as a

0:13:38.360 --> 0:13:41.600
<v Speaker 1>result of this consciousness of the rat terrier, the rat

0:13:41.640 --> 0:13:44.240
<v Speaker 1>attempts to remain hidden so as not to be killed.

0:13:44.559 --> 0:13:47.600
<v Speaker 1>But does that mean the rat merely perceives the rat

0:13:47.720 --> 0:13:49.959
<v Speaker 1>terrier and thus is trying to stay out of its way,

0:13:50.160 --> 0:13:53.840
<v Speaker 1>And that's as far as the consciousness goes, or doesn't

0:13:53.840 --> 0:13:56.760
<v Speaker 1>mean that the rat actually has a deeper, more meaningful

0:13:56.880 --> 0:14:01.040
<v Speaker 1>awareness of the rat terrier. The language isn't much help here,

0:14:01.400 --> 0:14:05.640
<v Speaker 1>and moreover, there's debate about what degrees of consciousness there

0:14:05.679 --> 0:14:10.360
<v Speaker 1>even are. Also While I've been harping on consciousness, that's

0:14:10.400 --> 0:14:14.000
<v Speaker 1>not the only concept we have to consider. Another is intelligence,

0:14:14.320 --> 0:14:18.640
<v Speaker 1>which is distinct from consciousness, and there are some similarities.

0:14:19.080 --> 0:14:24.000
<v Speaker 1>Like consciousness, intelligence is predicated upon brain functions. Again, a

0:14:24.120 --> 0:14:28.240
<v Speaker 1>long history of investigating brain disorders and brain damage indicates this,

0:14:28.640 --> 0:14:31.880
<v Speaker 1>as it can affect not just consciousness but also intelligence.

0:14:32.400 --> 0:14:36.280
<v Speaker 1>So what is intelligence? Well, get ready for this, But

0:14:36.480 --> 0:14:41.480
<v Speaker 1>like consciousness, there's no single agreed upon definition or theory

0:14:41.680 --> 0:14:44.960
<v Speaker 1>of intelligence. In general, we use the word intelligence to

0:14:45.040 --> 0:14:49.240
<v Speaker 1>describe the ability to think, to learn, to absorb knowledge,

0:14:49.280 --> 0:14:53.040
<v Speaker 1>and to make use of it to develop skills. Intelligence

0:14:53.120 --> 0:14:56.200
<v Speaker 1>is what allowed humans to learn how to make basic tools,

0:14:56.240 --> 0:14:58.640
<v Speaker 1>to gain an understanding of how to cultivate plants and

0:14:58.680 --> 0:15:03.320
<v Speaker 1>develop agriculture, to develop architecture, to understand mathematic principles, and

0:15:03.440 --> 0:15:07.200
<v Speaker 1>all sorts of stuff. So in humans, we tend to

0:15:07.280 --> 0:15:10.640
<v Speaker 1>lump consciousness and intelligence together. We tend to think in

0:15:10.760 --> 0:15:14.480
<v Speaker 1>terms of being intelligent and being self aware, but the

0:15:14.520 --> 0:15:17.800
<v Speaker 1>two need not necessarily go hand in hand. There are

0:15:17.800 --> 0:15:20.320
<v Speaker 1>many people who believe that it could be possible to

0:15:20.360 --> 0:15:25.760
<v Speaker 1>construct an artificial intelligence or an artificial consciousness independently of

0:15:25.800 --> 0:15:28.960
<v Speaker 1>one another. When we come back. I'll explain more, but

0:15:29.040 --> 0:15:40.400
<v Speaker 1>first let's take a quick break. So, in a very

0:15:40.440 --> 0:15:44.520
<v Speaker 1>general sense, the group of hypotheses that fall into the

0:15:44.560 --> 0:15:50.160
<v Speaker 1>integrated information theory umbrella state that consciousness emerges through linking

0:15:50.320 --> 0:15:55.080
<v Speaker 1>elements in our brains. These would be neurons processing large

0:15:55.160 --> 0:15:58.960
<v Speaker 1>amounts of information, and that it's the scale of this

0:15:59.200 --> 0:16:03.400
<v Speaker 1>endeavor that then leads to consciousness. In other words, if

0:16:03.400 --> 0:16:07.320
<v Speaker 1>you have enough processors working on enough information and they're

0:16:07.320 --> 0:16:10.680
<v Speaker 1>all interconnected with each other and it's very complicated, bang,

0:16:11.200 --> 0:16:16.160
<v Speaker 1>you get consciousness. Now, it is clear our brains process

0:16:16.200 --> 0:16:19.240
<v Speaker 1>a lot of information. If you do a search in

0:16:19.320 --> 0:16:24.120
<v Speaker 1>textbooks or online, you'll frequently encounter the stat their brains

0:16:24.160 --> 0:16:27.920
<v Speaker 1>have around one hundred billion neurons in them and ten

0:16:28.080 --> 0:16:32.880
<v Speaker 1>times as many glial cells. Neurons are like the processors

0:16:32.880 --> 0:16:35.320
<v Speaker 1>in a computer system, and glial cells would be the

0:16:35.360 --> 0:16:39.920
<v Speaker 1>support systems and insulators or those processors. Anyway, those numbers

0:16:39.920 --> 0:16:43.680
<v Speaker 1>have since come under some dispute. As an associate professor

0:16:43.720 --> 0:16:49.760
<v Speaker 1>at Vanderbilt University named Susanna Herculano Husel, she explained that

0:16:49.840 --> 0:16:54.520
<v Speaker 1>the old way of estimating how many neurons the brain

0:16:54.600 --> 0:16:57.920
<v Speaker 1>had appeared to be based on taking slices of the brain,

0:16:58.400 --> 0:17:00.880
<v Speaker 1>estimating the number of neurons in that slice, and then

0:17:00.960 --> 0:17:04.200
<v Speaker 1>kind of extrapolating that number to apply across the brain

0:17:04.240 --> 0:17:07.800
<v Speaker 1>in general. But that ignores stuff like the density of

0:17:07.880 --> 0:17:10.440
<v Speaker 1>cells and the distribution of the cells across the brain.

