context
May 15th 2003, 09:22 AM
Preface, Introduction, and then the Topic.
PREFACE
Why is our government 'comprised' of three "powers"? Executive, legistative, judicial. So many people today have the impression that these three 'branches' were just lying around here and there, and then someone bound them up together into a new invention and stuck this bunch into the US Constitution. But, this impression is false, to say the least. The 'three branches' together is the very nature of government. But, when most people today read that, they are of no impression that I am saying anything of any relation to anything else. But, this impression is also very ignorant. Government is of the person.
------------------------
INTRODUCTION
There is a version of the "Chinese room" experiment in which a person born without experience of sight has been given the mindless procedural rules of interaction by which to tutor a sighted youngster on the nature of sight and light, and this tutoring is conducted through a Braille-to-visual computer link. Such an experiment would actually work, just like a computer that is programmed with these same procedures: the literate sighted child can learn of the nature of sight and light from this blind person, even though this blind person has never experienced sight.
Here is the either/or question:
1)Is this experiment, in itself, a convincing case for the notion that genuine intelligence can be reduced (even if only functionally) to mindless mechanics?
or,
2)is this experiment convincing of the notion that genuine intelligence can be reduced to mindless mechanics only because of some (quite possibly wrong) assumptions that many people both within and without the field of Artificial Intelligence do not realize that they are making?
The problem with this "Chinese room" experiment is that the rules must have been originated by a person who could see. The common failure to realize this simple fact is what has made current the notion that human functional intelligence is nothing but a complex combination of mindless procedures and interactions. In reality, the "Chinese room" experiment is nothing but a simulation--like all simulations--which is being made to work by way of the living intelligence that is ultimately behind it. The power and logic of the simulation seem to all be in place sufficiently well to raise the hopes of the atheist who seeks a way to make God obselete; but, the "Chinese room" experiment, like the computer, actually knows nothing about what it is supposed to be doing. The missing third ingredient is that "subjective" quality which allows us to say " I think, therefore I am." This is ontological agency (more on that term later), more often poorly known by its derivative, "qualia". It is ontological agency which makes a power/logic entity, such as a human body, capable of doing things that exhibit ontological agency. There has to be "somebody" in there (or, at least, somewhere), in order for the machine to be recognized by an ontological agent as having an ontological agent behind the behavior. The logic-and-power aspect is not enough, and there is not going to be any mere logic-and-power entity which can, without prior input, exhibit intelligence. Computers only do programs, and the car stereo speaker blurting out the voice of the talk show host does not have any idea of what it is saying (and this print you are reading has no idea what it is being used to express).
Some atheists who work in the field of Artificial Intelligence seek to nullify God by thinking that they actually have the potential to engineer an ontological agent (an agent that can know something "subjectively", as opposed to appearing to know something by way of its behavior, or, less, non-behavior, such as an inanimate object). If man can be his own true master, then God is a useless entity at best --and this premise is intoxicating to those who would deny the existence of an entity that is both personal and is the ground of all other being. This intoxicant is very much like that which pertains to the fantasy of making a surplus-energy perpetual motion machine. But, 'Strong' AI it is so much more intoxicating, because it aims to cut at the very foundation of reality and to take that foundation to pieces, all while allowing man to gain dominance over it all. In the field of AI this aim has been unsuccessful; yet, the premise still holds captive the reprobate mind because other avenues are available by which to help maintain this self-deception, such as Transhumanism, the Hedonistic Imperative, and, at the head of them all, evolutionary biology.
It has been by way of AI (or, for me, personally, by way of the realms of proof and then realizing on my own that these three together were the very definition of a living being) that the definition of a person has come to light, and this definition holds that a person--an ontological agent--is triune. I suggested as much in my mention of the problem with the "Chinese room" experiment. "Strong AI" wishes to get beyond the mere power/logic (behavioral) aspect of human intelligence and to arrive at a way by which to engineer ontological agency itself. Many of those in the field of AI have had to admit that ontological agency is required in order for a power/logic agent to be truly intelligent, and they also admit that this simple fact presents a fundamental barrier to the success of "Strong AI". While there are those who hold to the idea that ontological agency (life) exists on a spectrum (so that either there is no such thing as a non-ontological agent, or that ontological agency comes with a certain kind of power/logic which is simply not present in brute-engineered machines), yet, we can have the very notion of non-ontological agency only by our own ontological agency. This presents a sort of conflict, and the fundamental failure of the "Chinese room" experiment to uphold the "Strong AI" position is a case in point.
