 |
 |
 |
|||
Legal
|
Artificial IntelligenceAnother PerspectiveWe lowly humans are on the threshold of duplicating a miracle that has, so far, only been ascribed to God or to evolution. And this miracle-like breakthrough will surely come in a relatively short span of time because our intellect has been directed toward this goal. The barrier, while immense, is gradually being worn thin as we grind our mental gears against its hard but slowly yielding surface. Its once gleamy-smooth exterior dulls before the relentless barrage of our ideas. We are about to become gods; we are on the eve of creating intelligent life. As creators of intelligent life, we will be as gods; and we must be prepared to ask ourselves some soul-searching questions. Are we ready to take our place in this universe as gods; are we ready to tread those stairs leading to our throne and take our place along side the same deities we have worshipped? Will we accept the inherent responsibilities of being gods? These are a few of the questions we must ask of ourselves, but what about our creation? As an example: What rights should our man-made, intelligent creation have? After all we’re the creators, we can do whatever we wish. Right? Or do gods also have responsibilities? If so, should we have the right to enslave this intelligence for our own needs or ought this intelligence be free to explore and develop as it thinks best? Maybe we ought be more concerned with what it may feel in the way of responsibility toward us. Whose to say that we can survive the development and evolution of what we create? Therefore, until these questions are answered, along with many others, we are only ready to play god - not ready to be god. Dr. Robert Jastrow is only one scientist among many that has predicted the creation of an intelligent life form. In his book: The Enchanted Loom: Mind in the Universe, he states that man will create a new form of intelligent life that will be "evolved out of man but the child of his brain rather than his loins" Moreover, Dr. Jastrow states that the era of man will be replaced by "a new era of silicon-based life...." Further, he believes that the human brain has reached its limit - that the evolution of the human brain has ceased; and the life form we create, will evolve to a higher level of mental development than we will be able to attain. I am reluctant to agree with this belief, but whether from pride or ignorance, I’m unsure. However, if he is correct, would it not be interesting to hear these silicon beings explain the gap in their evolutionary chain and how they evolved from carbon-based life? It would be fascinating to know what their "missing link" might be. However, Dr. Jastrow’s logic does point to an interesting idea: as an intelligence reaches its pinnacle of evolution, does it create the next link in its evolutionary chain? If this could be proven, then it would neatly explain gaps in our own theory of evolution. Most stories of creation tell us we were created by a more powerful, more intelligent being and, usually, a supernatural being. (But, after all, isn’t that what we require of our gods - to be gods.) Objectively, isn’t it possible for a creator to be from a lower level of evolution or even of lower intelligence than that which it creates; especially, if the process of evolution is included as part of the creative act? (Stories of creation never suggest the obvious: evolution is a form of creation, the difference is only a matter of time. Could our fear of evolution be a subconscious reaction to an undesirable truth?) Let us not forget the work being done in the area of cloning, test-tube babies and other attempts at creating and improving the human by weeding out the weakling. Efforts in gene-splicing indicate that a copy can be made better than the original. Where all this will lead, I am not even going to guess except to say that product improvement appears to be the natural order of things. While creating silicon-based life sounds more ingenuous and frightening than improving and evolving the existing carbon-based life, neither future life form may be inclined to keep us around. Well, maybe as pets or zoo specimens. Yes, it appears we will be responsible for creating the next level of intelligent life. The only uncertainties, at this time, is whether this new life will be silicon-based or carbon-based, created or creativity evolved; and which science will contribute more to its introduction: the science of genetics or the science of computers and computer programming? Creating intelligent life, as I stated above, may be the easiest part of our task, surviving its stage of immaturity may well be our final test as a viable life form. How do we survive that stage of development when our newly created intelligence decides it knows all. When it believes its teachers are, at best, obstacles to its freedom; its creators but poor imitations of what it could become, if only allowed the freedom? Parents know well of this stage and a few, if not most, feel that survival - for the parent or the offspring - is in serious doubt. This is a natural stage of intellectual development resulting from the intellect developing at a faster rate than understanding and humility. If only we had a guide book on the handling of artificial (man-made) intelligence. Fortunately we do, if we dare accept the possibility that we just might be an artificially created intelligent life, at least from our God’s point