Philosophy and theory of artificial intelligence

413 Pages·2013·7.03 MB·English

by  Müller

Studies in Applied Philosophy,
Epistemology and Rational Ethics 5
Editor-in-Chief
Prof.Dr.LorenzoMagnani
DepartmentofArtsandHumanities
PhilosophySection
UniversityofPavia
PiazzaBotta6
27100Pavia
Italy
E-mail:[email protected]
EditorialBoard
Prof.AtochaAliseda
InstitutodeInvestigacionesFilosoficas,UniversidadNacionalAutónomadeMéxico(UNAM),
CiudadUniversitaria,Coyoacan,04510,Mexico,D.F.
E-mail:atocha@filosoficas.unam.mx
Prof.GiuseppeLongo
LaboratoireetDepartementd’Informatique,CREA,CNRSandEcolePolytechnique,LIENS,
45,RueD’Ulm,75005Paris,France
E-mail:[email protected]
Prof.ChrisSinha
CentreforLanguagesandLiterature,P.O.Box201,22100Lund,Sweden
E-mail:[email protected]
Prof.PaulThagard
DepartmentofPhilosophy,FacultyofArts,WaterlooUniversity,Waterloo,Ontario,
CanadaN2L3G1
E-mail:[email protected]
Prof.JohnWoods
Department of Philosophy, University of BritishColumbia, 1866 Main Mall BUCH E370,
Vancouver,BCCanadaV6T1Z1
E-mail:[email protected]
Forfurthervolumes:
http://www.springer.com/series/10087
Vincent C. Müller (Ed.)
Philosophy and Theory
of Artificial Intelligence
ABC
Editor
VincentC.Müller
AnatoliaCollege/ACT&UniversityofOxford
Pylaia
Greece
ISSN2192-6255 e-ISSN2192-6263
ISBN978-3-642-31673-9 e-ISBN978-3-642-31674-6
DOI10.1007/978-3-642-31674-6
SpringerHeidelbergNewYorkDordrechtLondon
LibraryofCongressControlNumber:2012941517
(cid:2)c Springer-VerlagBerlinHeidelberg2013
Thisworkissubjecttocopyright.AllrightsarereservedbythePublisher,whetherthewholeorpartof
thematerialisconcerned,specificallytherightsoftranslation,reprinting,reuseofillustrations,recitation,
broadcasting,reproductiononmicrofilmsorinanyotherphysicalway,andtransmissionorinformation
storageandretrieval,electronicadaptation,computersoftware,orbysimilarordissimilarmethodology
nowknownorhereafterdeveloped.Exemptedfromthislegalreservationarebriefexcerptsinconnection
with reviews or scholarly analysis or material supplied specifically for the purpose of being entered
and executed on a computer system, for exclusive use by the purchaser of the work. Duplication of
this publication or parts thereof is permitted only under the provisions of the Copyright Law of the
Publisher’slocation,initscurrentversion,andpermissionforusemustalwaysbeobtainedfromSpringer.
PermissionsforusemaybeobtainedthroughRightsLinkattheCopyrightClearanceCenter.Violations
areliabletoprosecutionundertherespectiveCopyrightLaw.
Theuseofgeneraldescriptivenames,registerednames,trademarks,servicemarks,etc.inthispublication
doesnotimply,evenintheabsenceofaspecificstatement,thatsuchnamesareexemptfromtherelevant
protectivelawsandregulationsandthereforefreeforgeneraluse.
Whiletheadviceandinformationinthisbookarebelievedtobetrueandaccurateatthedateofpub-
lication,neithertheauthorsnortheeditorsnorthepublishercanacceptanylegalresponsibilityforany
errorsoromissionsthatmaybemade.Thepublishermakesnowarranty,expressorimplied,withrespect
tothematerialcontainedherein.
Printedonacid-freepaper
SpringerispartofSpringerScience+BusinessMedia(www.springer.com)
DedicatedtothememoryofJohnHaugelandwhoremainsaninspirationtousall
Introductory Note:
Philosophy and Theory of Artificial Intelligence
VincentC.Mu¨ller
AnatoliaCollege/ACT&UniversityofOxford
website:www.sophia.de
16.05.2012
1 WhatIs PT-AI?
Thetheoryandphilosophyofartificialintelligencehascometoacrucialpointwhere
theagendafortheforthcomingyearsisintheair.Thisvolumepresentsthepapers
from a conference on the “Philosophy and Theory of Artificial Intelligence” that
washeldinOctober2011inThessaloniki(www.pt-ai.org).