0:17:10.560 --> 0:17:13.919
<v Speaker 1>So what she did, and this also falls into the

0:17:13.920 --> 0:17:18.480
<v Speaker 1>category of Halloween horror stories, she took a brain and

0:17:18.560 --> 0:17:22.160
<v Speaker 1>she freaking dissolved it. She could then get account of

0:17:22.200 --> 0:17:27.960
<v Speaker 1>the neuron nuclei that was in the soupy mix. By

0:17:27.960 --> 0:17:32.000
<v Speaker 1>her accounting, the brain has closer to eighty six billion

0:17:32.240 --> 0:17:36.040
<v Speaker 1>neurons and just as many glial cells. Still a lot

0:17:36.080 --> 0:17:38.280
<v Speaker 1>of cells, mind you, But you gotta admit it's a

0:17:38.320 --> 0:17:42.520
<v Speaker 1>bit of a blow to lose fourteen billion neurons overnight. Still,

0:17:42.640 --> 0:17:46.920
<v Speaker 1>we're talking about billions of neurons that interconnect through an

0:17:46.920 --> 0:17:51.359
<v Speaker 1>incredibly complex system in our brains, with different regions of

0:17:51.400 --> 0:17:54.879
<v Speaker 1>the brain handling different things. And so, yeah, we're processing

0:17:54.920 --> 0:17:57.840
<v Speaker 1>a lot of information all the time, and we do

0:17:58.000 --> 0:18:01.439
<v Speaker 1>happen to be conscious. So could it be possible that

0:18:02.040 --> 0:18:05.080
<v Speaker 1>with a sufficiently powerful computer system, perhaps made up of

0:18:05.480 --> 0:18:10.200
<v Speaker 1>hundreds or thousands or tens of thousands of individual computers,

0:18:10.240 --> 0:18:13.800
<v Speaker 1>each with hundreds of processors that you could end up

0:18:13.880 --> 0:18:17.640
<v Speaker 1>with an emergent consciousness, or, as some people have proposed,

0:18:17.920 --> 0:18:21.639
<v Speaker 1>could the Internet itself become conscious due to the fact

0:18:21.680 --> 0:18:25.480
<v Speaker 1>that it is an enormous system of interconnected nodes that's

0:18:25.520 --> 0:18:31.879
<v Speaker 1>pushing around incredible amounts of information. Well, maybe maybe it's possible.

0:18:32.359 --> 0:18:36.200
<v Speaker 1>But here's the kicker. This theory doesn't actually explain the

0:18:36.240 --> 0:18:41.480
<v Speaker 1>mechanism by which the consciousness emerges. See, it's one thing

0:18:41.560 --> 0:18:45.960
<v Speaker 1>to process information, it's another thing to be aware of

0:18:45.960 --> 0:18:49.359
<v Speaker 1>that experience. So when I perceive a color, I'm not

0:18:49.440 --> 0:18:54.560
<v Speaker 1>just perceiving a color. I'm aware that I'm experiencing that color.

0:18:54.880 --> 0:18:56.960
<v Speaker 1>Or to put it in another way, I can relate

0:18:57.080 --> 0:18:59.760
<v Speaker 1>something to how it makes me feel, or some other

0:19:00.040 --> 0:19:04.560
<v Speaker 1>subjective experience that's personal to me. So a machine might

0:19:04.680 --> 0:19:08.760
<v Speaker 1>objectively be able to return data about stuff like what

0:19:08.960 --> 0:19:11.600
<v Speaker 1>is a color of a piece of paper? It analyzes

0:19:11.640 --> 0:19:13.879
<v Speaker 1>the light that's being reflected off that piece of paper,

0:19:14.080 --> 0:19:16.720
<v Speaker 1>it compares that light to a spectrum of colors. But

0:19:16.800 --> 0:19:19.160
<v Speaker 1>that's still not the same thing as having the subjective

0:19:19.240 --> 0:19:23.120
<v Speaker 1>experience of perceiving the color. And there may well be

0:19:23.200 --> 0:19:26.840
<v Speaker 1>some connection between the complexity of the interconnected neurons in

0:19:26.840 --> 0:19:29.840
<v Speaker 1>our brains and the amount of information that we're processing

0:19:30.359 --> 0:19:34.720
<v Speaker 1>and our sense of consciousness. But the theory doesn't actually

0:19:34.720 --> 0:19:39.040
<v Speaker 1>explain what that connection is. It's more like saying, hey,

0:19:39.280 --> 0:19:43.720
<v Speaker 1>maybe this thing we have, this consciousness experience, is also

0:19:43.840 --> 0:19:47.800
<v Speaker 1>linked to this other thing, without actually making the link

0:19:47.880 --> 0:19:51.240
<v Speaker 1>between the two. It appears to be correlative but not

0:19:51.400 --> 0:19:56.160
<v Speaker 1>necessarily causal to relate that to our personal experience. Imagine

0:19:56.200 --> 0:19:59.960
<v Speaker 1>that you've just poofed into existence. You have no prior

0:20:00.119 --> 0:20:03.560
<v Speaker 1>knowledge of the world, or the physics in that world,

0:20:03.680 --> 0:20:07.160
<v Speaker 1>or basic stuff like that, so you're drawing conclusions about

0:20:07.200 --> 0:20:11.240
<v Speaker 1>the world around you based solely on your observations as

0:20:11.240 --> 0:20:14.119
<v Speaker 1>you wander around and do stuff. And at one point

0:20:14.600 --> 0:20:18.040
<v Speaker 1>you see an interesting looking rock on the path, so

0:20:18.119 --> 0:20:20.119
<v Speaker 1>you bend over and you pick up the rock, and

0:20:20.160 --> 0:20:23.360
<v Speaker 1>when you do, it starts to rain, and you think, well,

0:20:23.400 --> 0:20:26.120
<v Speaker 1>maybe I caused it to rain because I picked up

0:20:26.119 --> 0:20:29.120
<v Speaker 1>this rock. And maybe it happens a few times where

0:20:29.160 --> 0:20:31.160
<v Speaker 1>you pick up a rock and it starts to rain,

0:20:31.440 --> 0:20:34.480
<v Speaker 1>which seems to support your thesis. But does that mean

0:20:34.560 --> 0:20:38.880
<v Speaker 1>you're actually causing the effects that you are observing. If so,

