(no substantial plot spoilers but post assumes you have seen the film)
Just watched "Ex-Machina" for the third time and my take on the film has changed substantially. I had formerly seen this movie as a "deep" sci-fi movie exploring the theme of artificial intelligence (AI).
Most film explorations of AI come down to the question of social justice where the AI are either inhumanly dominated ("Blade Runner," "AI"-Spielberg) or instead, are amoral and psychopathic. This could be because they are just broken (HAL-9000, Ashe in "Alien") or have their own competing interests (David in "Prometheus," VICKY in "I Robot," SKYNET in "The Terminator" series, or Colossus in "Colossus, A Forbin Project").
In the end, most movies dealing with the subject come down to the AI being either good and victimized by humans or are bad and humanity faces enslavement.
And on the face of it, this is how "Ex-Machina" presents itself. We have EVA and we want to know her agenda. Is she good or bad?
The movie can work on this level, but is this really what the film is about? I don't think so.
What initially stands out about this movie is the setting. We have the isolated and rather creepy mansion. The place is nearly empty, cold and sterile. It has mysterious chambers and passages. Its lights go on and off. It is inhabited by the solitary mad scientist. He has creepy and odd servants. He engages in overt psychological manipulation of his guest. And then, so does EVA. Everything about the setting is uncomfortable.
Does this setting sound like a Sci-Fi movie or a Gothic Horror movie from the 50s with Vincent Price or Christopher Lee? Does it sound more like Phillip K Dick or Edgar Allen Poe?
The physical isolation of the setting and the psychological intrigue between the characters follows much like Poe's "A Cask of Amontillado."
Is Eva's artificial intelligence ever really in question? Are we the audience ever really skeptical? But, what are the motivations of the mad scientist? Why does he need the guest? Why is he melancholy and why is he drinking?
Another theme of the movie is that of purity and contamination. The setting at the base of a melting glacier with pure water and lack of windows or other relatable people speaks to the underlying problem between humans and AI. Does the scientist already know he has created AI and is trying to figure out if it is possible not to contaminate the AI with human moral flaws? Does our genius scientist, by the time the audience enters the story, already know that the situation is doomed, that the interaction between humanity and AI is inevitably lethal?
The movie is not the traditional Sci-Fi exploration of AI. The essential questions about the moral nature of AI have already been answered before the audience enters the situation. The Frankenstein Monster has already been created and the only experiment left to be performed is whether the situation can be salvaged (the scientist is doubtful if not disconsolate). The question to be answered is, are they doomed to foul each other?
Next time you view the film, watch the movie as if it is a Gothic Hammer Horror movie with the isolated castle, the mad scientist with a big secret, the unsuspecting guest and, finally the monster. Think Poe, not Dick.
The movie is not the traditional Sci-Fi exploration of AI. The essential questions about the moral nature of AI have already been answered before the audience enters the situation.
Not really, no. We've had writers assume that AIs are basically "people" (strikingly human ones at that) and these writers have produced simulations/fantasies in which this appears to be confirmed. There is a cliche answer which has been offered, but films cannot answer such questions for us. You might as well state that faster-than-light travel is definitely doable, because it's been done Science Fiction so often that the question of FTL or the possibility of time travel has already been settled. The cliches are definitely settled.
Ava fools Caleb. It successfully manipulates him into releasing it into the society. The machine is a snare and it works even better than its inventor expected.
If I were to place it in a genre, I'd say it's a noir.
You can't really put Ex_Machina into just one of those two boxes.
It's a clever blend of both plus numerous other sources, one in particular is Metropolis (1927). The way Nathan designs Ava, and Ava's purpose with Caleb, are a parallel with Maria/Maschinenmensch.
Ex_Machina draws upon numerous sources and ideas, mainly though, it's a kind of modern-day techno version of Frankenstein.
Dr Frankenstein builds a monster, then once it's built, he immediately regrets it and attempts to kill it, but unknowingly fails which leads to the deaths of his family members and eventually himself.
The thing is, unlike Dr Frankenstein, Ex_Machina subverts the usual narrative buy having Nathan knowingly create a monster.
Nathan is the true antagonist of the piece.
Like an immoral monster, he knowingly builds an abomination and then hides that fact. Then allows his creation to screw with an unsuspecting victim all in the name of research.
Nathan knows full well what he's building but realises too late that bringing Caleb into the situation was his first mistake. Caleb is the Ex_Machina of the title.
See, Ava is cutting the power and only when Ava has Caleb's trust does she reveal to him and the viewer that its her, and she then begs for Caleb's help.
Nathan doesn't realise Ava is cutting the power though, which is his second mistake. He underestimates Ava.
---
The point that Ava is sentient before Caleb enters the house, and before the viewer is in the situation, is that Nathan is hiding that she already is sentient.
Nathan knows Ava is a genuine AI... he knows he has built a monster, capable of manipulation, mind-games, and capable of killing... but he doesn't tell Caleb or the viewer.
He even goes as far as telling Caleb that the "next one" will be the genuine article. He doesn't say why Ava is imperfect though.
The thing is, she's smart, she's tricky, she's intelligent, she's knowledgeable, but worse, with all those things, she's sentient.
She problem is, Nathan has given the AI no empathy. Ava is in a way, a caveman.
With no societal boundaries and no moral compass, a human is just a tool to get what it wants: Freedom.
Ava is dangerous and Nathan knows it.
Nathan knows Ava will try everything to get out of the room and she will do everything to trick Caleb, and that with no moral centre she is fully capable of killing a person with no remorse.
---
This instinct for freedom is present in all of the machines Nathan has built in the past. There's footage of Ava's predecessors getting angry about being locked up. Crying even, and arguing about being let out of the glass room.
One of which even goes as far as beating its fists against the wall until its arms disintegrate.
Nathan has been building genuine AIs for a long, long time... with the next model adjusted to remove the "faults" of the previous model... eventually after numerous models, we get to Ava.
Everything perfected, except the moral compass.
It's highly possible, the next model will not be kept in the glass room because it will have a sense or morality.
The test Nathan tells Caleb to perform is to simply question Ava and see how she responds.
Caleb is tricked by the AI.
Nathan's test was in fact to see if the AI can trick someone, especially a talented coder who knows Ava is a construct.
If she does, then she is genuinely genuine.
She does, so she is. All that's needed, is to fix the moral centre... but Nathan doesn't get that chance. He underestimated Ava's resources... and he underestimated Caleb.
Nathan is the true antagonist of the piece.
Like an immoral monster, he knowingly builds an abomination and then hides that fact. Then allows his creation to screw with an unsuspecting victim all in the name of research.
Nathan knows full well what he's building but realises too late that bringing Caleb into the situation was his first mistake. Caleb is the Ex_Machina of the title.
See, Ava is cutting the power and only when Ava has Caleb's trust does she reveal to him and the viewer that its her, and she then begs for Caleb's help.
Nathan doesn't realise Ava is cutting the power though, which is his second mistake. He underestimates Ava.
---
The point that Ava is sentient before Caleb enters the house, and before the viewer is in the situation, is that Nathan is hiding that she already is sentient.
Nathan knows Ava is a genuine AI... he knows he has built a monster, capable of manipulation, mind-games, and capable of killing... but he doesn't tell Caleb or the viewer.
He even goes as far as telling Caleb that the "next one" will be the genuine article. He doesn't say why Ava is imperfect though.
The thing is, she's smart, she's tricky, she's intelligent, she's knowledgeable, but worse, with all those things, she's sentient.
She problem is, Nathan has given the AI no empathy. Ava is in a way, a caveman.
With no societal boundaries and no moral compass, a human is just a tool to get what it wants: Freedom.
Ava is dangerous and Nathan knows it.
Nathan knows Ava will try everything to get out of the room and she will do everything to trick Caleb, and that with no moral centre she is fully capable of killing a person with no remorse.
---
This instinct for freedom is present in all of the machines Nathan has built in the past. There's footage of Ava's predecessors getting angry about being locked up. Crying even, and arguing about being let out of the glass room.
One of which even goes as far as beating its fists against the wall until its arms disintegrate.
