Marks: Computers Only Compute and Thinking Needs More Than That

Recently, Bill Meyer interviewed Walter Bradley Center director Robert J. Marks on his Oregon-based speak present about “Why computer systems won’t ever perceive what they’re doing,” in connection together with his new ebook, Non-Computable You: What You Do That Artificial Intelligence Never Will (Discovery Institute Press, 2022). We are rebroadcasting it with permission right here as (Episode 194). Meyer started by saying, “I began studying a ebook over the weekend that I’m going to proceed to eagerly devour as a result of it reduce towards a few of my preconceived notions”:


A partial transcript, notes,  and Additional Resources comply with.
Meyer and Marks started by dialogue the current flap at Google the place software program engineer Blake Lemoine claimed that the AI he was working with was sentient, like a human being. Google has dismissed this declare out of hand and put him on go away. Who’s proper?
Robert J. Marks: Oh, my goodness. There are so some ways to push again on that declare and it’s arduous to decide on which one to go down. We can discover certainly one of them should you’d prefer to, why that software program isn’t sentient, why it doesn’t perceive what it’s doing, for instance.
Computers can add numbers,. like 12 and 13. But they don’t perceive what the quantity 12 and quantity 13 is… I believe with a purpose to be sentient, it is advisable perceive what you’re speaking about. The argument goes again to a thinker named John Searle who didn’t know Chinese.
The Chinese Room experiment:

Robert J. Marks: That’s precisely the identical factor that’s occurring with the Google robotic. The software program has checked out hundreds of thousands and hundreds of thousands of recordsdata, together with, I’d suppose, all of Wikipedia, plus some. They have accomplished correlations, phrase relationships, and issues of that kind. And so within the background, there’s a bunch of quantity crunching and that quantity crunching goes to spit out a solution. That reply goes to seem like it means one thing … That laptop has completely no concept why it responded. It has no understanding of what it did or what it’s saying.
Bill Meyer: Everything is algorithmical as a result of the whole lot is computational throughout the laptop. Is that the quick approach of placing it?
Robert J. Marks: Yes. In truth, we have now recognized that there are issues which might be non-computable approach again for the reason that Nineteen Thirties. In the film The Imitation Game, Alan Turing, the founding father of laptop science, was performed by Benedict Cumberbatch. They’re those that cracked the Enigma code and helped win World War II.
But Alan Turing was additionally a mathematical genius. He was capable of present again within the Nineteen Thirties that there have been issues that are undoubtedly not computable. Now this was not one thing which was conjecture. This was a mathematical truth.
Robert J. Marks: One of his first papers was on numbers which have been non-computable. Then he went on to indicate another issues, the Turing halting drawback. Since then, various various things which have been proven to be non-computable.
Now, if a pc can’t compute one thing, you need to ask the query, are there issues that people do which might be additionally not computable? And the reply, which is talked about extra deeply within the ebook is, sure.