0:20:39.320 --> 0:20:43.080
<v Speaker 1>what is it about picking up the rock that's making

0:20:43.080 --> 0:20:46.879
<v Speaker 1>it rain. Now, even in this absurd case that I'm making,

0:20:47.320 --> 0:20:50.199
<v Speaker 1>you could argue that if there's never an instance in

0:20:50.240 --> 0:20:53.280
<v Speaker 1>which picking up the rock wasn't immediately followed by rain,

0:20:53.760 --> 0:20:56.360
<v Speaker 1>there's a lot of evidence to suggest the two are linked,

0:20:56.680 --> 0:20:59.960
<v Speaker 1>but you still can't explain why they are linked. Wine

0:21:00.119 --> 0:21:03.479
<v Speaker 1>is one caused the other? And that's a problem because

0:21:03.760 --> 0:21:07.680
<v Speaker 1>without that piece, you're never really totally sure that you're

0:21:07.720 --> 0:21:10.800
<v Speaker 1>on the right track. That's kind of where we are

0:21:10.920 --> 0:21:14.000
<v Speaker 1>with consciousness. We've got a lot of ideas about what

0:21:14.080 --> 0:21:17.320
<v Speaker 1>makes it happen, but those ideas are mostly missing key

0:21:17.400 --> 0:21:22.399
<v Speaker 1>pieces that explain why it's happening. Now, it's possible that

0:21:22.480 --> 0:21:26.159
<v Speaker 1>we cannot reduce consciousness any further than we already have,

0:21:26.720 --> 0:21:29.400
<v Speaker 1>and maybe that means we never really get a handle

0:21:29.480 --> 0:21:32.200
<v Speaker 1>on what makes it happen. It's also possible that we

0:21:32.240 --> 0:21:36.480
<v Speaker 1>could facilitate the emergence of consciousness and machines without knowing

0:21:36.920 --> 0:21:40.680
<v Speaker 1>how we did it. Essentially, that would be like stumbling

0:21:40.760 --> 0:21:44.280
<v Speaker 1>upon the phenomenon by luck. We just happened to create

0:21:44.320 --> 0:21:47.960
<v Speaker 1>the conditions necessary to allow some form of artificial consciousness

0:21:47.960 --> 0:21:51.280
<v Speaker 1>to emerge. Now, I think this might be possible, but

0:21:51.359 --> 0:21:54.399
<v Speaker 1>it strikes me as a long shot. I think of

0:21:54.440 --> 0:21:57.399
<v Speaker 1>it like being locked in a dark warehouse filled with

0:21:57.560 --> 0:22:01.200
<v Speaker 1>every mechanical part you can imagine, and you start trying

0:22:01.200 --> 0:22:04.040
<v Speaker 1>to put things together in complete darkness, and then the

0:22:04.119 --> 0:22:06.360
<v Speaker 1>lights come on and you see that you have created

0:22:06.359 --> 0:22:10.240
<v Speaker 1>a perfect replica of an F fifteen fighter jet. Is

0:22:10.280 --> 0:22:14.760
<v Speaker 1>that possible? Well, I mean, yeah, I guess, but it

0:22:14.800 --> 0:22:19.679
<v Speaker 1>seems overwhelmingly unlikely. But again, this is based off ignorance.

0:22:19.920 --> 0:22:22.160
<v Speaker 1>It's based off the fact that it hasn't happened yet,

0:22:22.600 --> 0:22:26.679
<v Speaker 1>so I could be totally wrong here. Now, on the

0:22:26.680 --> 0:22:31.200
<v Speaker 1>flip side of that, programmers, engineers, and scientists have created

0:22:31.240 --> 0:22:35.040
<v Speaker 1>computer systems that can process information and intricate ways to

0:22:35.080 --> 0:22:37.960
<v Speaker 1>come up with solutions to problems that seem, at least

0:22:37.960 --> 0:22:41.399
<v Speaker 1>at first glance, to be similar to how we humans think.

0:22:41.840 --> 0:22:45.320
<v Speaker 1>We even have names for systems that reflect biological systems,

0:22:45.320 --> 0:22:49.119
<v Speaker 1>like artificial neural networks. Now the name might make it

0:22:49.160 --> 0:22:53.880
<v Speaker 1>sound like it's a robot brain, but it's not quite that. Instead,

0:22:54.200 --> 0:22:56.720
<v Speaker 1>it's a model for computing in which components in the

0:22:56.760 --> 0:23:01.200
<v Speaker 1>system act kind of like neurons. They're interconnected and each

0:23:01.240 --> 0:23:05.199
<v Speaker 1>one does a specific process. The nodes in the computer

0:23:05.280 --> 0:23:09.040
<v Speaker 1>system connect to other nodes. So you feed the system

0:23:09.080 --> 0:23:12.240
<v Speaker 1>input whatever it is you want to process, and then

0:23:12.520 --> 0:23:16.199
<v Speaker 1>the nodes that accept that input performs some form of

0:23:16.240 --> 0:23:21.200
<v Speaker 1>operation on it and then send that resulting data the

0:23:21.200 --> 0:23:26.000
<v Speaker 1>the answer after they've processed this information onto other nodes

0:23:26.200 --> 0:23:29.719
<v Speaker 1>in the network. It's a nonlinear approach to computing, and

0:23:29.760 --> 0:23:33.480
<v Speaker 1>by adjusting the processes each node performs, this is also

0:23:33.560 --> 0:23:37.080
<v Speaker 1>like known as adjusting the weight of the nodes, you

0:23:37.119 --> 0:23:40.600
<v Speaker 1>can tweak the outcomes. Now, this is incredibly useful. If

0:23:40.640 --> 0:23:44.280
<v Speaker 1>you already know the outcome you want, you can tweak

0:23:44.320 --> 0:23:47.359
<v Speaker 1>the system so that it learns or is trained to

0:23:47.480 --> 0:23:52.200
<v Speaker 1>recognize something specific. For example, you could train a computer

0:23:52.280 --> 0:23:55.720
<v Speaker 1>system to recognize faces, so you would feed it images.

0:23:55.920 --> 0:23:58.240
<v Speaker 1>Some of the images would have faces in them, some

0:23:58.320 --> 0:24:01.399
<v Speaker 1>would not have faces in them. I might have something

0:24:01.440 --> 0:24:03.280
<v Speaker 1>that could be a face, but it's hard to tell.