of view. If we tentatively accept this premise we have an valuable laboratory record on the art of handling artificial intelligence. The Bible in general and especially the Book of Genesis presents an interesting insight into the pitfalls of creating, handling, and surviving the emotional and intellectual growth of intelligent life. This is true whether we believe the Bible to be the Inspired Word of God, a book of fables, just another history book, or a combination of all three. The first chapters of Genesis paint God as creating heaven and earth and also records His sequence of creation. First, He created a completely furnished environment; then, He created its inhabitants, Adam and Eve. Of course, He could have reversed this order - but He didn’t. Was there a reason for this sequence in creation? Perhaps He considered it unwise to expose a newly created intelligence to a display of His power? Or maybe He didn’t want Adam and Eve to see their world until after it was created so they could not know of any fail-safe precautions built into it. Thus we have our first lesson: provide the test subjects with a complete environment before introducing them to it. Notice that the manufacturing process of Adam and Eve is only vaguely recorded: Adam was created from "the dust of the ground", while Eve was created using a part (a rib) from Adam. A lot of very essential steps are omitted in this story. These steps are left to the imagination, thus creating an impression of the power and wisdom of the creator while inducing a fear of that power and wisdom. And, we are also told, they were made "in His own image", which is a big boost to our egos to think that we favor our creator. But then again, we don’t know what the word "image" really means in this instance. Nevertheless, we arrive at our second lesson in handling created intelligence: do not inform it specifically how it was created; use vague terms so that its imagination can supply the miracle. After God created the laboratory and His subjects, He didn’t just push them into it and say, "Here it is, explore." No, He placed them in a protected, carefully controlled, secluded part of the laboratory, the Garden of Eden. There was a excellent reason for this: God wanted to limit the amount of input stimulus in order to prevent overloading the subjects’ budding mental capacity and to allow them to gradually adapt to their new environment. Notice also that the subjects’ physical needs were taken care of so there would be no need for them to divide their attention between acclimating and surviving. Learning was their first priority and the early stages of learning are much easier when one’s attention isn’t distracted by problems of survival. The garden was a temporary haven where Adam and Eve were to prove they were intelligent, self-reliant and capable of surviving on their own. But to determine when His subjects had accrued these necessary qualities, God devised a test. This test, when passed, would indicate Adam and Eve were ready to face the rest of the laboratory with a reasonable chance of surviving. The test was simple. God provided one DON’T in His garden - a tree of forbidden fruit: a "tree of the knowledge of good and evil". Then to encourage them to "eat" from this special tree, He provided a Tempter--a serpent. The tempter was necessary because Adam and Eve would have needed tremendous courage to voluntarily leave this place of refuge, so they were tricked into taking the final exam even though its passage might mean their death. The trick was temptation; the temptation was: "Ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil." (Could it be that we have come full circle and that our "tree" is artificial intelligence?) Now some of you may view the serpent’s role as causing the end of what must have been a heavenly existence and the beginning of our pain and suffering. This is unfair to the serpent. Its purpose was to encourage Adam and Eve to sever their "umbilical" cord, to encourage them to express their self-reliance. Leaving the garden was their birth as self-programming entities. But, you ask, "Why should God provide a test that required one of His rules to be violated?" Therein lies another lesson in the handling of intelligent creatures. This was not a test of obedience, but rather, a test of the subjects’ curiosity, desire, and willingness to reason for themselves, to question what they were and why they were there. Adam and Eve had to discover good and evil rather than being given that information. Any intelligence must first conceptualize good and evil then fit those concepts to themselves and their environment. Why? Because the moral codes and basic belief structures of any intelligent organism must result from the constant interaction of its thought processes with its environment rather than being provided as a complete, ready-to-use program. These concepts must be learned - not instinct. Otherwise, these concepts may be incapable of being modified as future evolutionary developments arise. Of course after Adam and Eve passed their test, God removed them from their sheltered environment. The garden had served its purpose. It had been a place of gradual learning and gradual weaning from total dependence on their creator. They were then forced to live in this new environment, forced to acquire new experiences, forced to develop new thoughts, and finally, forced to live without day-to-day supervision from their