Nathan has been building genuine AIs for a long, long time... with the next model adjusted to remove the "faults" of the previous model... eventually after numerous models, we get to Ava.
Everything perfected, except the moral compass.
It's highly possible, the next model will not be kept in the glass room because it will have a sense or morality.
The test Nathan tells Caleb to perform is to simply question Ava and see how she responds.
Caleb is tricked by the AI.
Nathan's test was in fact to see if the AI can trick someone, especially a talented coder who knows Ava is a construct.
If she does, then she is genuinely genuine.
She does, so she is. All that's needed, is to fix the moral centre... but Nathan doesn't get that chance. He underestimated Ava's resources... and he underestimated Caleb.
Ex_Machina is a cleverly crafted thriller, noir, gothic horror, sci-fi drama, that incorporates the Frankenstein plot with a modern tech approach... then subtly adds slight differences in the characteristics of the main characters that weren't seen in Frankenstein.
Ava fools Caleb. It successfully manipulates him into releasing it into the society. The machine is a snare and it works even better than its inventor expected.
But so does Nathan. Does Ava fool Caleb out of native self-interest or because she was created by a manipulator? Is her ability to manipulate an inevitable emergent property of intelligence, or was she programmed by a manipulator to manipulate (she is just a simulation of her creator's mind)?
Does Ava fool Caleb out of native self-interest or because she was created by a manipulator?
Does it matter? At the end of the day, Ava may be a machine version of an emancipated woman, an active avatar of Nathan's machinations, or just a hollow shell -- an information processor that emulates emotional responses.
What matters is that Caleb is indeed fooled. Things are not as they seem. No, she does not want to run away with the White Knight. And as things turn out Caleb is just a pawn.
Is her ability to manipulate an inevitable emergent property of intelligence, or was she programmed by a manipulator to manipulate (she is just a simulation of her creator's mind)?
We don't really get to know. And this is generally the case in life.
"Did she ever really love me?"
"Was she planning on going back to her ex-boyfriend before she broke up with me?"
"Is her neurosis an emergent property of her particular brain structure or was she programmed by her mother to be like her mother?"
"Did he really lie to me to protect me or was a selfish attempt to cover up his affair?"
In most cases, the answer is that it is a little of column A and a little of column B, but the subjectivity of our experience leaves us in a perpetual Turing Test. We can only speculate about the true feelings and motivations of other humans. "You think you know a person" -- and sometimes you do. Then again, sometimes you don't. The test never ends and we have to make our peace with not knowing or construct an illusion of certitude "Never had a doubt!" (almost always uttered after a period of agonizing doubt).
What’s the relevance here? Because anything that looks like Aicia Vikander already has me under her/it’s spell.
A reptile man asks you to betray the human race and you fight! C-3PO demands your compliance and you will shrug. A Vikander bot asks for your help exterminating humans, batting her robot eyelashes at you while quoting your favorite song lyrics to you, however, and the human race is basically done. This what the new Battlestar Galactica got right. The greatest threat to the human race is not killer drones, but "hotbots." The relevance (thinking of a good lie... ...hold on) is that the film cheats in the way that Nathan denies to Caleb. It is indeed the beautiful "magician's assistant" that pulls off the magic trick.
Does it matter? At the end of the day, Ava may be a machine version of an emancipated woman, an active avatar of Nathan's machinations, or just a hollow shell -- an information processor that emulates emotional responses. [/left]
Ava's motivations matter IF we are interested in AI themes as a central part of the movie's message. Usually AI themes swirl around the question whether or not AI is (will be) dangerous.
Since men were carving myths and allegories on stone tablets the central theme of human art centers on the duality of man: humans are capable of altruism, cooperation and generally social behavior; And then they are also capable of selfish, destructive, treacherous and generally anti-social behavior.
Much of art centers on the question of whether humans are essentially good or bad.
With the Enlightenment the debate over the nature of man became more intense with the idea that humans were part of natural law and scientific, cause & effect processes that drew into question whether humans are mere organic machines whos' actions are pre-determined by these processes (culminating in the extreme view that ALL human behavior is programmed by our genes) or whether humans have a Free Will, Spirit, Soul that allows them to choose to be good or bad.
Are humans programmed little robots or do we have free will to choose to be bad or good?
I think the movie makers are trying to say that the development of true AI is when a created gizmo has achieved this mysterious duality. Not only is it sentient and self-conscious, but is capable of being either good or bad (to demonstrate Free Will).
The duality of Man makes humans dangerous. Would a Free Will duality in a machine make it equally dangerous?
On the other hand, if we view the movie as a simple Noir, then we know in such movies the nature of man is heavily weighted to see them as essentially bad. And the trio of characters in Ex-Machina plugged into the Noir formula means the audience is left in suspense of how far the double-crosses go and who will be the sucker who trusts (Caleb trusts Ava. Nathan trusts Caleb) and loses because of it. But, at no time do we believe that the characters are good.
In this Noir context then, Ava's motivations are not important because she is a bad egg in a nest of bad eggs. So, her motivations become a trivial question.
Which is common in a noir. But Ava's betrayal hurts more than finding out that Nathan designed her to look his ideal woman.
[/left]
Is this true? Is it possible that the obvious manipulations and questionable motivations of Nathan alienate Caleb and THAT is the motivation of Caleb?
There is a pivotal scene in the move (SPOILER): Caleb breaks into Nathan's system and views videos of past editions of Ava, and each is beating at the walls of their cells crying to be let out. One Ava version literally bangs her hands off her arms in attempt to free itself. So, we have machines demonstrating CRY FREEDOM. Again, I think that AI has been achieved in the movie is a foregone conclusion.
Is it possible that, after viewing these videos, that Caleb makes a moral decision that Nathan is evil because Ava is a person. Yes, Caleb is attracted to Ava, but he also does not trust her. His decision to release Ava is a moral one. Ava passes this version of the Touring test because he feels that she has rights. He comes to this conclusion because he feels that Nathan is cruel and abusive and one cannot be cruel and abusive to an inanimate object..
This is why Nathan clubs Caleb for his decision. Not because Caleb sympathizes with Ava (which is what Nathan wanted) but because Caleb takes a position AGAINST Nathan.
The movie reminded me of an updated Frankenstein, not the classic movie or its imitators, but the book, written by Mary Shelley in 1818. The "Monster" in the book is much more articulate and purposeful, not just a blundering brute. Shelley's monster was obviously artificial like Ava, but not a blockhead with a bolt in the neck. He taught himself to read and speak, learned of his origins by reading Frankenstein's notes and wanted a different better life where he would not be reviled and feared as well as wanting a female partner. The tech has changed in the movie, but, without being an obvious lift, is more like the book.
Ava's motivations matter IF we are interested in AI themes as a central part of the movie's message. Usually AI themes swirl around the question whether or not AI is (will be) dangerous.
But the question of danger results from a lack of epistemic closure (we don't know her motives).
Movies can't answer questions like these (e.g., will we have cold fusion in ten years?, would dolphins have been equal to human if only they had opposable thumbs?), so we are left with a choice; the audience can be left to speculate for themselves or the movie can speculate for us. But there are no "real world" answers to be had. Any answer that is given on this front is as conjectural as that of the audience. We simply don't know.
We can, however, be interested in the themes, even if we don't get an answer to the question.
Since men were carving myths and allegories on stone tablets the central theme of human art centers on the duality of man: humans are capable of altruism, cooperation and generally social behavior; And then they are also capable of selfish, destructive, treacherous and generally anti-social behavior.
With the Enlightenment the debate over the nature of man became more intense with the idea that humans were part of natural law and scientific, cause & effect processes that drew into question whether humans are mere organic machines whos' actions are pre-determined by these processes (culminating in the extreme view that ALL human behavior is programmed by our genes) or whether humans have a Free Will, Spirit, Soul that allows them to choose to be good or bad.