0:24:03.359 --> 0:24:06.679
<v Speaker 1>Maybe it's a shape in a picture that looks kind

0:24:06.720 --> 0:24:09.840
<v Speaker 1>of like a face, but it's not actually someone's face. Anyway,

0:24:09.880 --> 0:24:12.800
<v Speaker 1>you train the computer model to try and separate the

0:24:12.840 --> 0:24:16.480
<v Speaker 1>faces from the non faces, and it might take many

0:24:16.560 --> 0:24:20.040
<v Speaker 1>iterations to get the model trained up using your starting data.

0:24:20.080 --> 0:24:23.399
<v Speaker 1>Your training data. Now, once you do have your computer

0:24:23.440 --> 0:24:25.720
<v Speaker 1>model trained up. You've tweaked all the nodes so that

0:24:26.240 --> 0:24:30.080
<v Speaker 1>it is reliably producing results that say, yes, this is

0:24:30.119 --> 0:24:33.159
<v Speaker 1>a face or no, this isn't. You can now feed

0:24:33.480 --> 0:24:36.880
<v Speaker 1>that same computer model brand new images that it has

0:24:37.000 --> 0:24:40.359
<v Speaker 1>never seen before, and it can perform the same functions.

0:24:40.680 --> 0:24:44.400
<v Speaker 1>You have taught the computer model how to do something.

0:24:44.760 --> 0:24:48.760
<v Speaker 1>But this isn't like spontaneous intelligence, and it's not connected

0:24:48.800 --> 0:24:52.760
<v Speaker 1>to consciousness. You couldn't really call it thinking so much

0:24:52.760 --> 0:24:57.760
<v Speaker 1>as just being trained to recognize specific patterns. Pretty well. Now,

0:24:57.800 --> 0:25:00.639
<v Speaker 1>that's just one example of putting an art official neural

0:25:00.680 --> 0:25:03.919
<v Speaker 1>network to use. There are lots of others, and there

0:25:03.920 --> 0:25:07.960
<v Speaker 1>are also systems like IBM S Watson, which also appears

0:25:08.119 --> 0:25:11.879
<v Speaker 1>at you know, casual glance to think. This was helped

0:25:11.880 --> 0:25:14.840
<v Speaker 1>in no small part by the very public display of

0:25:14.880 --> 0:25:18.960
<v Speaker 1>Watson competing on special episodes of Jeopardy, and which went

0:25:19.040 --> 0:25:22.800
<v Speaker 1>up against human opponents who were former Jeopardy champions themselves.

0:25:23.080 --> 0:25:27.840
<v Speaker 1>Watson famously couldn't call upon the Internet to search for answers.

0:25:28.200 --> 0:25:31.560
<v Speaker 1>All the data the computer could access was self contained

0:25:31.640 --> 0:25:36.240
<v Speaker 1>in its undeniably voluminous storage, and the computer had to

0:25:36.280 --> 0:25:39.720
<v Speaker 1>parse what the clues in jeopardy were actually looking for

0:25:40.080 --> 0:25:42.600
<v Speaker 1>then come up with an appropriate response. And to make

0:25:42.680 --> 0:25:47.000
<v Speaker 1>matters more tricky, the computer wasn't returning a guaranteed right answer.

0:25:47.359 --> 0:25:49.920
<v Speaker 1>The computer had to come to a judgment on how

0:25:50.000 --> 0:25:52.920
<v Speaker 1>confident it was that the answer it had arrived at

0:25:53.240 --> 0:25:56.920
<v Speaker 1>was the correct one. If the confidence met a certain threshold,

0:25:57.440 --> 0:26:01.000
<v Speaker 1>then Watson would submit an answer. If it did not

0:26:01.200 --> 0:26:05.480
<v Speaker 1>meet that threshold, Watson would remain silent. It's a remarkable achievement,

0:26:05.800 --> 0:26:08.240
<v Speaker 1>and it has lots of potential applications, many of which

0:26:08.240 --> 0:26:12.199
<v Speaker 1>are actually in action today. But it's still not quite

0:26:12.320 --> 0:26:15.280
<v Speaker 1>at the level of a machine thinking like a human,

0:26:15.359 --> 0:26:17.600
<v Speaker 1>and I don't think anyone at IBM would suggest that

0:26:17.680 --> 0:26:21.680
<v Speaker 1>it possesses any sense of consciousness. When we come back,

0:26:21.880 --> 0:26:25.639
<v Speaker 1>i'll talk about a famous thought experiment that really starts

0:26:25.680 --> 0:26:29.560
<v Speaker 1>to examine whether or not machines could ever attain intelligence

0:26:29.600 --> 0:26:40.080
<v Speaker 1>and consciousness. But first let's take another quick break. And

0:26:40.320 --> 0:26:45.080
<v Speaker 1>now this brings me to a famous thought experiment proposed

0:26:45.200 --> 0:26:49.000
<v Speaker 1>by John Searle, a philosopher who questioned whether we could

0:26:49.040 --> 0:26:52.600
<v Speaker 1>say a machine, even one so proficient that could deliver

0:26:52.720 --> 0:26:57.840
<v Speaker 1>reliable answers on demand, would ever truly be intelligent at

0:26:57.880 --> 0:27:01.160
<v Speaker 1>least on a level similar to what we human identify

0:27:01.200 --> 0:27:06.120
<v Speaker 1>as being intelligent. It's called the Chinese room argument, which

0:27:06.200 --> 0:27:11.600
<v Speaker 1>Searle included in his article titled Minds, Brains, and Programs

0:27:11.640 --> 0:27:15.800
<v Speaker 1>for the Behavioral and Brain Sciences Journal. Here's the premise

0:27:16.240 --> 0:27:19.720
<v Speaker 1>of the thought experiment. Imagine that you are in a

0:27:19.800 --> 0:27:23.280
<v Speaker 1>simple room. The room has a table and a chair.

0:27:23.760 --> 0:27:27.720
<v Speaker 1>There's a ream of blank paper, there's a brush, there's

0:27:27.760 --> 0:27:31.320
<v Speaker 1>some ink, and there's also a large book within the

0:27:31.400 --> 0:27:35.040
<v Speaker 1>room that contains pairs of Chinese symbols. In the book.