Now there’s the plain ones equivalent to love, empathy, and compassion, anger. I don’t suppose that these will ever be duplicated in a pc. But much more essential are the concept that we simply talked about. Computers won’t ever perceive. They won’t ever expertise sentience, and they’ll by no means be artistic. These are issues that are brick partitions that synthetic intelligence won’t ever undergo. Now, synthetic intelligence is doing unbelievable issues. We actually don’t wish to diminish the accomplishment.
Bill Meyer: Certainly. I hoped possibly you might contact on right here briefly, should you might, Dr. Marks, the distinction between synthetic intelligence and synthetic normal intelligence? Because you do discuss this, AI and AGI…
Robert J. Marks: I believe when it comes to the media, synthetic intelligence is something that a pc can do which you have a look at and say, “Oh, gee whiz. That’s wonderful.” That’s a great way to speak about it for the reason that frequent denominator there’s that the whole lot is being accomplished by a pc.
Robert J. Marks: Artificial normal intelligence is the idea — and it’s really a religion, there’s really an AI church round this, consider it or not — that synthetic intelligence will a way and sometime duplicate the whole lot that people can do.
Now, if the premise that there are non-computable issues that people do [is correct], then this can by no means be achieved. I prefer to say that synthetic intelligence is written in laptop code like Python and C++ and all these different esoteric languages — AGI or synthetic normal intelligence — is usually written in PowerPoint slides and information releases. We don’t see any indication that synthetic normal intelligence will ever occur. It’ll by no means perceive. It’ll by no means be sentient. It won’t ever be artistic…
Bill Meyer
Bill Meyer: What do you consider, Dr. Marks, is the supply of that non-computable aspect of humanity?
Robert J. Marks: Well, we’re getting above and past laptop science and extra into the world of philosophy… That’s the thoughts–mind drawback. In phrases of people, the query is is the thoughts the identical because the mind? This debate has been occurring for years now. If one is a materialist and believes that the whole lot will be described by pure legal guidelines and equations and issues of this kind, you haven’t any different place to go than synthetic normal intelligence. In different phrases, we’re all a bunch of meat computer systems. Yeah. Everything could possibly be accomplished algorithmically.
Bill Meyer: Are these the identical those that suppose that you could actually take the human mind and add the whole lot about it into a pc?
Robert J. Marks: Yes. That is de facto curious as a result of, since a part of you is non-computable, the non-computable a part of you’ll by no means be uploaded to a pc. So solely the computable a part of you is ready to be uploaded to a pc. I inform you, simply the computable you is fairly boring.
Bill Meyer: Just the computable you. I actually like that. This is an enchanting ebook and it actually obtained me considering and additionally studying some phrases that I had by no means heard of earlier than. I hoped you might outline certainly one of them… Qualia. You say that is one thing that synthetic intelligence simply isn’t able to.
Robert J. Marks: Well, qualia offers with the perceptions that you’ve got out of your senses. When you chew right into a lemon, you have got a sure style. When you see the colour pink, you see a sure colour. When you’re feeling ache, there’s a sure expertise that you just had.
Books have been written about “pink,” a traditional instance of qualia.
Let’s undergo a thought experiment. If you go searching your room, you’ll be able to in all probability see one thing that’s pink. And should you have a look at that redness for a second, you might be experiencing one thing. You are experiencing pink. Now, Bill, you and I can discuss pink as a result of we’ve each skilled pink. But think about explaining pink, your expertise, to an individual that’s been blind since delivery.
Bill Meyer: That’d be subsequent to inconceivable to clarify.
Robert J. Marks: You might clarify the wavelength. You might say blood is pink. You might give all types of examples, however duplicating that have within the blind man by way of simply speaking to him isn’t going to occur. So how are you going to write down an algorithm, a pc program to have a pc expertise the qualia of pink? You’re by no means going to have the ability to duplicate that in a pc.
Bill Meyer: Or the style of a lemon…
Robert J. Marks: Yes. And a pc will solely do what it’s programmed to do.
Bill Meyer: Okay. What do you suppose occurs, then, as synthetic intelligence will increase in complexity to the purpose the place it begins to program itself, which is already occurring. I’m questioning if that’s not a type of consciousness, finally?
Robert J. Marks: Well, there’s an assumption that synthetic intelligence will likely be artistic as a result of it needs to be artistic to write down one thing that wasn’t meant by its authentic programmer. Here, you need to return to the definition. What does artistic imply?
Creative, as outlined by a man named Selmer Bringsjord at Rensselaer, follows one thing known as the Lovelace take a look at. Does the pc program do one thing which is past the expectations or past the intent of the programmer?
Robert J. Marks
Now, this doesn’t imply you’ll be able to’t be shocked. Computer packages shock us on a regular basis. You would possibly get surprising outcomes however it might probably all return to the enter and the creativity of the pc programmer. If certainly the pc program is proscribed to the creativity of the programmer, it’s by no means going to create synthetic intelligence which is healthier than it’s. To date, there was no laptop software program that has handed the so-called Lovelace take a look at of creativity. So AI writing higher AI isn’t going to occur in accordance to the Lovelace take a look at definition of creativity.
Bill Meyer: Is there a chance although that, as computing energy will increase — regardless of the truth that it could not know what it’s doing so far as we’re involved — we don’t know the distinction? We can’t detect it.
Robert J. Marks: Well, I believe the computer systems can simulate loads. I don’t know should you’ve seen the film A.I. But this little boy robotic was simply unbelievable, a humanoid type. And he was standing there and there was this love button that you just pushed. The mom pushed the love button as a result of she needed a bit of boy. The little boy performed by Haley Joel Osment, … simply an unbelievable youngster actor. All of a sudden he got here from completely impassive into an concept of affection, of snuggle hugging it. It was simply wonderful to observe that transition. But the truth that he did that, does that imply that he was experiencing love or was all of it computing, which was being accomplished beneath the hood?
Bill Meyer: Yes. When people fall in love, is it a mathematical computation that we’re participating in?
Robert J. Marks: And I preserve that’s non-computable. You can program a pc to say, “I like you.” Or you’ll be able to write a pc program to indicate empathy, for instance, but it surely doesn’t imply that it’s displaying love. It doesn’t imply that it’s experiencing empathy.