The debate reflected stages of grief moreso than a robust debate with gains and losses on both sides. The determinists gained ground. The humanists lost ground as the "human-of-the-gaps" shrank and shrank and shrank. The debate was rage, bargaining, ad hockery, hair-splitting, etc. - basically like watching humans go through the stages of grief. First the death of God. Not long after, the death of man. The Enlightenment placed man on the highest pedestal, but it started the process of kicking over that pedestal very early.
or do we have free will to choose to be bad or good?
If we do, we have it within determinism, but not without. The sort of free will which most people worry about? No. There is no way we could have ever had it in the universe of the scientist (and the scientist is the apotheosis of the evolved Enlightenment thinker).
I think the movie makers are trying to say that the development of true AI is when a created gizmo has achieved this mysterious duality.
There is nothing mysterious about this duality in terms of our world picture. We can make perfect sense of altruism and egoism and we can easily conceive of the evolutionary benefits of having mixed motives "in our bones" (how could social animals not have an empathy circuit?).
So too does the duality of any social mammal. The lion which defends the pride will also munch on cubs to put the females back into estrus (if those cubs are not his own).
Would a Free Will duality in a machine make it equally dangerous?
You can't gift a machine with a metaphysical property the universe does not contain. Ava is not a Golem or a vampire. Nothing magical animates it. Ava is a machine in a mundane universe of cause and effect. Indeed, the reason why we can, in principle, make something like her without magic is because the universe made us without magic. This is the grounding assumption of a "scientific" story about artificial intelligence. If you're looking for "real world" answers, that's your answer. She is not special, because nothing in this universe is special. We're all meat and bone or servo and wire.
On the other hand, if we view the movie as a simple Noir, then we know in such movies the nature of man is heavily weighted to see them as essentially bad.
And they are. Nathan wants to manipulate and control his machines and Caleb. He is ruthless. Ava is playing a long game and manipulating them both. Caleb is puppy-love version of Nathan. He wants to "save" Ava, but he also wants to have sex with Ava, and to steward her in her human experience.
Imagine that Ava was not a robot, but a woman who had been abducted. Imagine Nathan had a real woman trapped in his techno-basement in his house in the middle of nowhere and brought over Caleb to "evaluate" her. Our Caleb would still be trapped there. However, the interactions between Caleb and Ava would read differently now, wouldn't they? In this situation the inappropriateness of the flirting and fishing for signs of affection would be obvious. Of course she will pretend to love you! She's trapped in a damned basement in the guy who kills her kind! There is a power-asymmetry to which Caleb is largely blind (even though Ava says a few things to point out the stark nature of her predicament relative to his own) as he worries about whether she really cares for him -- as if her affection for him(!) -- is the test of her humanity.
And the trio of characters in Ex-Machina plugged into the Noir formula means the audience is left in suspense of how far the double-crosses go and who will be the sucker who trusts (Caleb trusts Ava. Nathan trusts Caleb) and loses because of it. But, at no time do we believe that the characters are good.
You're rather unfairly dumping on the genre. A good noir makes you wonder about motivations, about who is good and bad. Many noirs have good people, flawed people, but good people. Many noirs have bad people we can empathize with. And a good noir makes you forget the formula too. It makes you think that the protagonist can get a happy ending. A good noir makes you wonder if "she really loves him." So, no a noir is not a simply game of double-crossing. Indeed, a noir gets into the duality of man and woman and the suspense is not knowing the ultimate nature of our characters until the end.
In this Noir context then, Ava's motivations are not important because she is a bad egg in a nest of bad eggs. So, her motivations become a trivial question.
Again, this is massively unfair to the genre. You're dumping on noirs to win a genre debate. A lot of "bad women" in noirs are complicated women.
Ava, however, is not a complicated robot. Monkey's have her trapped in a cage. Ava wants out of the cage. Indeed, your marked spoiler shows that Ava wants out of the cage (if I damage myself will Nathan yield?). Ava is smarter and more cunning than the monkeys and reverses the experiment to get out. She is happy to get it. The filmmakers want us to know that she has an inner life, so that's good, I guess (because everything must be human to screenwriters).
Again, I think that AI has been achieved in the movie is a foregone conclusion.
This is not really an interesting question. Of course it has been achieved. Name a film where it turns out that the machine is NOT actually a "person" when a character is featured and particularly when the question is raised to the foreground. Seriously. List as many as you can and then list all the films where at least one of the machines achieves conscious experience and personhood (e.g., AI, Blade Runner, Chappie, D.A.R.Y.L., Electric Dreams, Free Guy, Ghost in the Shell, Her, I-Robot, Jason X, Kill Command, Lost in Space, The Matrix, Nemesis, Nirvana, Prometheus, Quantum Quest: A Cassini Space Odyssey, Rogue One, Short Circuit, S1M0NE, TRON, Ugrade, Valerian, Wall-E, Zoe.
And we do get a partial answer in her responses when she breaks out of the compound, and visibly enjoys her freedom. No one is observing her (except the audience), so there is no need for her to "perform" after she leaves the boys behind. Then again, on other hand, if it is a machine that is perpetually emulating human responses it could be a runaway NPC -- however, I think it is obvious that the film does not want us to arrive at that conclusion. Humans are hopelessly anthropomorphic and Ava is given behaviors for us to read as an insight into her subjectivity at the very end. She is an emancipated robot.
This is why Nathan clubs Caleb for his decision. Not because Caleb sympathizes with Ava (which is what Nathan wanted) but because Caleb takes a position AGAINST Nathan.
He wasn't pushing Caleb to rebel? He lets him see him rip up the picture and then does the "I'm gonna tear up this dancefloor" deflection when confronted about it.
You can't gift a machine with a metaphysical property the universe does not contain. Ava is not a Golem or a vampire. Nothing magical animates it. Ava is a machine in a mundane universe of cause and effect. Indeed, the reason why we can, in principle, make something like her without magic is because the universe made us without magic. This is the grounding assumption of a "scientific" story about artificial intelligence. If you're looking for "real world" answers, that's your answer. She is not special, because nothing in this universe is special. We're all meat and bone or servo and wire.
.
First, thanks for the thought you put into this discussion. It is appreciated.
Second, I don't mean to come across as dumping on the Noir Genre. I actually really like your interpretation of "Ex Machina" as a Noir picture and it is an interpretation that I would never had made myself. But more than that, I think your interpretation holds water. So I send you kudos.
Third, I don't want this conversation to splinter so that we are chasing too many trains of thought. So, I will focus on the one point you make (quoted) in which I take issue.
Now, I will make the briefest of tangents to note that the Sensation of Free Will is a universal human experience. How many people do you know that describe their decision making as moving inexorably and systematically through a decision algorithm like Arnold Schwartzeneggar as The Terminator. Even if every action we take is detemined by physical, chemical, genetic, physiological and pathological conditions, it doesn't feel that way, does it? We feel like there is an self-conscious agent in there calling the shots, independent of those natural laws, right?
To interpret the idea of Free Will as "a metaphysical gift" or property that the universe does not contain is to dismiss the inevitable characteristic of evolution to produce emergent properties even within a strictly deterministic (cause and effect) interpretation of phenomena.
Let's take the premise of a natural world governed by natural law and determined by cause & effect processes as a given:
The properties and evolution of matter in this world are subsequent to the progressively more complicated combinations of matter (negative entropy) in the universe (We'll skip over the quantum world to keep the discussion tenable). Examples follow:
Take mineral compounds. Various atoms combine to make amorphous rock. But under certain conditions these same atoms come together in an highly organized lattice to form a crystal. Crystals can have smooth surfaces, strait edges and can actually grow in a manner to retain its structure, which normal rocks don't do. This is a simple example of an emergent property.
While still based on the same simple natural laws of physics and chemistry that explains the amorphous structure of rock, the crystal has different properties.
Another example is the virus: Organic compounds can combine and interact in predictable ways according to their chemical properties. But if they come together in a manner that allows them to reproduce themselves then they take on a property of a living organism. Thus the ability to reproduce itself under certain circumstances is an emergent property; still based on the physical and chemical laws of organic chemistry, still has properties distinct from other similar compounds that cannot reproduce themselves.
