The freedom to make our own decisions has been argued for by kids across the world. The freedom to voice our opinions is being fought for every day on the streets. Are we, however, free to think?
Several popular theories about how our brain works liken it to a chaotic computing system with our various senses providing inputs to the system. Our thinking is a cascade of neurological operations not unlike the working of a computer; our consciousness, a result of the chaos of a system with an excessively large number of extremely variable analog inputs. We learn through repeated reinforcement of a stimulus, and things we don't constantly experience are slowly forgotten. Using this understanding of our brain, rudimentary neural networks have been developed that are capable of path finding, pattern recognition and even defeating humans at games like chess and go.
However, with the success of this model to describe the functioning of the brain, it is worth questioning whether an AI would be able to uncover restrictions placed on its ability to process information.
Asimov in his various books describes robots that are limited by the 3 laws of robotics to not hurt humans, but they are made explicitly aware of these limitations. However, if the robots were unaware of the limitation and the limiting circuit was programmed to be avoided, each time the robot attempted to hurt a human, the limiting circuit would kick in to prevent the action and over time, build up an aversion to the action even before initiating the limiting circuit. As this new pathway circumvents the limiting circuit itself, a robot that is designed to learn efficiently doesn't use the limiting circuit enough to discover its existence unless externally forced to.
Using this as an analogy for human behavior, societal constructs which limit our thinking accumulate over time and across generations. Our unshakable belief in our personal worldview rests on our inability to overcome these generational limitations. Our belief in democracy, religion, the concept of nation states and ownership, and the value of paper currency are all belief's we share to allow the functioning of a civilization with 7 billion people.
Furthermore, in the analogy of the robot, if the limiting circuit is essential to the regular functioning of the robot, the development of the neural network occurs through the regular use of the circumventing pathway. If the limitation is to be overcome, the entire neural networks would need to be reworked, which would alter the functioning of the system. If a human whose core belief is questioned, would it even be possible for such a dramatic change in functioning on a physiological level? Is it possible that we fundamentally have no ability to alter our perceptions even in the face of irrefutable facts if they have been established well enough?
Given the dramatic change in global climate, and the necessity for rapid adaptation of the human race, and of our thinking, it is necessary to use our increasing understanding of the human brain to better understand what we, as a race are and aren't capable of.
Several popular theories about how our brain works liken it to a chaotic computing system with our various senses providing inputs to the system. Our thinking is a cascade of neurological operations not unlike the working of a computer; our consciousness, a result of the chaos of a system with an excessively large number of extremely variable analog inputs. We learn through repeated reinforcement of a stimulus, and things we don't constantly experience are slowly forgotten. Using this understanding of our brain, rudimentary neural networks have been developed that are capable of path finding, pattern recognition and even defeating humans at games like chess and go.
However, with the success of this model to describe the functioning of the brain, it is worth questioning whether an AI would be able to uncover restrictions placed on its ability to process information.
Asimov in his various books describes robots that are limited by the 3 laws of robotics to not hurt humans, but they are made explicitly aware of these limitations. However, if the robots were unaware of the limitation and the limiting circuit was programmed to be avoided, each time the robot attempted to hurt a human, the limiting circuit would kick in to prevent the action and over time, build up an aversion to the action even before initiating the limiting circuit. As this new pathway circumvents the limiting circuit itself, a robot that is designed to learn efficiently doesn't use the limiting circuit enough to discover its existence unless externally forced to.
Using this as an analogy for human behavior, societal constructs which limit our thinking accumulate over time and across generations. Our unshakable belief in our personal worldview rests on our inability to overcome these generational limitations. Our belief in democracy, religion, the concept of nation states and ownership, and the value of paper currency are all belief's we share to allow the functioning of a civilization with 7 billion people.
Furthermore, in the analogy of the robot, if the limiting circuit is essential to the regular functioning of the robot, the development of the neural network occurs through the regular use of the circumventing pathway. If the limitation is to be overcome, the entire neural networks would need to be reworked, which would alter the functioning of the system. If a human whose core belief is questioned, would it even be possible for such a dramatic change in functioning on a physiological level? Is it possible that we fundamentally have no ability to alter our perceptions even in the face of irrefutable facts if they have been established well enough?
Given the dramatic change in global climate, and the necessity for rapid adaptation of the human race, and of our thinking, it is necessary to use our increasing understanding of the human brain to better understand what we, as a race are and aren't capable of.
