More Stray Thoughts - Thinking about Consciousness

AKMA reminded me of a discussion on David Weinberger's weblog back in June 2003 which I contributed to. I am embarrassed a little by some of the things I wrote then - not because I've changed my mind, but because as I re-read all the comments, I realised I hadn't paid attention to everything that was said by others. Its funny how looking at something again, much later, gives you new thoughts and you do see things differently. Perhaps its just the way I am, ie, not very good at off the cuff comments that make much sense. But as long as its understood that its OK to evolve your thinking in this public sort of way, then writing such things in blogs can be accepted for what it is, thoughts in progress.

One of David Weinberger's phrases struck me as interesting with regard to computers and consciousness :

"This doesn't mean that only carbon-based flesh like ours can be conscious. But it does mean that patterns aren't enough and that there's something special — not necessarily unique — about flesh."

The context was a discussion of Wolfram's book "A New Kind of Science" and whether or not computer programs can ever be conscious, in the way humans are. David agrees with philospher John Searle that it is all biological, that there is "something special about flesh" which enables conscious experience to happen, and along with Searle, denies that computers can be conscious because computers are just symbol manipulators. They might do a good job simulating conscious acts, but they can never be "really" conscious. Another important aspect in David's thinking is that brain processes are not only biological, but "causal". I think he means to contrast this with computers, which are slavishly following a program. So with this thought, it doesn't matter how complex the program is, or how clever the input/ouput devices are, it is still "just a program" (meaning it is still just manipulating symbols).

I am interested in why there is this insistance that "just manipulating symbols" cannot be at the heart of conscious experience in the brain. I am interested in why there must be something "special about flesh". To me it looks all for all the world like a modern and sophisticated version of dualism - although David makes it clear he does not believe there is anything like "pixie dust" or the "elan vital" equivalent for conscious experience.

I weakly attempted to explain it all away originally by saying, in effect, "its the complexity". David dismissed this out of hand. I am not surprised, because I didn't really say much about what I meant by complexity. I can understand that if you say a computer just manipulates symbols, then it would seem reasonable that it doesn't matter how complicated the resulting patterns are, they are still just arbitrary patterns of symbols (David's which-way-the- M&Ms-face argument).

This argument really brings us back to John Searle's "Chinese Room" thought experiment, which is the classic argument against "strong AI" - the kind of AI which would allow for conscious, thinking computers. The Chinese Room is a very powerful idea, but I am still flabbergasted that anyone thinks it proves anything at all about AI. I feel really weird about making an assertion like that, because John Searle is a professional philosopher, whereas I do things like consulting on IT matters for companies. I never did philosophy at uni, and really only lately took it up as a distraction against the stresses of running computer systems.

So this is the beginning. I want to start putting down my thinking in this public space, and see if I can evolve a point of view that makes some sense (at least to me), can stand up to reasonable criticism, and leave things open where they should be left open. Doing it in a blog will help me think about it more clearly, even if no-one other than me is reading this!

Anyone who wishes to put some points of view is welcome, of course. Who knows, I might learn something.

The Liberation of Iraq?
Milan Rai has published an article on the ZNet web site, from which I quote:

"Adrian Blomfield of the Telegraph visited Sadr City: ‘That civilians are being killed by US troops is not in doubt. In a pool of blood on a hospital operating room floor yesterday, doctors were battling to save the life of six-year-old Ali Hussain—shot in the belly’ by soldiers in a US tank. The doctors said, ‘We have had at least 20 dead brought in today.’ (Telegraph, 12 Aug., p. 12)

Mehdi Nouri, a shopkeeper in Sadr City, said: ‘The Americans can never win us back now. The Americans are frightened of ordinary Iraqi people, that is why they hate us. We are frightened of them, that is why we hate them. In such a situation we can only see death and more deaths. We are begging the Americans to leave.’ (Telegraph, 12 Aug., p. 12)"

I am more convinced than ever that Iraq will break-up into three or four regions, and it will become a country torn by civil war for decades to come.

Truth in Government

43 former diplomats, intelligence officers and retired service chiefs have accused the Prime Minister of misleading voters over the Iraq war.