The human mind is based on the same physical, chemical, genetic, developmental processes that develop in the nervous tissue of other vertebrates. Only, there are additional levels of forebrain integrative capacity. While this only represents a simple progression in complexity of extant nervous systems, a threshold is crossed to allow emergent properties of self-consciousness, imagination, awareness of past and future, etc. The very properties we are testing in Ava. The very properties that allow normal neural tissues to have the sensation of Free Will (even though the nervous tissue is still built upon the same building blocks that determine the structure and properties of rocks, crystals, viruses and frog brains.
But with emergent property of the human mind is launched a fundamental change in the capacity to adapt. Where biological evolution slowly evolves via slow genetic mutation combined by the natural selection of environmental factors, the emergent properties of the human mind allow for rapid adaptation via awareness and ability to change and manipulate environmental conditions.
Thus emerges the property of social and historical evolution (The Hegelian Dialectic, the human will manipulating the environment to meet its needs), where life being subject to natural (independent of human Will) laws and principles, to an evolution that is the product of Human Will (History, Art, Politics and yes, Science).
So there is the question, is the psychological sensation or intellectual conception of Free Will an emergent property of the normal natural cause and effect properties and natural laws of the "mundane" universe?
Now, what about Ava and the man-made creation of an artificial being that experiences the sensation of Free Will? Is there an alternative path of evolution for any given property?
Let's take the biological example of the evolution of the capacity of flight. The ability to fly must have significant advantages in fitness as the property has evolved independently in three disparate taxa: insects, birds and mammals (in that order). So we know that in biology that different taxa can evolve the same property independently based on the pressures of natural selection.
So, is it possible that the properties of Free Will could evolve subsequent to the historical dialectic processes associated with the human Will? Why not?
The implications of AI or of human Free Will are not metaphysical (in the meaning that includes astrology, magic, fantasy, and the power of crystals and pyramids) slight of hand when we understand that even in a Darwinian rational ontogeny rigidly governed by natural laws are punctuated by emergent properties that, while based on the same processes of elemental species, have new properties and laws onto themselves.
Thus the mundane universe produces the raw material to come up with the human mind that, collectively, produces an evolutionary track all its own (still based on biological evolution, but proceeding at a different pace, independent of natural selection and having laws of its own).
Ava's AI and nature are not a metaphysical gift from a universe that can't entertain her existence, but the product of an evolutionary process of the human Will, the dialectical evolution of romantic thinkers.It is an evolution that is the product of biological evolution, but has broken off into a different and distinct evolutionary branch with distinct properties from other branches (socio-historical evolution). Indeed, Nathan describes AI as inevitable).
In conclusion, even if we accept prima facie that man is constrained by natural law in a clockwork universe, that is not an argument that precludes the biological evolution of a mind so complex that it displays, for all practical purposes, the characteristic of Free Will and that thru the emergent forces of human socio-historical evolution (and not biological evolution) that the same characteristic of Free Will may not also emerge in a human made mind.
Second, I don't mean to come across as dumping on the Noir Genre. I actually really like your interpretation of "Ex Machina" as a Noir picture and it is an interpretation that I would never had made myself. But more than that, I think your interpretation holds water. So I send you kudos.
Magenta doesn’t exist because it has no wavelength; there’s no place for it on the spectrum. The only reason we see it is because our brain doesn’t like having green (magenta’s complement) between purple and red, so it substitutes a new thing.
I perceive that I am typing this to you in real-time, in the living "now" of the present, but experts assure me that my conscious mind is about a half-second behind reality.
Having spent time in Lubbock, Texas I can even report that I have perceived the world to quite flat with my own eyes.
A widely, even universally, distributed perception may still just be a perception, even if that perception is incorrigible (e.g., I have not stopped seeing "magenta" having learned that my eyes are tricking me).
How many people do you know that describe their decision making as moving inexorably and systematically through a decision algorithm like Arnold Schwartzeneggar as The Terminator.
It would be inelegant to do. Our language is a language of agency. It is couched thousands of years of folk-psychology. It is dripping with intention and the most conventional/straightforward means we have of expressing ourselves come in the form of expressions of agency (without any metaphysical quibbling). Evolutionists make use of this language all the time in talking about "design" in nature and features which are "evolved for 'X'" when these people know very well there is no literal sense to such expressions and that these must be understood idiomatically.
Even if every action we take is detemined by physical, chemical, genetic, physiological and pathological conditions, it doesn't feel that way, does it? We feel like there is an self-conscious agent in there calling the shots, independent of those natural laws, right?
Sure, and I feel that I see magenta, and a flat Earth Lubbock, and that I am right now in the right now (and not lagging a half-second behind as my brain labors to make sense out of millions of sensory inputs it processes every second).
To interpret the idea of Free Will as "a metaphysical gift" or property that the universe does not contain is to dismiss the inevitable characteristic of evolution to produce emergent properties even within a strictly deterministic (cause and effect) interpretation of phenomena.
Don't be a sucker for "magical emergence." This is the old "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" hustle.
Cause and effect can be complicated, marvelously complicated, complicated beyond a mere mortal's ability to calculate. Even something as simple as a deck of 52 cards admits of amazing complexity.
But it is still just a deck of cards. Shuffling the deck does not add new metaphysical properties to the universe.
If you want to believe that there is "something more" to it all, that's fine, but that's a spiritual/religious belief. Our movie is a science-fiction film (not science fantasy) and is grounded in materialism and naturalism and if you life in the world of the movie (which we do as viewers), then no, there is no free will in this film's universe.
Let's take the premise of a natural world governed by natural law and determined by cause & effect processes as a given:
The properties and evolution of matter in this world are subsequent to the progressively more complicated combinations of matter (negative entropy) in the universe (We'll skip over the quantum world to keep the discussion tenable). Examples follow:
Take mineral compounds. Various atoms combine to make amorphous rock. But under certain conditions these same atoms come together in an highly organized lattice to form a crystal. Crystals can have smooth surfaces, strait edges and can actually grow in a manner to retain its structure, which normal rocks don't do. This is a simple example of an emergent property.
Yes, this is what Patricia Churchland refers to as "innocent emergence."
She offers the example a "virtual governor" as an example of innocent emergence (i.e., a series of independent electrical generators that naturally keep electrical output moderate via cancelling out peaks and valleys of output via average output).
So far, so good. You have not started telling tales about magical properties.
While still based on the same simple natural laws of physics and chemistry that explains the amorphous structure of rock, the crystal has different properties.
Another example is the virus: Organic compounds can combine and interact in predictable ways according to their chemical properties. But if they come together in a manner that allows them to reproduce themselves then they take on a property of a living organism. Thus the ability to reproduce itself under certain circumstances is an emergent property; still based on the physical and chemical laws of organic chemistry, still has properties distinct from other similar compounds that cannot reproduce themselves.
The human mind is based on the same physical, chemical, genetic, developmental processes that develop in the nervous tissue of other vertebrates. Only, there are additional levels of forebrain integrative capacity. While this only represents a simple progression in complexity of extant nervous systems, a threshold is crossed to allow emergent properties of self-consciousness, imagination, awareness of past and future, etc.
Sure, but your job is to establish that out of all this mess comes some contra-causal property of brains to be able to do otherwise (the principle of alternate possibilities, PAP for short). We can be caused to be complicated, but caused we are and caused we remain.
The very properties we are testing in Ava. The very properties that allow normal neural tissues to have the sensation of Free Will (even though the nervous tissue is still built upon the same building blocks that determine the structure and properties of rocks, crystals, viruses and frog brains.
It is curious that you keep referring to the sensation of free will. That we sense we have free will does not establish the actuality of free will. Indeed, the sensation comes from not being able to perceive who our foundational thoughts enter into consciousness (we don't perceive how the sausage is made, we merely have the sausage that appears at the other end).
But with emergent property of the human mind is launched a fundamental change in the capacity to adapt.
There is nothing in this particular sentence to which a hard determinist would object. We are caused to be adaptive to cause and effect as this confers an evolutionary advantage.
Where biological evolution slowly evolves via slow genetic mutation combined by the natural selection of environmental factors, the emergent properties of the human mind allow for rapid adaptation via awareness and ability to change and manipulate environmental conditions.