0:27:35.480 --> 0:27:38.040
<v Speaker 1>Oh and we also have to imagine that you don't

0:27:38.119 --> 0:27:42.560
<v Speaker 1>understand or recognize these Chinese symbols. They mean nothing to you.

0:27:43.160 --> 0:27:45.600
<v Speaker 1>There's also a door to the room, and the door

0:27:45.720 --> 0:27:48.800
<v Speaker 1>has a mail slot, and every now and again someone

0:27:48.880 --> 0:27:51.720
<v Speaker 1>slides a piece of paper through the slot. The piece

0:27:51.720 --> 0:27:55.320
<v Speaker 1>of paper has one of those Chinese symbols printed on it.

0:27:55.840 --> 0:27:58.359
<v Speaker 1>And it's your job to go through the book and

0:27:58.440 --> 0:28:02.200
<v Speaker 1>find the matching symbol in the book, plus the corresponding

0:28:02.320 --> 0:28:05.199
<v Speaker 1>symbol in the pair, because remember I said there were

0:28:05.200 --> 0:28:08.640
<v Speaker 1>symbols that were paired together. You then take a blank

0:28:08.720 --> 0:28:13.520
<v Speaker 1>sheet of paper, you draw the corresponding symbol from that

0:28:13.680 --> 0:28:17.119
<v Speaker 1>pair onto the sheet of paper, and finally you slip

0:28:17.200 --> 0:28:20.320
<v Speaker 1>that piece of paper through the mail slot, presumably to

0:28:20.359 --> 0:28:23.040
<v Speaker 1>the person who gave you the first piece of paper

0:28:23.480 --> 0:28:26.320
<v Speaker 1>and the original part of this problem. So to an

0:28:26.320 --> 0:28:29.880
<v Speaker 1>outside observer, let's say it's actually the person who's slipping

0:28:29.960 --> 0:28:33.000
<v Speaker 1>the piece of paper to you, it would seem that

0:28:33.080 --> 0:28:38.720
<v Speaker 1>whomever is inside the door actually understands Chinese symbols. They

0:28:38.720 --> 0:28:44.400
<v Speaker 1>can recognize the significance of whatever symbol was was contributed,

0:28:44.560 --> 0:28:47.400
<v Speaker 1>was sent in through the mail slot, and then match

0:28:47.440 --> 0:28:51.280
<v Speaker 1>it to whatever the corresponding data is for that particular symbol,

0:28:51.520 --> 0:28:54.000
<v Speaker 1>and then return that to the user. So to the

0:28:54.040 --> 0:28:57.320
<v Speaker 1>outside observer, it appears as though whatever is inside the

0:28:57.400 --> 0:29:02.560
<v Speaker 1>room comprehends what it is doing. But argues Searle, that's

0:29:02.560 --> 0:29:07.200
<v Speaker 1>only an illusion because the person inside the room doesn't

0:29:07.240 --> 0:29:10.480
<v Speaker 1>know what any of those symbols actually means. So, if

0:29:10.520 --> 0:29:13.600
<v Speaker 1>if this is you, you have no context. You don't

0:29:13.680 --> 0:29:17.720
<v Speaker 1>know what any individual symbol stands for, nor do you

0:29:17.800 --> 0:29:22.040
<v Speaker 1>understand why any symbol would be prepared with any other symbol.

0:29:22.280 --> 0:29:24.880
<v Speaker 1>You don't know the reasoning behind that. All you have

0:29:25.440 --> 0:29:27.880
<v Speaker 1>is a book of rules, but the rules only state

0:29:28.160 --> 0:29:32.440
<v Speaker 1>what your response should be given a specific input, the

0:29:32.520 --> 0:29:35.600
<v Speaker 1>rules don't tell you why, either on a granular level

0:29:35.640 --> 0:29:38.719
<v Speaker 1>of what the symbols actually mean or on a larger

0:29:38.760 --> 0:29:42.000
<v Speaker 1>scale when it comes to what you're actually accomplishing in

0:29:42.040 --> 0:29:45.320
<v Speaker 1>this endeavor. All you are doing is filling a physical

0:29:45.400 --> 0:29:48.680
<v Speaker 1>action over and over based on a set of rules

0:29:48.920 --> 0:29:52.320
<v Speaker 1>you don't understand. And Searle then uses this argument to

0:29:52.320 --> 0:29:54.800
<v Speaker 1>say that essentially we have to think the same way

0:29:54.840 --> 0:29:59.440
<v Speaker 1>about machines. The machines process information based on the input

0:29:59.520 --> 0:30:02.560
<v Speaker 1>they receive eve and the program that they are following.

0:30:03.000 --> 0:30:07.280
<v Speaker 1>That's it. They don't have awareness or understanding of what

0:30:07.320 --> 0:30:10.920
<v Speaker 1>the information is. Searle was taking aim at a particular

0:30:11.040 --> 0:30:15.880
<v Speaker 1>concept in AI, often dubbed strong AI or general AI.

0:30:16.000 --> 0:30:20.440
<v Speaker 1>It's a sort of general artificial intelligence. So it's something

0:30:20.440 --> 0:30:24.360
<v Speaker 1>that we could or would compared directly to human intelligence,

0:30:24.560 --> 0:30:27.120
<v Speaker 1>even if it didn't work the same way as our

0:30:27.120 --> 0:30:30.360
<v Speaker 1>intelligence works. The argument is that the capacity and the

0:30:30.400 --> 0:30:33.120
<v Speaker 1>outcomes would be similar enough for us to make the comparison.