ArtificialIntelligenceisperhapsuniqueamongengineeringsubjectsinthatithas
raised very basic questions about the nature of computing, perception, reasoning,
learning, language, action, interaction, consciousness, humankind, life etc. etc. –
andatthesametimeithascontributedsubstantiallytoansweringthesequestions(in
fact,itissometimesseenasaformofempiricalresearch).Thereisthusasubstantial
traditionofwork,bothonAIbyphilosophersandoftheorywithinAIitself.
TheclassicaltheoreticaldebateshavecentredontheissueswhetherAIispossible
atall(oftenputas“Canmachinesthink?”)orwhetheritcansolvecertainproblems
(“Can a machine do x?”). In the meantime, technicalAI systems have progressed
massively and are now present in many aspects of our environment. Despite this
development,thereisasensethatclassicalAIisinherentlylimited,andmustbere-
placedby(orsupplantedwith)othermethods,especiallyneuralnetworks,embodied
cognitivescience,statisticalmethods,universalalgorithms,emergence,behavioural
robotics,interactivesystems,dynamicalsystems,livingandevolution,insightsfrom
biology&neuroscience,hybridneuro-computationalsystems,etc.etc.
2 AfterClassicalArtificial Intelligence?
We are now at a point where we can see more clearly what the alternatives are.
The classical ‘computationalist’view was that cognition is computationover rep-
resentations, which may thus take place in any computational system, natural or
artificial.Onthisclassicalview,AIandCognitiveSciencearetwosidesofthesame
coin–thisviewhadfuelledalargepartofthephilosophicalandtheoreticalinterest
VIII IntroductoryNote:PhilosophyandTheoryofArtificialIntelligence
inAI.However,mostofthedefiningfeaturesofthisoldconsensusarenowunder
threat:computationis digital;representationiscrucialforcognition;embodiment,
actionandinteractionarenot;thedistinctionbetweenlivingandnon-livingagents
is irrelevant;etc. So, should we drop the classical view, should we supplementit,
orshouldwedefenditinthefaceofmodishcriticism?Thesephilosophicaldebates
aremirroredintechnicalAIresearch,whichhasbeenmovingon(forthemostpart),
regardlessofthe‘worries’fromthetheorists;butsomesectionshavechangedun-
der the impression of classical criticism while new developments try to shed the
classical baggageentirely.Inany case, the continuedtechnicalsuccess hasleftan
impression:Wearenowmuchmorelikelytodiscusshuman-levelAI(whateverthat
means)inmachinesasarealpossibility.
Givenwherewestandnow,therelationbetweenAIandCognitiveScienceneeds
tobere-negotiated–onalargerscalethismeansthattherelationbetweentechnical
productsandhumansisre-negotiated.HowweviewtheprospectsofAIdependson
howweviewourselvesandhowweviewthetechnicalproductswemake;thisisalso
thereasonwhythetheoryandphilosophyofAIneedstoconsidersuchapparently
widelydivergentissuesfromhumancognitionandlifetotechnicalfunctioning.
3 WhatNow?
A bewildering mass of questions spring to mind: Should we repair classical AI,
since intelligence is still input-output information processing? Drop the pretence
of general intelligence and continue on the successes of technical AI? Embrace
embodiment, enactivism or the extended mind? Revive neural networks in a new
form?Replace AI by ‘cognitivesystems’? Lookfor alternativesystems, dynamic,
brain-inspired, ...? And what about the classical problems that Dreyfus, Searle,
Haugeland or Dennett had worked on; what about meaning, intention, conscious-
ness, expertise, free will, agency, etc.? Perhaps AI was blind in limiting itself to
human-levelintelligence,sowhynotgobeyond?Whatwouldthatmeanandwhat
would its ethical implications be? What are the ethical problems of AI even now
andintheforeseeablefuture?
ThediscussiononthefutureofAIseemstoopenthreedifferentdirections.The
firstisAIthatcontinues,basedontechnicalandformalsuccesses,whilere-claiming
theoriginaldreamofauniversalintelligence(sometimesundertheheadingof‘arti-
ficialgeneralintelligence’).Thisdirectionisconnectedtothenowacceptablenotion
ofthe‘singular’eventofmachinessurpassinghumanintelligence.
Theseconddirectionisdefinedbyitsrejectionoftheclassicalimage,especially
its rejection of representation (as in Brooks’ ‘new AI’), its stress of embodiment
ofagentsandonthe‘emergence’ofproperties,especiallyduetotheinteractionof
agentswiththeirenvironment.