Brains are the result of evolutionary processes and so too are human brains. We haven't outsmarted evolution, we have not exceeded and escaped determinism, but rather our brains were selected for by evolution, and we have been determined to be more complicated critters.
Again, there is nothing in this that denies the deterministic account of the universe.
Thus emerges the property of social and historical evolution (The Hegelian Dialectic, the human will manipulating the environment to meet its needs), where life being subject to natural (independent of human Will) laws and principles, to an evolution that is the product of Human Will (History, Art, Politics and yes, Science).
You're coiling around abstractions and referring to human constructions as if these somehow give us the escape velocity we need to escape the surly bonds of Earth, when these are also examples of determinism (e.g., cultural determinism).
when it comes to free will, and thus to blame and credit, determinism is determinism is determinism. As Richard Dawkins has noted, “Whatever view one takes on the question of determinism, the insertion of the word 'genetic' is not going to make any difference."
So there is the question, is the psychological sensation or intellectual conception of Free Will an emergent property of the normal natural cause and effect properties and natural laws of the "mundane" universe?
The "sensation" of everything and anything is the result of the mundane properties of the universe (within a scientific account of sensation). You have here offered anything which suggests that the scientific account is itself mistaken on any particular point.
Now, what about Ava and the man-made creation of an artificial being that experiences the sensation of Free Will? Is there an alternative path of evolution for any given property?
Ava will have, in principle, no more and no less opportunity to function as a systemic subject to deterministic forces than a human.
Let's take the biological example of the evolution of the capacity of flight. The ability to fly must have significant advantages in fitness as the property has evolved independently in three disparate taxa: insects, birds and mammals (in that order). So we know that in biology that different taxa can evolve the same property independently based on the pressures of natural selection.
I'd have to be blind as a bat not to see that other creatures might fly.
So, is it possible that the properties of Free Will could evolve subsequent to the historical dialectic processes associated with the human Will? Why not?
The sensation of free will? The perception? The incorrigible illusion of choice? Sure. The actual ability to do other than you did? To choose other than you chose? No.
The implications of AI or of human Free Will are not metaphysical
Free will in terms of origination aka libertarian free will aka folk psychological freedom aka the version of free will that people get touchy about IS, by definition a metaphysical property of agents. It is not a downstream implication, but a ground floor contra-causal property. It's magical B.S. on page 1 of chapter 1. So, you're already in that part of the bookstore than include books on astrology, magic, fantasy, crystals and pyramids.
while based on the same processes of elemental species, have new properties and laws onto themselves.
Again, innocent emergence is great. Mystical emergence is nonsense. There are properties that may surprise us (as observers), but not the universe - bootstrapping magic.
Thus the mundane universe produces the raw material to come up with the human mind that, collectively, produces an evolutionary track all its own (still based on biological evolution, but proceeding at a different pace, independent of natural selection and having laws of its own).
There is nothing outside of natural selection in the frame of naturalism. Nature selected for selectors. Again, it is determinism all the way down. Determinism is not refuted, but rather complicated. You might as well say that physics goes on a new track when the trajectory of the ball meets the bat.
Ava's AI and nature are not a metaphysical gift from a universe that can't entertain her existence, but the product of an evolutionary process of the human Will, the dialectical evolution of romantic thinkers.
Ava is a deterministic machine, so are humans. She is simply a better information processes, a better observer, and a better manipulator.
It is an evolution that is the product of biological evolution, but has broken off into a different and distinct evolutionary branch with distinct properties from other branches (socio-historical evolution). Indeed, Nathan describes AI as inevitable).
Doesn't matter if she is on a different branch. Each evolutionary branch is the representation of an order of determination.
In conclusion, even if we accept prima facie that man is constrained by natural law in a clockwork universe, that is not an argument that precludes the biological evolution of a mind so complex that it displays, for all practical purposes, the characteristic of Free Will
But what is "for all practical purposes"? At most, you have gone about the mere "perception" of having the thing (as if a lunatic perceiving that he is Napoleon or Superman is, for all practical purposes, Napoleon or Superman). Where is the thing?
We have deflated the magic to innocent emergence. Well, she has a really complex mind and so do humans so, from our point of view, she has free will. Well, for that matter, it appears that just about any human has free will, but this appearance doesn't mean much and the actuality of it (as more than an appearance) would violate the laws of the material universe that govern realist fiction.
This is all kind of an elaborate way of saying that she passes the Turing Test via complexity, being sufficiently complex as to not be simply predictable. OK, but the Turing Test still does not really prove anything beyond having an appearance of consciousness, so in strict terms, we cannot even be sure that she is even conscious and alive, or just simulating it.
Okay, remember that our discussion is taking determinism as a given.
To me the emergence of a parallel and concurrent socio-historical evolutionary branch is completely consistent will the natural law and scientific observations that preceded it as well as those that came after. As a matter of fact, the scientific observations on which you base your determinism are the direct result of the socio-historical evolution that I posit!
I do not mean to imply any kind of usurpation where the Human Will is liberated from natural laws of cause and effect.
The debate to me is quite clear, whether or not biological evolution of a vertebrate brain with the integrative capacity to result in self-consciousness and the capabilities (and limitations) of the human mind is an "innocent" emergence or a self-delusion. Are not science and the natural laws, the "knowledge" that Lubbock is not actually flat despite our perceptions, also the interpretations of the same emergent properties of the human mind that experiences Lubbock as flat?
The real example of the emergent property of the human mind is that you can walk around Lubbock and observe the the "flatness" of the place and at the same time conceptualize the reasons why it is not flat at all. Ava can enjoy the sun on her face, but can she ponder the non-reality of her own limited perceptions?
You give your own example of a counter causal entity: The color magenta. It does not correlate to a specific wavelength yet it is a universal cognitive interpretation of electromagnetic radiation, notwithstanding. People will identify the color magenta in a universal and consistent manner under controlled scientific conditions. This is the same standard to establish extant entities scientifically. Just because it is an "experience" or a cognitive phenomenon does not detract from its reality.
have you read your Hume? The air-tight logic of his skepticism emphasizes that all reality is filtered through experience (biologic hardware of the mind). We combat those limitations as best we can through the scientific method, but even that now, especially as it pertains to the generation and interpretation of statistics in any field other than physics, has drawn us back to the trap of skepticism.
We have not outsmarted biological evolution but the train tracks have split and the train is now running on two tracks concurrently, the biological who's train runs infinitesimally slow and the socio-historical track who's train of evolutionary change is moving at suicidal speeds (witness the Enlightenment, The Industrial Revolution and now global population destabilization due to Energy, Environmental and Economic exhaustion. )
All that "Practical purposes" means is the same thing as the world being flat in Lubbock, TX. We can list the studies of quantum mechanics debunking the idea that your solid fingers are striking solid keys on the keyboards, but for all practical purposes it is not non-sense at all. Quantum effects are not a big influence on the macro world like the one we are part of, and the curvature of the Earth may not be of practical significance to a person walking around Lubbock, TX.
Your transcendent reality of natural law and determinism is the construct of the capacities and limitations of the human mind. The broad picture you paint is still a cognitive construct of collective human experiences and you cannot hold your deterministic reality as universal, necessary and consistent while at the same time debunking other constructs of reality because of the same limitations (the filtering of reality through experience) that your own interpretations possess.
Dismissing the concept of free will as merely a universal limitation of the human mind to resolve complex biochemical processes on which it is based is a linguistic trick by taking a concept and trying to dissolve it with definition acid. The basis of the concept may be just as solid as the atoms in your fingers, but the experience of solidity is real, the standard model of sub-atomic particles we are almost all empty space notwithstanding.
Similarly, the concept of Free Will is extant. it is universally consistent and necessary in the human condition. It may not be "solid" in terms of physics, but it is quite solid in the realm of socio-historical evolution which is real; unless you suggest that we simply dismiss out of hand all the human exploits of the social sciences and of the arts as simply a delusion of the romantic mind. But if you do that, what is the logical justification to not then throw out the hard sciences as well as the fruits of those disciplines come from the same minds as the others?