0:30:33.880 --> 0:30:36.360
<v Speaker 1>This is the type of intelligence that we see in

0:30:36.480 --> 0:30:41.800
<v Speaker 1>science fiction doomsday scenarios where the machines have rebelled against humans,

0:30:42.000 --> 0:30:46.240
<v Speaker 1>or the machines appear to misinterpret simple requests or the

0:30:46.280 --> 0:30:50.680
<v Speaker 1>machines come to conclusions that, while logically sound, spelled doom

0:30:51.000 --> 0:30:54.800
<v Speaker 1>for us all. The classic example of this, by the way,

0:30:54.840 --> 0:30:58.560
<v Speaker 1>is appealing to a super smart artificial intelligence and you say,

0:30:58.680 --> 0:31:01.640
<v Speaker 1>could you please bring about world peace because we're we're

0:31:01.680 --> 0:31:05.360
<v Speaker 1>all sorts of messed up, and the intelligence processes this

0:31:05.440 --> 0:31:09.760
<v Speaker 1>and then concludes that while there are at least two humans,

0:31:09.800 --> 0:31:12.240
<v Speaker 1>there can never be a guarantee for peace because there's

0:31:12.240 --> 0:31:17.440
<v Speaker 1>always the opportunity for disagreement and violence between two humans,

0:31:17.480 --> 0:31:21.000
<v Speaker 1>and so to achieve true peace, the computer then goes

0:31:21.080 --> 0:31:24.560
<v Speaker 1>on a killing spree to wipe out all of humanity. Now,

0:31:24.600 --> 0:31:29.320
<v Speaker 1>Cerl is not necessarily saying that computers won't contribute to

0:31:29.400 --> 0:31:33.120
<v Speaker 1>a catastrophic outcome for humanity. Instead, he's saying they're not

0:31:33.160 --> 0:31:37.680
<v Speaker 1>actually thinking or processing information in a truly intelligent way.

0:31:37.720 --> 0:31:41.280
<v Speaker 1>They are arriving in outcomes through a series of processes

0:31:41.560 --> 0:31:44.880
<v Speaker 1>that might appear to be intelligent at first glance, but

0:31:44.920 --> 0:31:47.880
<v Speaker 1>when you break them down, it all reveals themselves to

0:31:47.960 --> 0:31:51.840
<v Speaker 1>be nothing more than a very complex series of mathematical processes.

0:31:52.040 --> 0:31:55.040
<v Speaker 1>You can even break it down further into binary and

0:31:55.120 --> 0:31:58.640
<v Speaker 1>say that ultimately each apparent decision would just be a

0:31:58.680 --> 0:32:02.400
<v Speaker 1>particular sequence of switches that are in the on or

0:32:02.520 --> 0:32:06.160
<v Speaker 1>off position, and the stays of each switch would be

0:32:06.240 --> 0:32:09.120
<v Speaker 1>determined by the input and the program you were running,

0:32:09.360 --> 0:32:15.040
<v Speaker 1>not some intelligent artificial creation that is reasoning through a problem. Essentially,

0:32:15.360 --> 0:32:21.720
<v Speaker 1>Searle's argument boils down to the difference between syntax and semantics.

0:32:22.480 --> 0:32:25.600
<v Speaker 1>Syntax would be the set of rules that you would

0:32:25.640 --> 0:32:29.800
<v Speaker 1>follow with those symbols. For example, in English, the letter

0:32:29.920 --> 0:32:34.000
<v Speaker 1>Q is nearly always followed by the letter you. The

0:32:34.360 --> 0:32:38.680
<v Speaker 1>few exceptions to this rule mostly involved romanizing words from

0:32:38.720 --> 0:32:42.960
<v Speaker 1>other language, uh, in which the letter Q represents a

0:32:43.040 --> 0:32:47.280
<v Speaker 1>sound that's not natively present in English. So you could

0:32:47.360 --> 0:32:50.400
<v Speaker 1>program a machine to follow the basic rule that the

0:32:50.520 --> 0:32:54.160
<v Speaker 1>symbol Q should be followed by the symbol you, assuming

0:32:54.200 --> 0:32:57.440
<v Speaker 1>you're eliminating all those exceptions I just mentioned. But that

0:32:57.520 --> 0:33:02.600
<v Speaker 1>doesn't lead to a grasp of semantics, which is actual meaning. Moreover,

0:33:02.920 --> 0:33:05.959
<v Speaker 1>Searle asserts that it's impossible to come to a grasp

0:33:06.040 --> 0:33:10.200
<v Speaker 1>of semantics merely through a mastery of syntax. You might

0:33:10.320 --> 0:33:14.720
<v Speaker 1>know those rules flawlessly, but Searle argues, you still wouldn't

0:33:14.800 --> 0:33:18.160
<v Speaker 1>understand why there are rules, or what the output of

0:33:18.160 --> 0:33:22.320
<v Speaker 1>those rules means, or even what the input means. There

0:33:22.360 --> 0:33:25.600
<v Speaker 1>are some general counter arguments that philosophers have made to

0:33:25.720 --> 0:33:30.760
<v Speaker 1>Searle's thought experiment, and according to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy,

0:33:30.800 --> 0:33:36.280
<v Speaker 1>which is a phenomenal resource, it's also incredibly dense. But

0:33:36.600 --> 0:33:40.440
<v Speaker 1>these counter arguments tend to fall into three groups. The

0:33:40.520 --> 0:33:43.760
<v Speaker 1>first group agrees with Searle that the person inside the

0:33:43.800 --> 0:33:47.760
<v Speaker 1>room clearly has no understanding of the Chinese symbols. But

0:33:47.840 --> 0:33:51.440
<v Speaker 1>the group counters the notion that the system as a

0:33:51.440 --> 0:33:54.120
<v Speaker 1>whole can't understand it. In fact, they say the opposite.

0:33:54.120 --> 0:33:56.880
<v Speaker 1>They say, yes, the person inside the room doesn't understand,

0:33:57.000 --> 0:34:01.040
<v Speaker 1>but you're looking at a speci of a component of

0:34:01.080 --> 0:34:04.560
<v Speaker 1>a larger system. And if we consider the system, or

0:34:04.640 --> 0:34:09.520
<v Speaker 1>maybe a virtual mind that exists due to the system,

0:34:09.560 --> 0:34:12.640
<v Speaker 1>that does have an understanding, this is sort of like

0:34:12.680 --> 0:34:16.960
<v Speaker 1>saying a neuron in the brain doesn't understand anything. It

0:34:17.000 --> 0:34:21.080
<v Speaker 1>sends along signals that collectively and through mechanisms we don't

0:34:21.080 --> 0:34:24.839
<v Speaker 1>fully understand, become thoughts that we can become conscious of.

