Apologetics for AI (from a dualist's view)

Foreword

This paper will not review the development of the major philosophical views in the 20th century and explore how these views relate to AI. One review of the philosophical developments has already been done in a very objective manner by a philosophical author. This author reviewed the major debates within philosophy and science during the past century and outlined how the matters of these debates are not settled. In his concluding remarks, he suggested that no one discipline "can claim a fundamental position in the scheme of knowing". He also commented that "once it becomes clear that there are forms of human experience which are just as important as knowing, the way is open to a philosophical study of man in the broadest sense." [W1]

This paper examines some of the philosophical issues regarding science, AI, and the human race; the basic position is that, despite the progress of this century, science, as a human endeavor, really does not know very much about life, the universe, or the potential of the human race. This lack of knowledge has an impact on AI, as well.

Some age-old debates are the result of this lack of knowledge and could most likely continue forever, except, that those with a pragmatic heart, from any of the camps defined below (monist, dualist, or don't care), realize the subjective nature of these issues and get together for real work, momentarily ignoring the controversial.

Such a peaceful coexistence is more easily attained if a certain amount of respect is shown for beliefs contrary to one's own than without the respect. However, throughout many modern writings is an implicit, and sometimes very explicit, statement that a dualist position has no reasonable basis and that the monist position is in fact the only one with a "scientific" foundation.

Now, it is understood and not denied that those with the dualist view have perpetrated many atrocities over the centuries. Bruno, for example, was "burned at the stake in 1600" [H3] for making a scientific stand that was counter to that of the authorities, who happened to be dualists. These kinds of facts abound. However, the actions of some dualists do not invalidate the position, necessarily.

Why the use of apologetics, dualist, monists, and don't care? Below is a discussion of the definitions, some of which are paraphrases of the definitions found in a modern dictionary. [B5]

apologetic - defending or explaining. The plural generally is associated with a theology defending Christianity; however in the context of this paper, there is no such orientation to one religious view.

dualist - there are many connotations, including those of a philosophical, psychological, theological, or ethical nature; however in the context of this paper, there is the belief in the existence of and "the immortality of" the spirit. [B2]  Consequently, there is the belief that intellectual facilities, e.g. imagination, thought, comprehension, and memory, are "spiritual powers." [B2]  However, on the other hand, there is the belief that it is human nature to seek knowledge and that there is an inherent human capacity to know.  Additionally, there is  the position that no real incompatibility exists between science and religion, and that any limitations of human capabilities to know are reasonably explained, though not a priori known. [B2]

monist - opposed to dualism; in the context of this paper, there could be many definitions.  Some characteristics of the position will be discussed below.

don't care - takes neither position for many reasons, such as a belief in the lack of evidence either way or a belief in the inability of the human race to obtain sufficient evidence to resolve the issue.  Or the basic operational view of someone while working in science or technology despite personal beliefs.

The above dualist definition is a pretty strong statement. But, that does not mean that this paper will cover necessarily just religious or metaphysical subjects. Rather, the paper is an attempt to show that holding a dualist position is not mutually exclusive with believing that AI is a viable discipline and to provide arguments on how the dualist position might contribute insights to AI that might be interesting. A dualist view does not necessarily put a priori limitations on the abilities of a computer system to be "intelligent." In fact, two of the most vocal critics of AI do not even want to be associated with the dualist position. [D2]

This paper will not attack the monist position, will provide an overview of some issues, will suggest some possible approaches, but will not provide answers. It should be read with a critical mind that recognizes that these debates must be continued in a spirit of openness and wonderment, as skepticism is not only the basis of a scientific view, it also is a requirement for independent thought in this modern age.

This paper will look at some of the issues surrounding AI and that being, the human. Some history and implicit, and not so implicit, assumptions that come into play will be considered; this paper will then suggest some approaches that need to be looked at. These issues are not trivial and cannot be fully addressed within the confines of this paper. However, the intent of this paper is to foster critical thinking, even where it might counter some the basic positions of AI folks, and to further debate in an attitude of open scientific inquiry, as is required on a continual basis if the human race is to fulfill its potential.

AI and Science

Those who adopt AI as their discipline are involved in developments that will become major factors in the evolution of human civilization, despite any reluctance to accept this role. AI relates to the human race in several ways, though these relationships may not be recognized and accepted by all AI practitioners and theorists. One relationship results from our perceiving humans as having demonstrated intelligence in the known history of the human race. Especially indicative of human intelligence is the technological progress of the last 150 years, as driven by scientific advancements; at the same time, though, one can easily point to many non-intelligent actions on the part of members of this same human race within the same time frame that lead to questions about the human race's abilities to cope with the future and itself.

