Hubert Dreyfus and his Heideggerian atttack on Artificial Intelligence!

Turing Test!

I must confess. My first encounter with artificial intelligence (A.I) was not through an academic discourse or documentary but rather by watching 'Blade Runner'. At that time it didn't occur to me what was actually implied in the theme of the movie. All I know is that I enjoyed watching it ; not caring what repercussions A.I can bring for human beings.

Years after watching the movie I ask myself a deceptively simple question, Can machines think or behave like humans? This is not a new question. Alan Turing propagated it in his seminal work Computer Machinery and Intelligence. He came up with the Idea of 'Turing Test', a kind of thought experiment which elucidates his view on the subject. For those who have not heard of Turing test I will explain it briefly.

Imagine a scenario involving three players namely A,B, and C. Player C as interrogator is given the task to find out which of the two players from A and B is a machine and which one is human. The correspondence between them is limited to writing. If the interrogator finds it impossible to distinguish the machine from human beings then the machine is said to have passed the Turing Test. It was this simple idea that revolutionized the World of A.I. People and enthusiasts started making prophesies about the domination of A.I over human intelligence and intellect.

To be honest I was never comfortable with the idea of A.I as indistinguishable from human intelligence. Despite being interested in science fiction, I find the whole idea disconcerting. Time after time I discussed this problem with my friends working in field of I.T and asked for their insights on the subject. However, it was my own ambition that lead me to read some stuff on this issue. It was here that I first discovered Professor Hubert Dreyfus. This man has added a new dimension to the whole debate of Artificial intelligence through his penetrating critique of the whole Idea of A.I.


It is important to mention here that Professor Dreyfus in my view is the greatest living authority on the work of Martin Heidegger. It was through his relentless work that the ideas of this great continental thinker gained acceptance and accessibility in the Anglo-American world which had initially dismissed him as an obscurantist and a Nazi sympathizer. It is also a well known fact that Martin Heidegger despised technological advancement and scientific progress and saw in it the seeds of futuristic nihilism. Therefore, I won't shy away from calling him a Luddite. People from the field of computer sciences have also accused Dreyfus for being a Neo-Luddite. This is the reason that initially his work was not taken. seriously. However, with the passage of time his critique seems to have served a very strong dent to the whole argument of A.I.

Critique of A.I:

Here I will summarize the main attack of Professor Hubert Dreyfus on A.I. According to Professor Dreyfus, the whole argument of artificial intelligence thrives on certain misguided or partially true assumptions. Firstly, Dreyfus argues, A.I seems to draw an analogy between a Humans and a machines (or computers). The assumption is to treat brain as a hardware and mind as a kind of software or programme. Secondly, Artificial Intelligence seems to suggest that human mind functions by performing discrete computations on discrete representation via rule-following. Thirdly, this psychological assumption rests on two other presumptions.
Firstly, it assumes that all intelligent human activity is rules governed or law governed. Therefore, intelligence can be treated in a mathematical fashion. Secondly, for A.I reality consists of independent atomic facts. Intelligence therefore means nothing but the internal representation of these facts via rule-following. In conclusion, the argument for A.I revolves around one question. Does intelligence follows rules?

Dreyfus contends that to argue that intelligence is a rule governed activity presupposes the objective knowledge of human psychology. If intelligence is rule-governed then contextuality is immaterial. However, the subject of 'objective psychology' is  self-contradictory for Dreyfus. Taking a cue from Heidegger and Wittgenstein, he vehemently argues that Intelligence does not depend on following rules. Most of our intelligent human activity is not dependent on conscious choice making but rather on unconscious/sub-conscious 'everyday everydayness'. The cognitive aspect of A.I seems to suggest that cognition is nothing but the manipulation of symbols and representation in mind via rules. Therefore, we can study the phenomena of mind exactly the way we can study the workings of the universe. For instance, a physicists can talk about the universal physical laws. Similarly, an objective psychology of human mind is also possible. It is this thesis that Dreyfus aggressively dismisses. For, Dreyfus it is impossible to come up with an 'objective psychology' or 'scientific psychology'. Heidegger saw human beings as historical beings always bound in some sort of 'context' or situation. He famously called us 'coping beings'. Always finding ourselves in a situation or a context. It is on the basis of these insights that Dreyfus denies the existence of context free scientific psychology. However, remaining a true Heideggerian he suggests that we can obviously chose to see the intelligence as a rule-governed activity. But the fact that we can chose to see intelligence as a rule-governed activity gives us no rational ground to justify that all intelligent activity is necessarily rule governed.

Personally, I see it as a very strong critique of the idea of A.I but the technological advancement may prove me wrong in my belief. However, I strongly share Dreyfus' thesis that objective psychology is impossible. If we cannot objectively talk about the basis of our human intelligence; it is utterly useless to talk about A.I. Finally, I must confess I am a Neo-Luddite too ;-)


P.S
For those interested in the critique of A.I, I would recommend reading Professor John Searle and his Chinese room argument.