Howard's first defence is the usual personal attack, suggesting that they are all retired, weren't in office on sept 11 2001, and that "the world has changed" - implying they are not qualified to comment on the situation. Never mind that the list includes several former chiefs of the armed forces, several former diplomats to Iraq, and many senior government officials of the past. This is just ridiculous, and yet another insult to our intelligence.

And just to prove how rattled they government is, National Party MP De-Anne Kelly referred to them as "doddering daquiri diplomats" - which I admit is a nice piece of alliteration from the dippy dame de-anne (oops, sorry, I've slipped into personal insults.)

But then Howard gets to the argument proper:

"May I say to the 43 people who penned that letter in order to establish a charge of deception you have to prove that Government deliberately set out to mislead the Australian people and they have not done that Mr Speaker". Like Blair, he relies on a report saying that the government did not put pressure on the intelligence agencies, and that the intelligence agencies themselves were basically at fault.

Howard's assertion that it is necessary to prove that the government "deliberately set out to mislead" is really just trying to get off on a technicality. At the time, he flat out asserted that the reason for going in was not to depose Saddam, but to disarm Saddam. He then seized on the dodgy intelligence reports about WMDs and continued to push these reasons on us, suggesting they posed a immediate danger. At the time, there was plenty of reason to believe that although we did not know for sure whether there were still WMDs, the evidence was too thin to base an invasion on, and that there was good reason to allow the inspection process to continue for a lot longer. Hans Blix said that if the intelligence he was given was the best that they had, then what was the rest like? Howard first deceived himself; he then foisted his self deception onto the nation, choosing to believe only what he wanted to believe, in order to support his irrational actions.

I find it very annoying the way the government keeps insisting it was acting on the best understanding it had at the time and "had to make a decision" - as if that somehow justifies the decision. There was every possible reason not to be gung ho, there were other perfectably practical and feasible approaches to remove doubt about WMDs and if necessary disarm Iraq. And it all could have been done without setting back principles of international cooperation and dispute resolution by 50 years.

How Politicians Insult our Intelligence

Australian Foreign minister Alexander Downer was asked, in an interview on ABC Radio National today, whether he would be more concerned about allegations of abuse of David Hicks and Mamdouh Habib in Guantanamo Bay. (This is a link to the ABC news item). This question was in the context of statements by three British ex-detainees, which claim that Hicks and Habib were "seriously abused".

After pointing out that he doubted that his concern was increased (after all, he was naturally highly concerned in the first place), he pointed to the fact that these men had actually been detained in Guantanamo bay and therefore had a political barrow to push. This naturally raised concerns of "objectivity". He then pointed out that the US itself was investigating allegations such as these, and they hadn't turned anything up. Of course, he said, these allegations are serious, and must be investigated, but nevertheless he felt that you still had to doubt the statements of those who claim they went through similar abuse and then were eventually released.

This reponse is instructive. Against a background of complete acceptance of US leadership on the the existence of WMDs in Iraq, which although seriously disputed at the time, have proved to be false, against a background of prisoner abuse in Iraq, against a background of the USA simply rejecting international law and conventions by the very use of Guantanamo Bay to hold people without charge for years, Downer expects us to accept that the US investigations into abuse at Guantanamo Bay will be objective. He expects us to believe that neither he nor the US administration are not pushing a political barrow.

Yet again, the Australian Government will simply accept without question everything the US administration tells them. According to the ABC news article, US officials are denying the allegations, and using similar arguments - that they cannot be believed because they have been released from Guantanamo Bay, and cannot be "objective".

As a political manouver, it may work for some people - a form of ad hominem argument, an attempt to discredit the three British ex-detainees making these statements, for no other reason that "they must have a political barrow to push" (well they're Muslims, aren't they).

Downer is sounding more and more like an echo chamber for US government foreign affairs policy.

For me, it is simply an insult to the intelligence of the people of Australia for Downer to blindly accept and repeat the statements made by the US Administration, without taking specific steps to ensure we get an independent view. Given the background of mistakes and outright lies made by the US Administration regarding the whole "war on terror", I think I might be excused from thinking that US investigations will be anything but spin, outright lies, and and not even remotely resembling even the loosest standard of objectivity.

I cannot even imagine how Alexander Downer can sleep at night with a clear conscience.