Not only is there some sort of conflict in observing that the idea of non-ontological agency cannot be had except by an ontological agent, but our ontological agency asserts that something can be known to be objectively false. In order for us to be able to conclude that something is objectively false, we must, at least tacitly, be operating from something else which we take to be an objective truth by which to know that this first thing is objectively false (hense the term 'ontological agency'). But, ontological agency is supposed, by many positivist evolutionists, to be inherently subjective, in the sense of being incapable of objectively knowing anything to be true beyond the fact that 'what seems to be seems to be' (i.e., a thing true by definition). In a sense, this is the correct view, but only so long as we are willing to see our mistakes as such. The denial that anything can be known objectively is a misapplication of the Adamic mind, by supposing that the inability of the creature to once and for all define anything to a 'T' implies that ontological agency cannot have objective knowledge. There is no little man in the radio, and the only reason that "Strong AI" has a foothold in anyone's mind is because the aim of "Strong AI" can easily seem to be viable to the kind of mind that was created to have dominion over the physical world.
-------------------
TOPIC
The following quote is from _The Theology of the Ancient Creeds
Part 4: The Athanasian Creed_, by Greg Uttinger (paul_ryland@hotmail.com) posted at www.chalcedon.edu/article...nger.shtml <http://www.chalcedon.edu/articles/0208/020827uttinger.shtml>
"We must be careful....not to think that our confessions have netted all there is to say about God, let alone all that God knows of Himself. For example, "One God, three Persons" does not mean that we have a three-headed God, three separate personalities that share some abstract substance in common. God is simple in His essence and has no parts. There are not three wills or three intelligences in the Substance of God, but each Person possesses all the divine attributes fully and equally. Or to look at the doctrine from another direction, Scripture speaks of the one God ("one Substance") as "He," not as "It" or "They"; and unless the three Persons are making reference to one another, God says "I," not "We." Clearly, our formulas - as crucial as they are - do not exhaust the mystery of the Godhead."
God is an ontological agent. Therefore, God is triune by definition. The ground of all being, the standard by which all else is judged, is a person. The Biblical data which has been used to support the Orthodox Trinity is an implicit, multi-leveled revelation whose mysteries are open to inquiry. When this data is understood for what it is, and not as a bizarre notion which elevates mystery above God by way of a pan-logical view of God's ineffability, is in the most direct opposition to the most prized possession of atheism: the conviction that life ultimately comes from non-life, whether this be abiogenesis (evolutionism), or 'Strong' AI.
God's life is authority.
PREFACE
Why is our government 'comprised' of three "powers"? Executive, legistative, judicial. So many people today have the impression that these three 'branches' were just lying around here and there, and then someone bound them up together into a new invention and stuck this bunch into the US Constitution. But, this impression is false, to say the least. The 'three branches' together is the very nature of government. But, when most people today read that, they are of no impression that I am saying anything of any relation to anything else. But, this impression is also very ignorant. Government is of the person.
------------------------
INTRODUCTION
There is a version of the "Chinese room" experiment in which a person born without experience of sight has been given the mindless procedural rules of interaction by which to tutor a sighted youngster on the nature of sight and light, and this tutoring is conducted through a Braille-to-visual computer link. Such an experiment would actually work, just like a computer that is programmed with these same procedures: the literate sighted child can learn of the nature of sight and light from this blind person, even though this blind person has never experienced sight.
Here is the either/or question:
1)Is this experiment, in itself, a convincing case for the notion that genuine intelligence can be reduced (even if only functionally) to mindless mechanics?
or,
2)is this experiment convincing of the notion that genuine intelligence can be reduced to mindless mechanics only because of some (quite possibly wrong) assumptions that many people both within and without the field of Artificial Intelligence do not realize that they are making?
The problem with this "Chinese room" experiment is that the rules must have been originated by a person who could see. The common failure to realize this simple fact is what has made current the notion that human functional intelligence is nothing but a complex combination of mindless procedures and interactions. In reality, the "Chinese room" experiment is nothing but a simulation--like all simulations--which is being made to work by way of the living intelligence that is ultimately behind it. The power and logic of the simulation seem to all be in place sufficiently well to raise the hopes of the atheist who seeks a way to make God obselete; but, the "Chinese room" experiment, like the computer, actually knows nothing about what it is supposed to be doing. The missing third ingredient is that "subjective" quality which allows us to say " I think, therefore I am." This is ontological agency (more on that term later), more often poorly known by its derivative, "qualia". It is ontological agency which makes a power/logic entity, such as a human body, capable of doing things that exhibit ontological agency. There has to be "somebody" in there (or, at least, somewhere), in order for the machine to be recognized by an ontological agent as having an ontological agent behind the behavior. The logic-and-power aspect is not enough, and there is not going to be any mere logic-and-power entity which can, without prior input, exhibit intelligence. Computers only do programs, and the car stereo speaker blurting out the voice of the talk show host does not have any idea of what it is saying (and this print you are reading has no idea what it is being used to express).