Tractatus Logica-Pakistan!

For all the Wittgenstein fans.

Tractatus Logica-Pakistan: 'Whereof one cannot speak; thereof one must yell and shout'.

Two flew over the Cuckoo's Den!

Today was a special day. I managed to visit one of the best known cafes of Lahore named Cuckoo's Den. The cafe is owned by Mr. Iqbal Hussain, an artist by profession, born to a prostitute mother in the vicinity of infamous Red Light area of Lahore.(The good thing about this fact is that Mr Hussain faces this issue head on and doesn't shy away from it. A quality that I really used to admire before my visit). For years I have heard many things about the glorious and sublime ambiance of the cafe which is surrounded by Badshahi Mosque on one side and Lahore Fort on the other. To be honest, I had been trying to visit that place for ages in the past but never got a chance to go there. Finally, I along with a dear friend of mine managed to visit it. What followed was a series of misfortune events.

It was Eid Night and much like the Old Nawabi kids of Mughal era both of us were expecting some sort of cultural activity (Ghazal night or something of that sort) there. However, when I parked my car outside the cafe, the very first thing that struck me was the 17th century building of the cafe signifying the spirit of inner Lahore. Apart from the architect nothing really attracted my attention. Not even the next door brothel. We were welcomed by a middle aged uncle who showed us the way to the top of the cafe. The five story building is nothing short of a museum. We had to walk up stairs all the way. On the very first floor I encountered Shri Ganesh's statue giving the appearance of a medieval Hindu temple. Artistic! very atristic! I thought to myself while appreciating the cultural taste of Mr Hussain. On my way up, I was welcomed by Mother Mary, Jesus and finally Buddha on each floor respectively. For a moment I thought that the customers were made to believe that they were on a Dante Style heavenly journey rather than a visit to an ordinary cafe.

Finally we were on the roof top. Before us stood the Badshahi Mosque with all its glory. The mesmerizing and awe inspiring ambiance of the cafe made me and my friend convinced about the artistic genuineness of Mr. Hussain. The first few moments on the top were just amazing. But as Frost said 'Nothing gold can stay'. Our enthusiasm and fascination proved to be short lived. My friend was about to tell me the dynamics of the inner walled city when the waiter standing next made us realize that we were supposed to order something. So, very gently the menu was presented to us. . What followed is the real purpose for which I am writing this long blog entry.

We ordered one plate of regular Biryani, one Qeemay wala naan along with Raita and two regular cold drinks. The price of the items gave me and my friend goosebumps. They were charging 100 rupees for regular coke. Rupees 450 for Biryani and Rupees 200 only for Raita. Not to forget 150 Rupees for Naan. Good heavens! I thought to myself. Artists are famous for austerity but I never knew that their austerity doesn't extend to their customers. My table was surrounded by the statues of Buddha and Jesus. Ironically, two saintly figures signifying monkish life style. I felt them laughing at us; as if they were saying that we admirers of culture and art deserve this fate. Remaining sanguine, I reassured my disillusioned friend that may be the food will compensate the value for money. However, when the food eventually arrived I was made to pay heavily (not only financially) for my reckless optimism. The Biryani tasted as if it were picked up from the next door Langar. The food and price made us forget everything. Me and my friend were in a conundrum. We couldn't made up our mind as to what was more difficult a task. Paying our bill or eating our meal. Unfortunately, we had to eat and we had to pay. We were left with no other option. My disillusioned friend asked me why Mr. Hussain was doing this injustice to his admirers and customers. I replied sarcastically that the idea is to take revenge from the very society that has inflicted injustices on Mr. Hussan as a kid. My friend came up with an even nastier theory. He speculated that the area has its history of mugging people for money , perhaps the means are changed now but intent is the same.

Perhaps the truth is something else. Here was a man known for promoting a cultural and liberal identity as a true pakistani artist. Like many Pakistani artists before; he proved himself to be another phony. The road to culture and art is paved with greedy intentions. With that we paid our bill and two of us flew over the Cuckoo's Den. Never to return again to this so called cultural citadel.

Philosopher Penguin!

First Cut is the deepest!

Sappy song but I kinda like it :-)

	Sheryl Crow - First Cut Is the Deepest .mp3
	Found at bee mp3 search engine

Anal Haq!

With the sword of his own blood he slayed all divine reverence . Anal-Haq, Anal-Haq (I am the Truth, I am the Truth), he proclaimed in ecstasy. Like the older truth from Nazareth; he too was crucified. Tragically, he was put back again on the very divine pedestrian he had destroyed in the moment of ecstasy. Nothing remained of the original truth but its echo.

Perfect Lovers!

If the purpose of love is to know each other. Then they were perfect lovers; sharing a peculiar kind of permanent silence that comes with the realization when one already knows what the other person is going to say.