I listen to the Glenn Beck Show whenever I can, which is not a lot lately. But when I have heard him, he lately expressing doom for humanity because of Artificial Intelligence (AI). Others too have expressed alarm, including Elon Musk. Such people are far smarter than I am, so I take their warnings seriously.
And yet, I am not afraid of AI. Why? Because I have been granted something that others have not yet grasped, and which I will explain in a moment. Yesterday, at the American Thinker Robert Arvay had an interesting article explaining Why computers can never become conscious. I will let Arvay speak for himself here, because I am just a dumb old engineer, and metaphysics is not my specialty.
Consciousness is the only known phenomenon in the universe that observes itself.
It does so from within itself.
This fact is the one that the experts cannot explain in physical terms, and will never do so, because consciousness cannot be merely physical. It requires something more, something that no computer can ever have.
It is important to recognize that, whereas the outward form of consciousness can be measured by medical science, the inward experience of consciousness cannot.
Indeed, there is no completely satisfactory definition of inward consciousness.
As is consciousness itself, all definitions of consciousness are recursive. They use various synonyms of consciousness to define it. It is the property of being aware of one's own awareness. It is useless to define a word by using the word itself.
You see the problem, don't you? All attempts to define being consciousness defy our ability to define it. We know it when we see it or rather feel it.
Attempting to find consciousness in the brain is like trying to find music in a violin. Music requires a composer to write it, a musician to play it, and a listener to appreciate it.
The brain is the instrument of thought, not its source. Damaging the brain can damage consciousness, just like damaging the violin can decrease its usefulness as a musical instrument, but the violin is not the music itself.
Physical science is a wonderful tool for understanding the physical world, but the adage is apt: When one’s only tool is a hammer, every problem is seen as a nail. Physical science is not the problem, physicalism is. Scientists sometimes are. Physicalism involves the circular reasoning which says that everything in physics can be explained by physics.
The fact of consciousness breaks that circular trap. While physicalists might say that consciousness is an illusion, they cannot define what it is that is having that illusion. Can an illusion have an illusion?
Here Arvay introduces another term, physicalism, where one already exists, materialism. Science is the process by which we observe, hypothesize, and measure the physical universe. In other words, science is a process not a static thing. Engineers use the discoveries of science to manufacture things useful to mankind. Today this engineering is called technology, but from the first invention, perhaps it was a spear thrower, engineering and technology have been the same. Science can only measure the material world, but as noted, consciousness is an experience. How do you objectively measure an experience?
Consciousness requires us, unlike the rest of the animal world, to evaluate our behavior, our emotions, and to understand that there is good in the world, and there is bad, even evil. Our dogs have the ability to sense smells to which the human nose is completely insensitive. Yet dogs do not distinguish between good smells and bad ones. They are all alike to them signals to various behaviors that again are all alike, neither good nor bad.
In the same way, we have music, though there is no evolutionary reason to make music. We can distinguish between "good" music and "bad" music both on technical grounds and by the messages the lyrics carry. You may not have thought of it, so universal is our ability to make and appreciate music. Indeed, music is like another language we all know to one degree or another. Dennis Prager has said that music is evidence of our creator and I have to agree. And it is here then that I give my reason for hope: man is greater than the things made by man, just as God is greater than his creation.
Man has always had a certain tendency to idolatry, to chasing after the next shiny thing. But our Creator, God, is greater and more powerful than anything on this earth. To worship, on the one hand, or to fear the things that man has made is idolotry. Computers are tools, nothing more. Yes, they may do things that humans do such as make art, but it is human directed and strictly derivative. They can write music, but as with art, strictly derivative. They can even play music perfectly with perfect timing, which no human has ever done, but it is not their own.
Please read Arvay's article and realize that AI is just another tool. It portends great things for society and great evil as well. But it doesn't know either one. That is the province of man and the judgement of God.
Update: Here is another take on AI from Arthur Schaper at the American Thinker entitled AI Gloom Is Still Unfounded.