Some atheists who work in the field of Artificial Intelligence seek to nullify God by thinking that they actually have the potential to engineer an ontological agent (an agent that can know something "subjectively", as opposed to appearing to know something by way of its behavior, or, less, non-behavior, such as an inanimate object). If man can be his own true master, then God is a useless entity at best --and this premise is intoxicating to those who would deny the existence of an entity that is both personal and is the ground of all other being. This intoxicant is very much like that which pertains to the fantasy of making a surplus-energy perpetual motion machine. But, 'Strong' AI it is so much more intoxicating, because it aims to cut at the very foundation of reality and to take that foundation to pieces, all while allowing man to gain dominance over it all. In the field of AI this aim has been unsuccessful; yet, the premise still holds captive the reprobate mind because other avenues are available by which to help maintain this self-deception, such as Transhumanism, the Hedonistic Imperative, and, at the head of them all, evolutionary biology.
It has been by way of AI (or, for me, personally, by way of the realms of proof and then realizing on my own that these three together were the very definition of a living being) that the definition of a person has come to light, and this definition holds that a person--an ontological agent--is triune. I suggested as much in my mention of the problem with the "Chinese room" experiment. "Strong AI" wishes to get beyond the mere power/logic (behavioral) aspect of human intelligence and to arrive at a way by which to engineer ontological agency itself. Many of those in the field of AI have had to admit that ontological agency is required in order for a power/logic agent to be truly intelligent, and they also admit that this simple fact presents a fundamental barrier to the success of "Strong AI". While there are those who hold to the idea that ontological agency (life) exists on a spectrum (so that either there is no such thing as a non-ontological agent, or that ontological agency comes with a certain kind of power/logic which is simply not present in brute-engineered machines), yet, we can have the very notion of non-ontological agency only by our own ontological agency. This presents a sort of conflict, and the fundamental failure of the "Chinese room" experiment to uphold the "Strong AI" position is a case in point.
Not only is there some sort of conflict in observing that the idea of non-ontological agency cannot be had except by an ontological agent, but our ontological agency asserts that something can be known to be objectively false. In order for us to be able to conclude that something is objectively false, we must, at least tacitly, be operating from something else which we take to be an objective truth by which to know that this first thing is objectively false (hense the term 'ontological agency'). But, ontological agency is supposed, by many positivist evolutionists, to be inherently subjective, in the sense of being incapable of objectively knowing anything to be true beyond the fact that 'what seems to be seems to be' (i.e., a thing true by definition). In a sense, this is the correct view, but only so long as we are willing to see our mistakes as such. The denial that anything can be known objectively is a misapplication of the Adamic mind, by supposing that the inability of the creature to once and for all define anything to a 'T' implies that ontological agency cannot have objective knowledge. There is no little man in the radio, and the only reason that "Strong AI" has a foothold in anyone's mind is because the aim of "Strong AI" can easily seem to be viable to the kind of mind that was created to have dominion over the physical world.
-------------------
TOPIC
The following quote is from _The Theology of the Ancient Creeds
Part 4: The Athanasian Creed_, by Greg Uttinger (paul_ryland@hotmail.com) posted at www.chalcedon.edu/article...nger.shtml <http://www.chalcedon.edu/articles/0208/020827uttinger.shtml>
"We must be careful....not to think that our confessions have netted all there is to say about God, let alone all that God knows of Himself. For example, "One God, three Persons" does not mean that we have a three-headed God, three separate personalities that share some abstract substance in common. God is simple in His essence and has no parts. There are not three wills or three intelligences in the Substance of God, but each Person possesses all the divine attributes fully and equally. Or to look at the doctrine from another direction, Scripture speaks of the one God ("one Substance") as "He," not as "It" or "They"; and unless the three Persons are making reference to one another, God says "I," not "We." Clearly, our formulas - as crucial as they are - do not exhaust the mystery of the Godhead."
God is an ontological agent. Therefore, God is triune by definition. The ground of all being, the standard by which all else is judged, is a person. The Biblical data which has been used to support the Orthodox Trinity is an implicit, multi-leveled revelation whose mysteries are open to inquiry. When this data is understood for what it is, and not as a bizarre notion which elevates mystery above God by way of a pan-logical view of God's ineffability, is in the most direct opposition to the most prized possession of atheism: the conviction that life ultimately comes from non-life, whether this be abiogenesis (evolutionism), or 'Strong' AI.
God's life is authority.