Thinking

Perhaps more than anything else, our thinking will ultimately be what defines our humanity in opposition to artificial intelligence.  This is far from a new idea; Christian recalls Aristotle’s belief that “thinking is the most human thing we do” (81).  At first that might sound counterintuitive; how could there be artificial intelligence that does not think?  But in order to reach that question, we must first define thinking. 

And as Lanier, Kurzweil, and Christian all point out, human beings do not understand enough about the ways in which our own brains work for us to create an accurate description of thinking.  The truth of the matter is we are still guessing through what processes thinking occurs.  Even though our ability to think has made us the dominant life form on earth, we still do not know how we do it. 

            We do, however, know exactly how computers “think.”  In my class presentation I discussed the ideas behind the computational theory of mind and I believe it is useful to examine a bit more.  A slight oversimplification of the theory is that our brain acts a as system processing unit through which “data” (our perception of the world around us) is taken in and computed; subsequently the output of that computation is thought.  The most important aspect of that theory is the process of computation, which requires the solving of a problem through the use of an algorithm.  Which is exactly how we’ve programmed computers to “think.”  Kurzweil points out that the end goal of computation “is to solve a problem, with the solution expressed as a sequence of symbols” (117).  He goes on to cite various ways that scientist are experimenting with computation in areas other than traditional silicon chips, from DNA computers to quantum computing.  What remains, however, is that computers are, for the time being, stuck in algorithm-based thinking.  And this is the sticking point for not only myself but Lanier and Christian as well.

            Lanier does not outright dismiss the notion of computational theory of mind, and he points out that computation is certainly useful in certain areas.  But as Christian astutely observes, computers, at the most basic level, are capable only of math (108).  He also rightly asserts that, as our technologies progress, more and more of the world can be translated in and out of mathematical equations.  But once again, we can see computers and artificial intelligence being constrained by the processes behind their functions.  Maybe someday in the future, when we’ve explored every possible molecule of the human brain and still do not completely understand where our thinking comes from, we will finally take solace in the fact that our ignorance of ourselves is our most human characteristic: our fallibility.

The building blocks of life...

...or the end of life as we understand it?