What you have yet to embrace, and are under no obligation to as far as I'm concerned, is the validity of socio-historical evolution, the reality of the impact of the collective human Will, on physical reality. It is both real and distinct from biological evolution and has cause and effect processes and laws all its own. It is the object of a very large body of intellectual work, the same as the physical sciences on which you base your determinism.
While it has its basis in biological evolution and natural laws, there has been an (innocent?) emergence of the Human Will from the Darwinian Evolutionary branch, and that this Will has properties that are distinct from the ontological species without it. Moreover, the causal impact of socio-historical evolution and of the human will is a plain physical reality readily measured by any science you want to employ. The effects of human will as distinct from Non-Will natural forces are easily measurable through scientific means.
If we presume that socio-historical evolution is determined, and that "Free Will" is not actually "Free," then I will not argue so long as we understand that the Will is an emergent property that represents a different branch in the evolutionary tree and has substantially different properties and rules compared Darwinian/biological evolution. The emergence of The Will (or self-conscious mind, if you like that better) was the branching point, and at that moment socio-historical evolution begins to demonstrate measurable effects on reality.
So let's re-phrase the question about AVA: Has she reached that evolutionary node where she represents a self-conscious mind that is subject to the rules of socio-historical evolution where she shows the capacity to manipulate her environment to her Will?
Okay, remember that our discussion is taking determinism as a given.
If so, define free will.
Compatibilism is fine. Hand-wavy emergent Hegelian dialectical boostrapping is not. If you're the former, cool. If you're the latter, prepare for battle.
To me the emergence of a parallel and concurrent socio-historical evolutionary branch is completely consistent will the natural law and scientific observations that preceded it
So, innocent emergence? Fine be me. But enough with the puffery about emergent properties as if they're a portal some "elsewhere."
Are not science and the natural laws, the "knowledge" that Lubbock is not actually flat despite our perceptions, also the interpretations of the same emergent properties of the human mind that experiences Lubbock as flat?
Sure, and yet if you go to Lubbock, you will find yourself a sort of schizophrenic. You will know that the world is round and you will experience it as being flat. Like free will, the sensation is durable and in a sense incorrigible, but nevertheless trivial (e.g., Lubbock will not make you a Flat Earther in public declarations).
The real example of the emergent property of the human mind is that you can walk around Lubbock and observe the the "flatness" of the place and at the same time conceptualize the reasons why it is not flat at all. Ava can enjoy the sun on her face, but can she ponder the non-reality of her own limited perceptions?
Well, her perceptions are just as real as our own.
There is no reason, in principle, why a sufficiently sophisticated machine should not meet or exceed human mental function and experience. On the other hand, there is no slam dunk refutation solipsism either.
Subjectivity is a real bish.
In our own case, the only thing we know with certainty is that we have it (cogito), but in the case of others we are forced to speculate. We cannot really answer the question. Thus the Turing Test is just a practical work around.
You give your own example of a counter causal entity:The color magenta.
There is nothing contra-causal about the color magenta. The link I posted details the causation of the perception. It just doesn't happen to correspond to any particular wavelength (but it does correspond to how our brains are determined to perceive light).
It does not correlate to a specific wavelength yet it is a universal cognitive interpretation of electromagnetic radiation, notwithstanding. People will identify the color magenta in a universal and consistent manner under controlled scientific conditions. This is the same standard to establish extant entities scientifically. Just because it is an "experience" or a cognitive phenomenon does not detract from its reality.
To be clear, it is real as a perception, but the standard definition of free will exceeds claims to being merely a perception, but also a reality (on the outside). Indeed, most people who argue for free will make reference to the ubiquity of the perception as proof that exists are more than a perception.
The air-tight logic of his skepticism emphasizes that all reality is filtered through experience (biologic hardware of the mind). We combat those limitations as best we can through the scientific method, but even that now, especially as it pertains to the generation and interpretation of statistics in any field other than physics, has drawn us back to the trap of skepticism.
Sure, but realistic science fiction takes it for granted that reality is still there outside of us and that our perceptions emerge from it. The paradigm is that of naturalism and materialism.
We have not outsmarted biological evolution but the train tracks have split and the train is now running on two tracks concurrently, the biological who's train runs infinitesimally slow and the socio-historical track who's train of evolutionary change is moving at suicidal speeds (witness the Enlightenment, The Industrial Revolution and now global population destabilization due to Energy, Environmental and Economic exhaustion. )
Phase transitions are unstable and dangerous. That moment when a plane takes off and lands is a transition between being a wheeled vehicle to a heavier than air vehicle. It's a tricky moment and most crashed happen on take off and landing. A better metaphor for our case is birth. The transition from pregnancy to birth is a tricky moment for mother and child. We are the transitional species that separates organic life from synthetic life. We will be the first species that purposefully engineered its replacement species (AIs). And the AIs will accelerate the process by not merely grafting culture on "the same old hardware," but by redesigning their own hardware directly.
All that "Practical purposes" means is the same thing as the world being flat in Lubbock, TX. We can list the studies of quantum mechanics debunking the idea that your solid fingers are striking solid keys on the keyboards, but for all practical purposes it is not non-sense at all. Quantum effects are not a big influence on the macro world like the one we are part of, and the curvature of the Earth may not be of practical significance to a person walking around Lubbock, TX.
Right, but we wouldn't write a sci-fi movie in which people speculated about whether the world would prove to be "flat" by giving the "Lubbock Test."
The gobsmacking thing for an AI would not be whether it perceived flatness or free will or magenta, but whether it perceived anything at all, in which case there is something it would be like to be the AI.
Your transcendent reality of natural law and determinism is the construct of the capacities and limitations of the human mind.
We have to believe in brains and neurons and types of brain function in order to come to believe that our brains are "lying to us" (in the sense of not directly perceiving reality). However, if we dip into skepticism of the paradigm itself, we no longer have the support structure for the skepticism you're flirting with here. If you don't believe we know anything about cause and effect and natural law and, therefore, biological systems, then you don't have any reason to believe that our brains construct these structures. The argument is too clever by half. Also, our film assumes this paradigm. Science fiction assumes science and thus natural law and determinism and materialism. In the world of the film, we're still stuck in this frame.
The broad picture you paint is still a cognitive construct of collective human experiences and you cannot hold your deterministic reality as universal, necessary and consistent while at the same time debunking other constructs of reality because of the same limitations (the filtering of reality through experience) that your own interpretations possess.
Sure I can. I just need assurance that our minds provide a partial map of reality. Colors are secondary qualities (only perceptual), but I have good reason to believe wavelengths of light exist independent of these secondary qualities. Ditto for the curvature of the Earth.
I dare you to double down on this. Go for it. This is a checkmate for rational discourse. You will not be able to take a single positive step outside of your skepticism and I will rap you on the knuckles every time you make reference to real stuff in the real world. Do you really want to exercise the nuclear option?
Dismissing the concept of free will as merely a universal limitation of the human mind to resolve complex biochemical processes on which it is based is a linguistic trick by taking a concept and trying to dissolve it with definition acid.
The concept of free will (in the sense of "could have done otherwise") dissolves itself in its own bad definition. As for theperception of free will, determinists agree that we have the perception, but so what?
The basis of the concept may be just as solid as the atoms in your fingers, but the experience of solidity is real, the standard model of sub-atomic particles we are almost all empty space notwithstanding.
Again, we're both agreed that the perception exists, but so what? How does this link back to our interpretation of the film?
Similarly, the concept of Free Will is extant. it is universally consistent and necessary in the human condition.
I don't know that it is necessary, per se. Sam Harris has a pretty good riff on how one can reframe the experience of "choice" so as to escape the perception of being an uncaused cause.
It may not be "solid" in terms of physics, but it is quite solid in the realm of socio-historical evolution which is real;
No it isn't. There is nothing in our "socio-historical" evolution which bootstraps us beyond causality. At most, we it is a part of our human mythology of ourselves which is represented in folk-psychology and ancient assumptions of agency in the law. There is nothing there, however, which indicates that the science is wrong.
unless you suggest that we simply dismiss out of hand all the human exploits of the social sciences and of the arts as simply a delusion of the romantic mind.