0:34:25.200 --> 0:34:27.719
<v Speaker 1>So in this argument, the person in the room is

0:34:27.800 --> 0:34:30.640
<v Speaker 1>just a component of an overall system, and the system

0:34:30.719 --> 0:34:34.480
<v Speaker 1>possesses intelligence even if the component does not. The second

0:34:34.480 --> 0:34:38.520
<v Speaker 1>group argues that if the computer system either could simulate

0:34:38.560 --> 0:34:42.120
<v Speaker 1>the operation of a brain, perhaps with billions of nodes,

0:34:42.360 --> 0:34:45.680
<v Speaker 1>approaching the complexity of a human brain with billions of neurons,

0:34:46.440 --> 0:34:49.600
<v Speaker 1>or if the system were to inhabit a robotic body

0:34:49.640 --> 0:34:53.239
<v Speaker 1>that could have direct interaction with its environment, then the

0:34:53.280 --> 0:34:58.840
<v Speaker 1>system could manifest intelligence. The third group rejects Cearl's arguments

0:34:58.840 --> 0:35:03.520
<v Speaker 1>more thoroughly and on the basis of various grounds, ranging

0:35:03.520 --> 0:35:06.719
<v Speaker 1>from Searle's experiment being too narrow in scope to an

0:35:06.760 --> 0:35:11.040
<v Speaker 1>argument about what the word understand actually means. This is

0:35:11.080 --> 0:35:14.000
<v Speaker 1>where things get a bit more lucy goosey, And sometimes

0:35:14.040 --> 0:35:17.920
<v Speaker 1>I feel like arguments in this group amount to oh yeah,

0:35:18.040 --> 0:35:20.680
<v Speaker 1>but again, I'm pragmatic, so I tend to have a

0:35:20.800 --> 0:35:24.600
<v Speaker 1>pretty strong bias against these arguments, and I recognize that

0:35:24.719 --> 0:35:28.080
<v Speaker 1>this means I'm not giving them fair consideration because of

0:35:28.120 --> 0:35:31.319
<v Speaker 1>those biases. A few of these arguments take issue with

0:35:31.320 --> 0:35:35.680
<v Speaker 1>Searle's assertion that one cannot grasp semantics through an understanding

0:35:35.719 --> 0:35:39.600
<v Speaker 1>of syntax. And here's something that I find really interesting.

0:35:39.920 --> 0:35:44.839
<v Speaker 1>Searle originally published this argument way back in nineteen It's

0:35:44.880 --> 0:35:48.719
<v Speaker 1>been nearly forty years since he first proposed it, and

0:35:48.800 --> 0:35:52.440
<v Speaker 1>to this day there is no consensus on whether or

0:35:52.480 --> 0:35:55.920
<v Speaker 1>not his argument is sound. So why is that? Well,

0:35:55.920 --> 0:35:58.880
<v Speaker 1>it's because, as I've covered in this episode, the concepts

0:35:58.920 --> 0:36:03.600
<v Speaker 1>of intelligence and more to the point, consciousness are wibbly wobbly,

0:36:03.960 --> 0:36:07.360
<v Speaker 1>though not as far as I can tell, Timey, whymy.

0:36:07.480 --> 0:36:11.240
<v Speaker 1>When we can't even nail down specific definitions for words

0:36:11.280 --> 0:36:15.000
<v Speaker 1>like understand, it becomes difficult to even tell when we're

0:36:15.040 --> 0:36:18.799
<v Speaker 1>agreeing or disagreeing on certain topics. It could be that

0:36:18.840 --> 0:36:22.200
<v Speaker 1>while people are in a debate and are using words

0:36:22.200 --> 0:36:25.279
<v Speaker 1>in different ways, it turns out they're actually in agreement

0:36:25.360 --> 0:36:30.560
<v Speaker 1>with one another. Such is the messiness that is intelligence. Further,

0:36:31.080 --> 0:36:34.280
<v Speaker 1>we've not yet observed anything in the machine world that seems,

0:36:34.400 --> 0:36:39.200
<v Speaker 1>upon closer examination, to reflect true intelligence and consciousness, at

0:36:39.280 --> 0:36:42.560
<v Speaker 1>least as the way we experience it. In fact, we

0:36:42.600 --> 0:36:45.719
<v Speaker 1>can't say that we've seen any artificial constructs that have

0:36:45.840 --> 0:36:49.399
<v Speaker 1>experienced anything, because, as far as we know, no such

0:36:49.440 --> 0:36:53.600
<v Speaker 1>device has any awareness of itself. Now, I'm not sure

0:36:54.040 --> 0:36:57.080
<v Speaker 1>if we'll ever create a machine that will have true

0:36:57.120 --> 0:37:00.960
<v Speaker 1>intelligence and consciousness, using the word true here to mean

0:37:01.200 --> 0:37:04.960
<v Speaker 1>human like. Now, I feel pretty confident that if it

0:37:05.120 --> 0:37:09.000
<v Speaker 1>is possible, we will get around to it eventually. It

0:37:09.080 --> 0:37:12.799
<v Speaker 1>might take way more resources than we currently estimate, or

0:37:12.840 --> 0:37:16.240
<v Speaker 1>maybe it will just require a different computational approach. Maybe

0:37:16.239 --> 0:37:20.960
<v Speaker 1>it'll rely on bleeding edge technologies like quantum computing. I figure,

0:37:21.000 --> 0:37:24.239
<v Speaker 1>if it's something we can do, we will do it.

0:37:24.239 --> 0:37:28.160
<v Speaker 1>It's just a question of time, really, And further, it's

0:37:28.160 --> 0:37:31.120
<v Speaker 1>hard for me to come to a conclusion other than

0:37:31.280 --> 0:37:37.200
<v Speaker 1>it will ultimately prove possible to make an intelligent conscious construct. Now.

