soulofdarwin

This reprint of a letter that I wrote in 1996 postulates a theorem concerning the fundamental nature of our existence as human beings:

23 March 1996

Dear Mr. ,

I have been impressed with your distinguished works dealing with developments in the scientific investigation of heuristic processes and artificial intelligence. I find particularly intriguing your discussion of the philosophical and social implications of this expanding body of knowledge.

It seems to me that philosophy, sociology and science devolve to a single arena of human inquiry, as I make no distinction between philosophy and science and I am too optimistic to believe that our planetary society will remain forever uninformed. I do not separate philosophy and science because I am of the opinion that knowledge does not exist apart from that body of knowledge which comprises universal law. Clearly, we, as thinking beings, are capable of formulating ideas that have no connection to reality, and which, therefore, have nothing to do with knowledge. Because both philosophy and science have as their object the pursuit of knowledge, and because there is only one body of knowledge in existence, these two realms of intellectual endeavor are indistinguishable in my view. When we, as individuals, speak of our philosophy, we refer to the collective ideas that constitute our perception of the universe and of our relationship to it. These ideas are either correct, in which case they are knowledge, or incorrect, in which case they are only ideas. History is replete with lessons which demonstrate that attempts to conduct one’s affairs in contravention of universal law do not end well. I believe, therefore, that it is essential to our societal well being that we examine and consider “social issues� in the context of knowledge and not merely in the context of ideas. My reading of your work leads me to conclude that we are of like mind in this.

I must confess at once to having only a rudimentary awareness of the matters with which you and others in your field have been concerned, in that I have given only casual attention to the areas of research which bear on these and related spheres of knowledge. On the other hand, I see in the work now in progress across a broad spectrum of biophysical studies, as well as in the ongoing investigations of intelligent systems and intellectual processes, the potential for profound change in the way that we view ourselves in relation to the universe in which we dwell. I believe that we are on the verge of developing a general theorem of the nature of our existence, that is to say, a definitive statement of what we are. It is this prospect of impending philosophical revolution that I find particularly exciting. And if we are not yet at that point, I feel that we should be. It seems to me that sufficient facts are in evidence.

An issue central to such a theorem is rather nicely presented at the close of the first chapter of Scott Ladd’s The Computer and the Brain (Henry Holt & Company, 1984), wherein it is observed that the proponents of artificial intelligence will have to draw on all areas of research concerning the physiology of the human brain if they are to realize their goal of creating intelligence in machinery. I would advance the proposition that they are late in this endeavor by some billions of years.

Could a bias in the view of intelligence be an impediment to unraveling its essence? It is not difficult to imagine how such a predisposition might arise. After all, are we not rulers of our own destinies, in control of our thoughts, self-actuating, self-determining, masters of will? If authorities in the field of artificial intelligence were asked for a single word which describes the essence of intelligence, would “determinate� get any play?

The “free will� argument is the stopping card in the hands of AI antagonists: “Man has a free will; computers do not.� It is evident that there is no machine which we can build or contemplate building which would have “free will�, regardless of its complexity or sophistication of design, as its every thought and action would result from the design elements that it was given. This is not to say that such a machine would be incapable of action not contemplated by its designers. Nevertheless, even a machine so skillfully constructed as to give the appearance of autonomy would, under scrutiny, be shown to exhibit specific responses under a given set of conditions presented to it at each instant in time. While these cause and effect scenarios could be formidably complex, the machine response for a specific set of circumstances would be entirely predictable. If we were to have a thoroughly satisfying intellectual exchange with one of these mechanical marvels, we might decide to characterize it as an “intelligent being�. Within this frame of reference, intelligence would then be viewed as any process yielding predictable results under well-defined conditions. Taking this definition, a chemical reaction is an intelligent process, a process wherein discrete elements, interacting under a specific set of conditions, produce a precisely determinate result. It is, then, the inevitability of result that defines intelligence.

Of course, this view of intelligence is seemingly at odds with our mystical view of ourselves as delightfully unpredictable beings. But, is it really? Consider a “truly intelligent� machine, one that learns which responses are optimal for a given set of circumstances. Such a machine is self-designing, in a continual state of change. Does this change our view of intelligence in any significant way? Is there a reason to believe that heuristic processes escape the dictatorship of instantaneous inevitability? The answer, I believe, lies in the following corollary proposition: That which we learn cannot be learned differently, given the set of conditions under which we learn it. It seems clear that a heuristic system can process the same set of data with different result, but only if that system has been altered over time. The learning process is a process of system evolution, one of the variants of “system state�, the totality of system configuration at any instant. But, system state is governed by more than memory and thought-enabling circuitry. The mind has as its master the body. The collective demands (“will�) of every atom, molecule and cell of the body drive neurological and motor function. When the body needs nourishment, we “decide� to eat. When the body needs exercise, we “decide� to exercise. When the body needs rest, we “decide� to sleep. Hence, we are multidimensional systems that exist in varied states, the sum of our instantaneous system requirements, our instantaneous system capability, and the external forces that bear upon us at every instant in time.

It is my belief that these concepts of system evolution and system state will lead ultimately to an explanation of every aspect of human behavior. When, within this conceptual framework, we have examined in detail the manner in which we respond to a given set of conditions, I believe that we will be able to account for our apparent changeability. We will find that we are, in essence, no different than the artifacts that we build. They are crude by comparison because their control mechanisms are simple and one-dimensional in relation to our own.