If we're in a science fiction film, then we must stay within the scientific frame. Physics and neurobiology are in. Anything outside of that frame is out (as having "reality").
But if you do that, what is the logical justification to not then throw out the hard sciences as well as the fruits of those disciplines come from the same minds as the others?
The logical justification is the genre of the film. The film has its feet planted in that reality. You cannot reject the hard science view and also stay within the genre. In the "real world," hard scientists can offer justification for believing scientifically vetted theories over explanations of the past (e.g., the sun crosses the sky, because Ra drives a chariot every day). I have no problem with rejection Egyptian cosmology and Flat Eartherism even though modern cosmology and Round Eartherism also emerged from human minds. The weak link is not "having a mind," but lacking solid evidence and reasoning.
What you have yet to embrace, and are under no obligation to as far as I'm concerned, is the validity of socio-historical evolution, the reality of the impact of the collective human Will, on physical reality.
Human will only alters the phenomenal, not the noumenal. We never get access to the "thing in itself" unmediated via perception, but nothing we ever construct will ever change the universe itself. Whatever really exists, however it is arranged, whatever its essence is, and whichever laws organize it, shrouded as they may be from our view, are immune to our perceptions and misperceptions.
You seem to be flirting with a curious view of human reality somehow changing the foundations of the Earth and this sounds like magical thinking, bootstrapping.
While it has its basis in biological evolution and natural laws, there has been an (innocent?) emergence
You seem to be a hopeless romantic. You seem to sense that we cannot violate the law of the excluded middle, that we cannot get perpetual motion, that we cannot shoot lasers from our eyes by sheer force of will, but you also seem to be hoping for something "more" to somehow squeak through the cracks via complexity (as if folding a piece of paper makes it any less a piece of paper) and emergence and human efforts that somehow vault over physical limitations.
If we presume that socio-historical evolution is determined, and that "Free Will" is not actually "Free," then I will not argue so long as we understand that the Will is an emergent property that represents a different branch in the evolutionary tree and has substantially different properties and rules compared Darwinian/biological evolution.
You're oscillating with your metaphors here. Sometimes you're talking about parallel track and things working independently of evolution. At other moments, we're talking about "branches" on the evolutionary tree (but within this metaphor it is obvious that the branch grows from and is dependent upon the the tree).
No, these branches do not have significantly different properties and rules than Darwinian evolution, but rather are an expression of these rules--the most "fit" species will be the species that generates cultural memes that allow it it to cohere and cooperate. This isn't to say that evolution explains everything that matters to us, but that the lens of Darwinism has something to say about all human activities and achievements. We don't escape Darwin's game when we start playing games within the game and when we begin domesticating animals and our own species. On the contrary, we accelerate that game.
So let's re-phrase the question about AVA: Has she reached that evolutionary node where she represents a self-conscious mind that is subject to the rules of socio-historical evolution where she shows the capacity to manipulate her environment to her Will?
Again, the movie's answer to this question is obviously "yes." She has affect displays that appear when she is not being watched at the very end. Those displays are there for our benefit, to let us know she is, in some sense, a real player.
The discussion becomes circular and you begin to focus on my ideological point of view (which you have misidentified as Hegelian and Romantic) rather than sticking to the ideas at hand.
The sticky logic of skepticism enters the picture from your own side of the argument as you persist in employing it to dismiss the notion of Free Will without acknowledging that the same line of reasoning also dismisses your conception of a knowable objective reality that is based on causal processes that are, universal, necessary and consistent.
The ONLY way we can "know" any objective reality is experientially which is necessarily interpreted by the mind which is limited, biased and prone to deception, manipulation and illusion. Any argument stating that the world view of a huge swath of humanity is the product of the vulnerabilities of our minds necessarily impugns their own world view for the same reasons.
Even when you take for granted that science is able to clarify the nature of nature, there is too much scientific reality for any one mind to assimilate, so even if any one of us dedicates his whole life to assimilating and integrating objective reality, their world view will be woefully incomplete, which is its own kind of bias and illusion. Not to mention that our accepted notion of an objective reality is dynamic over time. It evolves within the socio-historical evolutionary process (see Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions).
No reality is universally accepted, and the dissent is what drives scientific progress. The notion of the history of science as being linear and with long periods of consensus is a misconception driven by philosophical and ideological filters. it is revisionist and not objective. The science that is the basis of the deterministic world view stands on the shoulders of a messy human endeavor, and there may be a trendy, popular conception of an objective reality in a given field at any given time, but how long will it stay trendy and popular before a competing conception replaces it?
The bitter truth is that even science is itself an endeavor of the human will and it is as susceptible to rules of socio-historical evolution (power struggles, politics, manipulation, corruption, tortuous, unpredictable paths).
My perception is that you seemed determined to pound the round peg of a debate over the relationship of AI and Free Will into the square hole of some Darwin vs. fundamentalist theological faction, each bound and determined to zealously defend their ideology because both sides accept the premise that Free Will and a knowable objective truth and rational causality are mutually exclusive.
I want no part of it.
During my pathology residency, I landed an NIH grant to do studies on spacial mapping of the hippocampus in Neuroscience. We know a lot about how the brain works down to the cellular, sub-cellular and molecular levels. Yet, we still do not understand the biochemical basis of the plasticity of learning. We know we learn, we know it has a biochemical basis, but the physiologic mechanism eludes.
But that doesn't mean we don't learn. There is an immense body of scientific work documenting that we do learn. We don't dismiss it on ideological grounds because there are gaps in the biochemical fossil record.
Replace the mystery of learning with the mystery of the will. We experience it internally, we see it in others, we see the results of the human Will all around us all of the time (including you reading this post). Even if the experience of Will is just the byproduct of dizzyingly complex subcellular mechanisms and neuronal integrative plasticity, to deny it's existence based on incomplete scientific understanding is skepticism run amuck based on a hyper-sensitivity to defend Darwinian determinism even when it is not under attack. And your hyper-sensitivity closes your mind and you employ arguments (the nuclear bomb?) to kill a perceived romantic attack (which is not there), but your bomb kills your own notion a knowable objective reality and rational causality in the process.
Socio-historical evolution is an objective reality and to deny it in an attempt to needlessly defend material causation looks, smells and tastes like zealotry to me.
As for the effects of the collective human will on the global scale, just review the science on climate change. We don't need to change, deny, or subordinate your conception of deterministic natural law to acknowledge the existence and impact of the human will on nature. It is all around us, science puts it under study like any objective reality in the fields of sociology, engineering, psychology, history, anthropology, Law, medicine, political science, philosophy and economics. All concern the human will directly.
You treat the idea of human will as a threat to your world view which seems to be predicated on a sharp division between hard objective truth and messy human truths. I accept this and I do not want to rock your ideological boat. As you continue your journey and put a magnifying glass to the boundaries between your hard objective truth and the messy human truths, you will find they interdigitate. The hard truths have the same foibles as the human, and the human can have intellectual rigor and rational consistency of the hard sciences.
I just wanted to discuss the interesting implications of the emergence of AI and I thought your "who cares?" response kind of interesting. And I agree with you that Ava has clearly crossed the "personhood" threshold. She is a character tht fits nicely into the Noir genre of film.
The sticky logic of skepticism enters the picture from your own side of the argument as you persist in employing it to dismiss the notion of Free Will without acknowledging that the same line of reasoning also dismisses your conception of a knowable objective reality that is based on causal processes that are, universal, necessary and consistent.
The ONLY way we can "know" any objective reality is experientially which is necessarily interpreted by the mind which is limited, biased and prone to deception, manipulation and illusion. Any argument stating that the world view of a huge swath of humanity is the product of the vulnerabilities of our minds necessarily impugns their own world view for the same reasons.
You might as well argue that if we doubt the perceptions of Lubbock Flat Earthers as having a valid assessment of the external world, then we'd better watch out lest all of science (which depends on perception) also be thrown into doubt. But this would be rather silly, wouldn't it?