Bill Meyer: Elon Musk, I believe others like Henry Kissinger, Stephen Hawking, are large followers of synthetic intelligence. But why do you suppose they’re unsuitable about this?

Note: Prominent twentieth-century political scientist and diplomat Henry Kissinger thinks that people should change to adapt to AI. Cosmologist Stephen Hawking (1942–2018), Astronomer Royal Martin Rees, and self-driving care entrepreneur Elon Musk have all predicted synthetic intelligences that may outdo people.

Robert J. Marks: Well, the fascinating factor is {that a} colleague of Stephen Hawking, Roger Penrose, who received the Nobel Prize final yr in physics — only a sensible, sensible man — agrees with me. He agrees that there’s issues throughout the human which might be non-computable.
PicIn truth, he wrote this glorious ebook, which influenced me loads. It was known as The Emperor’s New Mind,, which outlines a number of the ideas that I’m speaking about right here.
But a variety of these individuals, together with Elon Musk and Steven Hawking, come to this drawback from a complete materialistic perspective, which is that the whole lot that exists will be defined by science. I believe a sub-paragraph of that’s that if that’s the case, then we’re computer systems made out of meat and the whole lot we do in our thoughts is computable. And I problem that. I consider that Roger Penrose challenges that. The CEO of Microsoft, Satya Nadella, in his ebook and his biography challenges that. There’s various those that do problem that concept that we’re 100% computable.
So it comes from one’s ideology. If you’re a agency materialist and you consider the whole lot needs to be described by arithmetic and physics, effectively, then you definitely’re inescapably on this concept of synthetic normal intelligence occurring ultimately.
Bill Meyer: All proper, Dr. Marks, aren’t we simply dancing across the topic of the human soul or the spirit? Isn’t that basically what we’re dancing round after we discuss what’s non-computable?
Robert J. Marks: Here we’re moving into theological matters, which I suppose is ok. I’m a Christian and I do consider that there’s something exterior to the mind. I believe that we have now proof of this. We’re beginning to get proof from neuroscience… out-of-body experiences and such, which are actually being documented greater than ever. There is one thing there past the mind. Indeed, that is one thing which fits again to René Descartes. So this isn’t a brand new factor, but it surely’s one thing which has been round for a very long time. We’re beginning to get proof that certainly the thoughts is bigger than the mind.

You might also want to learn:
Marks: Forget the hype, “considering machines” can’t exchange people. It’s straightforward to image, particularly if we don’t know a lot about computer systems. And fears are simply exploited. But what are the details? Computer engineer, Robert J. Marks, creator of Non-Computable You (2022), discusses the constraints of computing in a just-released video

Additional Resources

Podcast Transcript Download

https://mindmatters.ai/2022/07/marks-computers-only-compute-and-thinking-needs-more-than-that/

Recommended For You