All of which points to a proposition more central to the nature of mentality. Let us imagine for the moment that we have obtained a blueprint for constructing a human male, and that we are able to fashion from available materials a working prototype capable of duplicating with uncanny accuracy every essential human function. How would we view this creature? Could we distinguish it from ourselves? Should we distinguish it from ourselves? I suspect that, even in this age of enlightenment, a majority of educated people would regard such a marvel with the usual hydrocarbon-based chauvinism and contempt that “living� creatures have for “mechanical� devices, and that this would follow no matter the degree of perfection and refinement which we impart to our blueprint man.

I have a premise by which our unloved creation can be loved and our scientists can receive the acclaim due for their considerable achievements. To this end, I propose the following [u]General Theorem of Existence[/u/:

THE KNOWN UNIVERSE IS POPULATED BY A CONTINUUM OF SYSTEMS WHICH HAVE BEEN HERETOFORE INCORRECTLY DIVIDED INTO TWO CLASSES, “LIVING� AND “NON-LIVING�, BUT WHICH HAVE NO ASPECT IN REALITY WHICH SUPPORTS SUCH DIVISION.

In this view, “life� has no definition in reality. The old saw “you scientists can explain everything, but you can’t explain how life began� is, then, a non-argument. The explanation is simply that life did not begin. It is a self-ascribed attribute which, other than in the reflections of our own minds, does not exist. There is no property of so-called “living� matter which is “life�, which exists apart from the structure of that matter. The carbon and oxygen in animal tissue are identical to that found in inanimate materials. What we perceive as “life� is solely a property of the organization of matter. “Life� is a result, and that result is intelligence. Just as is the case with all organisms that we view as “living�, we are simply manifestations of the universal continuum of systems which has always existed in this universe.

I see that you have presented this thesis, in its essence, at page 107 of your book which I am presently reading. I should point out that my arrival at this conclusion came some 27 years ago while serving as an engineer officer in Viet Nam, 1969. At that time, I wrote an essay entitled “Systems� which advances the thesis of robotic man and the fact that our “traditional distinctions between living and non-living systems cannot be sustained�. Until reading your work, I had not been aware of the formulation of these ideas by anyone other than myself. In fact, it is only upon reading Chapter 2 and Chapter 4 that I have become aware of the ideas advanced in the previous two centuries by La Mettrie and Butler, and the more recent work of Wiener, von Neuman and others. While I have never doubted the thesis in the years that have followed, there is a certain sense of vindication in seeing it ratified in your work.

These ideas do not address the matter of the existence or non-existence of god or gods. Indeed, any reference to such matter is conspicuously absent in them. It takes not much reflection to conclude that some force set our universe in motion, gave it the particular set of rules which we are now so carefully examining. What these ideas do suggest is the futility of concern with matters which we cannot explain in any conceivable span of our existence as intelligent beings. They suggest that it is sufficient, and must be sufficient, to know what we can know. They suggest that what we can know is quite remarkable and will lead us to a new dawn of civilization, a world in which we may celebrate our being free of myth and its proscriptions.

I have embraced these ideas as the truth of my existence, in the conviction that they are consistent with every universal law now known and to be known. I do not deny the existence of god. God is that explanation which I will never have. Because the existence of that explanation is irrelevant to my own existence, I have put god aside. The game is cast and the odds are set. It remains only for me to play as best I can.

But what, then, is to be my style of play? Since morality is non-existent in this premise, what would be the fabric of the society that adopts it? What is there, other than law and our rather spotty system of enforcement, to deter me from theft, mayhem, and murder? Actually, there are quite persuasive reasons for self-imposed limits on human behavior, in recognition of the fact that such imposition, when universally adopted, leads to order, a society in which its participants can exist free from fear of the hostile acts of others. Such a commitment of individuals to playing “life’s game� by universally accepted (societal) standards is at least as durable as any subscription to moral codes, as succinctly demonstrated by director Stanley Kubrik in the movie classic “A Clockwork Orange�, in which the viewer is directly confronted with the tenuousness of his or her notions of “right� and “wrong�, “good� and “evil�. For those who, for whatever reason, do not buy in to the social contract, there is law and punishment. As it is pointless to dwell on issues of morality, it must be enough for me to know that all beings, human or otherwise, do what they need to do, what they must do. All that is relevant is whether or not my need to survive will prevail. I recognize that this law of relativity is the only behavioral law in operation in this universe.

I have a long-standing dream of organizing a foundation having as its purpose the systematic testing, analysis and formalization of these ideas. Clearly, this objective can only be realized by enlisting the best minds in every part of the world from every scientific discipline. There are mountains upon continents of contrary opinion to survey and conquer.

This letter is one of inquiry. I am wondering whether my views and aims comport with your own. I realize that I cannot further them without the direction and support of persons of your ability and influence. I understand, too, that these ideas will require a great deal of refinement and elaboration before they can be articulated in an effective way.

Sincerely,
SOD

diana

SOD,

And Mr ., replied how?

I'm moving this to Moral Foundations and Principles. They'll bring it back if an Existence of God discussion breaks out.

d

soulofdarwin

Diana,

By the time that I made contact, the author had moved on to another professional position. The author demurred, principally, I believe, because this was seen as an exlposive and dangerous issue for a published author to take up. I can't say that I blame the author for this. The author seemed to agree with the arguments and conclusions made.

Not to second guess your judgement as moderator, but, while I do discuss briefly the issue of codes of morality, the central proposition of the essay is that "life" does not exist in the universe. If this General Theorem of Existence is correct, the thesis that god created life is incorrect, and there is no reason for god's existence. So, the proposition goes directly to the matter of the existence of god.