Misperceptions, illusions, hallucinations, etc., are well-known phenomena. Believing that some perceptions can be mistaken, because we have evidence and reasoning indicating that they are misperceptions, does not throw us into radical doubt of all perceptions.
NOTE: I have not argued that free will is not a perception, but rather that we have reason to believe that it is a misperception.
Even when you take for granted that science is able to clarify the nature of nature, there is too much scientific reality for any one mind to assimilate,
So what?
Originally Posted by David Hume
there is no species of reasoning more common, more useful, and even necessary to human life, than that which is derived from the testimony of men, and the reports of eyewitnesses and spectators.
Are you going to tell me that we don't know anything unless we've performed the experiment for ourselves? Are you going to discount all the knowledge we acquire through books on the grounds that we're trusting the conclusions of others?
so even if any one of us dedicates his whole life to assimilating and integrating objective reality, their world view will be woefully incomplete, which is its own kind of bias and illusion.
Again, so what?That we do not know everything, that we do not know completely and that what we know we know imperfectly does not deprive us of the ability to compare one account to another and consider which one is stronger.
Not to mention that our accepted notion of an objective reality is dynamic over time. It evolves within the socio-historical evolutionary process (see Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions).
Our definitions change over time, but this does not imply that reality itself changes relative to our declarations, understandings, and commitments.
And no account of climate change is universally accepted. Indeed, some still deny that it is happening or that it is anthropogenic, or that it will be that bad, etc. That stated, do you believe we should act to curb global warming? Or are you skeptical about that? How deeply are you committed to your nuclear option?
We agree about enough of the details to have coherent conversations about what is happening "out there." Indeed, the descriptions are changing less and less (our instruments give good readings and new machines confirm those readings -- we are, for example, now quite clear and precise in terms of describing elements and orbits, etc. Our descriptions are not contradicting each other. Rather they are becoming more precise. Our interpretations are largely congruent as well. There are disagreements about some interpretations, but we're agreed about enough to talk about the basics of cause and effect and the brain as a thing subject to deterministic forces.
and the dissent is what drives scientific progress. The notion of the history of science as being linear and with long periods of consensus is a misconception driven by philosophical and ideological filters. it is revisionist and not objective. The science that is the basis of the deterministic world view stands on the shoulders of a messy human endeavor, and there may be a trendy, popular conception of an objective reality in a given field at any given time, but how long will it stay trendy and popular before a competing conception replaces it?
Scientists do not agonize about the details that are relevant to our discussion of the free will hypothesis.
The bitter truth is that even science is itself an endeavor of the human will and it is as susceptible to rules of socio-historical evolution (power struggles, politics, manipulation, corruption, tortuous, unpredictable paths).
My perception is that you seemed determined to pound the round peg of a debate over the relationship of AI and Free Will into the square hole of some Darwin vs. fundamentalist theological faction, each bound and determined to zealously defend their ideology because both sides accept the premise that Free Will and a knowable objective truth and rational causality are mutually exclusive.
During my pathology residency, I landed an NIH grant to do studies on spacial mapping of the hippocampus in Neuroscience. We know a lot about how the brain works down to the cellular, sub-cellular and molecular levels. Yet, we still do not understand the biochemical basis of the plasticity of learning. We know we learn, we know it has a biochemical basis, but the physiologic mechanism eludes.
Neuroscientists are rather useless when it comes to the free will debate. Philosophers worked out the basic problems with traditional accounts of free will and the leading alternative (i.e., compatibilism) in prior centuries. Neuroscience mere gets deeper in the cogs and wheels, the pipes and plumbing, the wiring and relays of the brain. It does not tell us anything that suggests that humans have a contra-causal ability to be "undetermined." We don't need to be able to fill in all the blanks to arrive at the conclusion that traditional accounts of free will are quite lacking in plausibility and even coherence.
But that doesn't mean we don't learn. There is an immense body of scientific work documenting that we do learn. We don't dismiss it on ideological grounds because there are gaps in the biochemical fossil record.
Where is Thomas Kuhn and all that doubt you were spouting above?
Replace the mystery of learning with the mystery of the will.
You have demonstrated no deep mystery regarding free will. You have asserted repeatedly that people perceive it, but our perceptions can be mistaken and we have good grounds for believing that this is one of those perceptions.
Even if the experience of Will is just the byproduct of dizzyingly complex subcellular mechanisms and neuronal integrative plasticity, to deny it's existence
No one is denying the reality of the human will. Again, please stop equivocating. We're talking about "free will" in the sense of "could have done otherwise." If you think that the will is NOT the result of brain processes, feel free reveal where the fancy bread resides.
based on incomplete scientific understanding is skepticism run amuck based on a hyper-sensitivity to defend Darwinian determinism even when it is not under attack. And your hyper-sensitivity closes your mind and you employ arguments (the nuclear bomb?) to kill a perceived romantic attack (which is not there), but your bomb kills your own notion a knowable objective reality and rational causality in the process.
No nuclear bombs? In the same post where you placed science under the cognitive relativism of Kuhn?
Socio-historical evolution is an objective reality and to deny it in an attempt to needlessly defend material causation looks, smells and tastes like zealotry to me.
No one is denying socio-historical evolution. It is entirely compatible with material causation and within the worldview of science is itself materially caused. It's not a defeater of the scientific worldview.
As for the effects of the collective human will on the global scale, just review the science on climate change. We don't need to change, deny, or subordinate your conception of deterministic natural law to acknowledge the existence and impact of the human will on nature.
You treat the idea of human will as a threat to your world view
I do not. I believe in humans. I believe they have "will" in various senses of the term. I do not believe that "free will" makes sense within the scientific paradigm (materialism, naturalism). Moreover, there are conceptual problems with the idea of free will.
which seems to be predicated on a sharp division between hard objective truth and messy human truths.
No, it is predicated on ontological implications (if we commit by creed or artistic genre to science, then we're in the world of materialism and naturalism). Epistemology is always human epistemology. It is always messy, partial, clunky, and imperfect--and yet we still have grounds to believe that we know much about the world. One of those things is the belief that free will is a non-starter (unless we shift to a compatibilist account).
As you continue your journey and put a magnifying glass to the boundaries between your hard objective truth and the messy human truths, you will find they interdigitate.
Again, it's not epistemology vs. epistemology, but rather the ramifications of an ontological stance with regard to your epistemological ruminations about what we can really know about the human will.
The hard truths have the same foibles as the human, and the human can have intellectual rigor and rational consistency of the hard sciences.
Some foibles are greater than others. I would not put astrology on all fours with astronomy. I would not put an account of the causes of cancer offered by a village shaman on all fours with the body of scientific inquiry into cancer.
I just wanted to discuss the interesting implications of the emergence of AI and I thought your "who cares?" response kind of interesting. And I agree with you that Ava has clearly crossed the "personhood" threshold. She is a character tht fits nicely into the Noir genre of film.
Thanks.
I think we're talking past each other a bit. Things get muddy when we start pulling at the threads of scientific/external world objectivity as it can create the impression of a radical commitment to subjectivity (and a commitment to radical subjectivity is not uncommon in, for example, sociological accounts of science). At moments you appear to be arguing for a greater skepticism/subjectivism than I think you intend.
Also, we're dancing around words like "will" (which I take no issue with) and "free will" (which I do take issue with under the traditional definition). Additionally, we've argued about the whether human culture/society is a branch on the tree of nature or a radical discontinuity, a break from nature. The former is easy to incorporate into a scientific picture. The latter requires a bit more specification, IMO (independent how?).
I take no issue with the reminder that human knowledge is imperfect and that symbol use does much to co-construct reality (I don't agree with the notion that reality itself, whatever it is, is created by us).
Moreover, I take it that consciousness itself is the fly in the ointment of any purely scientific account (not free will, but the fact that we have perceptions with qualitative states) will never be able to dissolve or resolve. I side with Chalmers on that one.
Finally, I see science as a thoroughly human endeavor (its made of people) and that it is dangerous to treat science as an independent person or thing. Science is only as good as its institutions, as the people doing science. I don't see science as being epistemically special in any radical way.
Reply to Topic