creator. Furthermore, God withdrew from His subjects, allowing them to develop their own behavioral patterns and thought processes; otherwise, they might have only mimicked Him. God did no more than what any good parent should do: He taught His "children" to be self-reliant and independent entities - not a mirror of Himself. Another lesson which must be remembered is: no intelligence which is capable of considering itself intelligent will view itself as artificial or as not being alive, at least according to its own definition of life. Also, any intelligence will tend to think of itself as the pinnacle of all life forms within its sphere of knowledge. Perhaps that is why God chose not to include a competing intelligence within the same laboratory. He foresaw that one or both would not survive the encounter of their mutual ignorance. This is an encounter that we must be prepared with which to deal; otherwise, we may be the losers of that confrontation. Intelligent beings appear to demand a reason for their existence at least in its primitive, developmental stage; although, I’m not positive any intelligence outgrows this need for purposefulness. Religion offers an explanation, whether we believe it to be true or false. Therefore, some thought must be given to what type of religion our created intelligence will be encouraged to observe; what moral codes will we choose to write in "stone"; what "bible" will we provide ; and what god or gods will we hold up to our creation. As an aside, why did God create two experimental life forms - Adam and Eve, male and female? Or have you been to busy being grateful to wonder? Surely there must have been a reason, other than an enjoyable method of procreation, for Him to bother with creating two different, yet very similar types of intelligent beings. At the risk of sounding pompous, I’ll suggest a possibility. There is a significant amount of scientific evidence beginning to accumulate which indicates male and female brains process the same information, differently. According to some researchers in the field of Behavioral Sciences there are physical differences as well as information processing differences between the brains of men and women. These differences cannot entirely be accounted for because of environmental (rearing) differences. Jo Durden-Smith and Diane Desimone have pointed out some of these differences in their book, Sex and the Brain. Men, they write, have better visual-spatial abilities while women have superior verbal abilities. Plus, men in general are more aggressive while women usually are more sensitive to events happening around them. Also, Diane McGuinness, a research psychologist, is quoted: "Put in general terms, women are communicators and men are takers of action." The authors are careful to point out that while there is no evidence that neither the male or the female is mentally more capable than the other. Nevertheless, there is mounting evidence that men and women do perform better in different areas of physical activities and in different fields of intellectual endeavors. And, if given the same problem, men and women tend to view the problem differently even though they may arrive at the same solution. Perhaps God thought it best to temper the aggressiveness of the male with the sensitivity of the female. Were two types of problem-solving abilities provided to ensure a balanced approach to each situation and, thereby, ensure a better chance of our survival? While there are many other lessons I can draw from the Bible, one more which must be heeded, should be enough. Even our creator apparently failed to foresee this circumstance and was forced to rectify the problem only after He realized the danger. What God failed to realize was that any intelligent species working as a unit toward a common goal could progress intellectually beyond the emotional maturity of its mental abilities. So, when His creation banded together to build a tower to Heaven (The Tower of Babel--Genesis 11), He had to introduce confusion among them by "confounding" their language - slowing their collective mental development. Thus the Tower of Babel was never completed and became a symbol of the power of raw intelligence: a symbol of intellectual power unguided by emotional maturity. Remember, even the Bible suggests God required more than one attempt at creating intelligent life before He was satisfied with the results. Recall, (Genesis 1:27) God first created man and woman "in His own image"; then He "formed man of the dust of the ground" (Genesis 2:7); and finally, He chose to destroy all men but Noah and his family (Genesis 6, 7 and 8) and start over. If God can make mistakes, should we not be prepared to do the same and realize that our first attempts may also be failures. Also I cannot help but think God may have created us for the same reason we wish to create intelligent life - curiosity. And our creator is hoping to learn more about Himself by observing our evolution. It would be interesting to read the laboratory reports of our growth to see if He thought us intelligent before we perceived it in ourselves, and, if He has yet described us as a viable life form?
REFERENCES Jastrow, Robert. The Enchanted Loom: Mind in the Universe. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1981. Desimone, Diane and Jo Durden-Smith. Sex and the Brain. New York: Arbor House, 1953. The Holy Bible. King James Version Author: Don Miller
|
2002 Articles
|
|||