Athirddirectionistotakeonnewdevelopmentselsewhere.Oneapproachisto
start with neuroscience; this typically focuses on dynamical systems and tries to
modelmorefundamentalprocessesinthecognitivesystemthanclassicalcognitive
IntroductoryNote:PhilosophyandTheoryofArtificialIntelligence IX
sciencedid.Other approachesofmoregeneral‘systems’subvertthe notionofthe
‘agent’andlocateintelligenceinwidersystems.
Finally,therearemanyapproachesthattrytocombinethevirtuesofthevarious
approachestowardspracticalresults,especiallysystemsthataremoreautonomous
androbustinreal-worldenvironments.Theseapproachesareoftenpushedbyfund-
ing agencies; the National Science Foundation (USA) supports ‘Cybertechnical
Systems’whiletheEuropeanCommissionsponsors‘ArtificialCognitiveSystems’.
(Ihappentocoordinate“EUCog”,alargenetworkofresearchersinthiscontext.)
4 ReclaimingAI:Backto Basics
ThebasicproblemsofAIremainandignoringthem‘becauseoursystemsareget-
ting better anyway’ is a risky strategy. The way to move forward in this context
seems to go backto basics ... and of course,philosophersare likely to do this in
anycase.Thereareafewbasicnotionsthatarefundamentalforthedecisionsinthis
debateandalso,thebasicproblemshavesignificantbackwardrelevanceforphilos-
ophy (if we can say something about free will in machines, for example, this has
directrepercussionsonhowweseefreewillinhumans).
Unsurprisingly,thebasicissuesarecomputation&methods,cognitionandethics
&society–andthisiswhatthepapersinthisvolumeaddress.
The papers publishedhere have passed two high hurdles: they have been blind
peerreviewedaslongabstractsandthosewhopassedwerereviewedasecondtime
asfullpapers.Alistofthedistinguishedmembersoftheprogramcommitteecanbe
foundonourwebsite.
Further work on these issues is to be found in the companion volume to this
book,whichhasappearedasspecialvolume22/2(2012)ofthejournalMindsand
Machines.Weexpecttoholdfurthereventsandotheractivitiesinthisfield–watch
pt-ai.org!
Contents
Computationand Method
MachineMentality? ............................................ 1
IstvanS.N.Berkeley,ClaiborneRice
‘QuantumLinguistics’andSearle’sChineseRoomArgument ......... 17
JohnMarkBishop,SlawomirJ.Nasuto,BobCoecke
ThePhysicsandMetaphysicsofComputationandCognition.......... 29
PeterBokulich
TheTwo(Computational)FacesofAI ............................. 43
DavidDavenport
TheInfo-computationalNatureofMorphologicalComputing ......... 59
GordanaDodig-Crnkovic
LimitsofComputationalExplanationofCognition .................. 69
MarcinMiłkowski
Of(Zombie)MiceandAnimats................................... 85
SlawomirJ.Nasuto,JohnMarkBishop
GenerativeArtificialIntelligence.................................. 107
TijnvanderZant,MatthijsKouw,LambertSchomaker
XII Contents
Cognition
TuringRevisited:ACognitively-InspiredDecomposition ............. 121
TarekRichardBesold
The New Experimental Science of Physical Cognitive Systems:
AI,Robotics,NeuroscienceandCognitiveSciencesunderaNewName
withtheOldPhilosophicalProblems? ............................. 133
FabioBonsignorio
TowardaModernGeographyofMinds,Machines,andMath ......... 151
SelmerBringsjord,NaveenSundarGovindarajulu
PracticalIntrospectionasInspirationforAI........................ 167
SamFreed
“ComputationalOntologyandDeontology” ........................ 179
RaffaelaGiovagnoli
EmotionalControl–ConditioSineQuaNonforAdvancedArtificial
Intelligences?.................................................. 187
ClaudiusGros
BecomingDigital:ReconcilingTheoriesofDigitalRepresentation
andEmbodiment............................................... 199
HarryHalpin
APre-neuralGoalforArtificialIntelligence ........................ 215
MichaHersch
IntentionalState-AscriptioninMulti-AgentSystems:ACaseStudy
inUnmannedUnderwaterVehicles................................ 225
Justin Horn, NicodemusHallin, Hossein Taheri, MichaelO’Rourke,
DeanEdwards
SnapshotsofSensorimotorPerception:PuttingtheBodyBackinto
Embodiment .................................................. 237
AnthonyF.Morse
FeasibilityofWholeBrainEmulation.............................. 251
AndersSandberg
C.S.PeirceandArtificialIntelligence:HistoricalHeritageand(New)
TheoreticalStakes.............................................. 265
PierreSteiner
ArtificialIntelligence andthe Body:Dreyfus, Bickhard, and the
FutureofAI................................................... 277
DanielSusser