0:37:37.239 --> 0:37:41.040
<v Speaker 1>I believe that because I believe our own intelligence and

0:37:41.120 --> 0:37:46.160
<v Speaker 1>our own consciousness is firmly rooted in our brains. I

0:37:46.360 --> 0:37:49.640
<v Speaker 1>don't think there's anything mystical involved. And while we don't

0:37:49.680 --> 0:37:52.320
<v Speaker 1>have a full picture of how it happens in our brains,

0:37:52.760 --> 0:37:55.839
<v Speaker 1>we at least know that it does happen, and we

0:37:55.920 --> 0:37:58.319
<v Speaker 1>know some of the questions to ask and have some

0:37:58.440 --> 0:38:01.400
<v Speaker 1>ideas on how to search for answers. It's not a

0:38:01.400 --> 0:38:04.239
<v Speaker 1>complete picture, and we still have a very long way

0:38:04.280 --> 0:38:06.880
<v Speaker 1>to go, but I think it's if it's possible to

0:38:06.960 --> 0:38:09.640
<v Speaker 1>build a full understanding of how our brains work with

0:38:09.680 --> 0:38:13.640
<v Speaker 1>regard to intelligence and consciousness, we'll get there too, sooner

0:38:13.719 --> 0:38:18.880
<v Speaker 1>or later. Probably later, I suppose there's still the chance

0:38:19.200 --> 0:38:23.720
<v Speaker 1>that we could create an intelligent and or conscious machine

0:38:23.880 --> 0:38:28.400
<v Speaker 1>just by luck or accident. And while I intuitively feel

0:38:28.560 --> 0:38:31.960
<v Speaker 1>that this is unlikely, I have to admit that intuition

0:38:32.320 --> 0:38:36.319
<v Speaker 1>isn't really reliable in these matters. It feels to me

0:38:36.960 --> 0:38:40.200
<v Speaker 1>like it is the longest of long shots, but that's

0:38:40.400 --> 0:38:42.799
<v Speaker 1>entirely based on the fact that we haven't managed to

0:38:42.800 --> 0:38:46.799
<v Speaker 1>do it up until now, and including now. Maybe the

0:38:46.920 --> 0:38:49.880
<v Speaker 1>right sequence of events is right around the corner. Just

0:38:49.960 --> 0:38:53.640
<v Speaker 1>because it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean it can't or

0:38:53.800 --> 0:38:57.520
<v Speaker 1>won't happen at all, And it's good to remember the

0:38:57.600 --> 0:39:02.000
<v Speaker 1>machines don't need to be particular early intelligent or conscious

0:39:02.280 --> 0:39:06.880
<v Speaker 1>to be useful or potentially dangerous. We can see examples

0:39:06.880 --> 0:39:09.400
<v Speaker 1>of that playing out already with devices that have some

0:39:09.520 --> 0:39:13.560
<v Speaker 1>limited or weak AI. And by limited I mean it's

0:39:13.600 --> 0:39:17.440
<v Speaker 1>not general intelligence. I don't mean that the AI itself

0:39:17.520 --> 0:39:21.120
<v Speaker 1>is somehow unsophisticated or primitive. So it may not even

0:39:21.239 --> 0:39:24.759
<v Speaker 1>matter if we never create devices that have true or

0:39:24.840 --> 0:39:28.400
<v Speaker 1>human like intelligence. We might be able to accomplish just

0:39:28.480 --> 0:39:31.840
<v Speaker 1>as much with something that does not have those capabilities.

0:39:32.719 --> 0:39:35.840
<v Speaker 1>And in other words, this is a very complicated topic

0:39:36.560 --> 0:39:39.560
<v Speaker 1>one that I think gets oversimplified, and a lot of

0:39:39.560 --> 0:39:45.120
<v Speaker 1>fiction and also just a lot of speculative prognostications about

0:39:45.120 --> 0:39:47.760
<v Speaker 1>the future. I mean, you'll see a lot of videos

0:39:47.800 --> 0:39:52.040
<v Speaker 1>about how in the future AI is going to perform

0:39:52.280 --> 0:39:55.040
<v Speaker 1>a more intrinsic role, or maybe it will be an

0:39:55.040 --> 0:39:58.759
<v Speaker 1>existential threat to humanity or whatever it may be. And

0:39:58.800 --> 0:40:00.640
<v Speaker 1>I think a lot of that is predict cated upon

0:40:02.200 --> 0:40:08.359
<v Speaker 1>a deep misunderstanding or underestimation of how complicated cognitive neuroscience

0:40:08.400 --> 0:40:11.920
<v Speaker 1>actually is and how little we really understand when it

0:40:11.920 --> 0:40:14.960
<v Speaker 1>comes to our own consciousness, let alone how we would

0:40:14.960 --> 0:40:18.960
<v Speaker 1>bring about such a thing in a different device. What

0:40:19.000 --> 0:40:21.880
<v Speaker 1>do you guys think? And do you think that maybe

0:40:21.960 --> 0:40:26.480
<v Speaker 1>I'm overstating the complexity? Do you think that I'm off base?

0:40:26.560 --> 0:40:28.920
<v Speaker 1>Do you agree with me? And do you have any

0:40:29.000 --> 0:40:31.920
<v Speaker 1>other topics you would like me to cover. I invite

0:40:31.920 --> 0:40:34.000
<v Speaker 1>you to let me know. Send me an email. The

0:40:34.000 --> 0:40:37.439
<v Speaker 1>address is tech stuff at how stuff works dot com,

0:40:37.560 --> 0:40:39.360
<v Speaker 1>or drop me a line on Facebook or Twitter. The

0:40:39.400 --> 0:40:41.719
<v Speaker 1>handle it both of those is tech Stuff h s W.

0:40:41.960 --> 0:40:45.120
<v Speaker 1>Don't forget to go to our website that's tech Stuff

0:40:45.200 --> 0:40:47.520
<v Speaker 1>podcast dot com. That's where we have an archive of

0:40:47.560 --> 0:40:50.319
<v Speaker 1>all of our past episodes, as well as a link

0:40:50.440 --> 0:40:53.200
<v Speaker 1>to our online store, where every purchase you make goes

0:40:53.239 --> 0:40:55.799
<v Speaker 1>to help the show. We greatly appreciate it, and I

0:40:55.840 --> 0:41:03.239
<v Speaker 1>will talk to you again really soon. Text Stuff is

0:41:03.239 --> 0:41:05.759
<v Speaker 1>a production of I heart Radio's How Stuff Works. For

0:41:05.840 --> 0:41:08.799
<v Speaker 1>more podcasts from I heart Radio, visit the i heart

0:41:08.880 --> 0:41:12.040
<v Speaker 1>Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to your

0:41:12.080 --> 0:41:12.800
<v Speaker 1>favorite shows.