Given the demonstratable intelligence shown by humans and given the recognition that this intelligence is associated with mental facilities connected with the brain and nervous system activity, one goal of the AI discipline might be to focus on using a computer to model human mental processes in order to gain insight into how these processes work. Such modeling attempts might accept that mind is an emergent quality of the brain [J1] or what the brain does. [l1], which then encourages a belief that the facilities of the human mind can be duplicated by a computer model.

Another goal for AI might be to duplicate human intelligence via a computer system such that the computer system can then meet or exceed human mental abilities. For this latter goal, the computer system might provide a more consistent basis for applying intelligence which does not have the limitations that are evident in humans, such as fatigue, emotional inconsistency, and a long list of other inadequacies.

Another goal for AI might be to augment human physical and mental abilities through intelligent computer systems. The possible range of this goal is very large and very desirable from many viewpoints.

For each of these goals, there are possible problems. For the first, there lurks the potential to overestimate the information that the computer model might convey and to take, for absolute truth, models that do not do justice to the remarkable phenomenon of a human. For the second, there lurks the potential to subject humans solely to machine-driven intelligence and to disallow any use of human creativity that might conflict with the machine's model. This problem is also related to the third goal; a problem well stated by two prominent critics of AI. [D2]

There is no claim, in this paper, that remarkably intelligent computer-based systems will not or should not be developed. Rather, there will be admonitions against thinking that we know how the mind works at this point in time or that we know the potential of humans intellectually. In other words, the degradation of the human race can probably be accomplished more by computer systems than by any other means, just because of the nature of their bases in mathematics and the mental subtlety and dexterity that is required to understand their technical aspects.

Because AI deals so closely with what is human, AI practitioners and theorist find themselves potentially embroiled in some controversial issues that are age-old and, even in this day and age, very much alive and unsettled, despite objections otherwise. And these AI folks need to understand some of the factors involved in these debates to a greater degree than is evident from comments of some. Even the progress in knowledge within the physical sciences has not given us (some anyway) warm feelings about our attaining satisfactory resolutions to these issues.

In a recent book, it was stated that in the middle 1880s, "the chairman of the physics department at Harvard discouraged graduate study because so few important matters remained unsolved." [Z1] There is a tendency to overstate what is known and to minimize the size of the unknowns. One can (or could, depending upon one's views) sense just such an over-confidence within the realms of AI. However, in this day and age, there is a different feeling among some physicists. The author stated that the "profound physicists of this century increasingly have become aware that they are confronting the ineffable." [Z1]

There is much debate about what science and its role are. A lot of work has been put into reducing the scope of science to that expressible in language. Carnap and Wittgenstein, as an example, were instrumental in such work. [C1][W1] The progress within the philosophy, logic, and mathematics in this century has been nothing but phenomenal, as humans have continued the progress toward reducing science to that observable within our limitations. [M3][P1] However, as can be seen by the work of cosmologists [H1], science has to have views beyond those of the strictly reductionist approach, if for no other reason than to have an idea of how the parts fit with the whole(s). But more on that later. Planck said that science "means unresting endeavor and continually progressing development toward an aim which the poetic intuition may apprehend, but which the intellect can never fully grasp." [P1]

It is just this uneasiness at fully attaining all knowledge that is missing in some of the confident assertions of those building computer systems. The ease with which we can grasp an understanding of our own-built systems should not lead to forgetfulness about the ineffableness of the system within which we have evolved, live now, and will continue to live long into the future, as a race.

One Age-old Debate

One result of our human intelligence is the awareness of one's environment, of the existence of other humans, and of many other factors that lead to questions about the nature of life and the position of the human within it. Additionally, each generation of humans receives much information, from humans who lived in former times on this planet, that carries a very strong influence and needs to be understood in a cultural sense (e.g. religious traditions, philosophical leanings, ethnic foundations). Influences from the past are always (and still are) very strong, even with today's focus on science, and will, no doubt, remain so for most humans.

One debate, that is religious in origin, concerns the mind-body problem and the issue of human spirituality. One side of this debate deals with whether there exists, or not, capabilities of humans that are not a part of nature and that, perhaps, even transcend human abilities to understand. A term associated with this debate is dualism. Views that oppose dualism, of which the monist view is one, take the form of describing emergent capabilities of human physiology; "Minds are What Brains Do" [L1] is the verdict reported in a summary of a symposium dealing with this subject. There have been several books of late which support a view of mind as basically as a property of the brain. [J1][M2]

An assumption held by many, though not by all, is that this debate has been settled. The issue is not debated in the literature, nor is the subject judged suitable for debate within scholastic circles, though private debate does continue. The fall 1987 summary of the above-mentioned symposium contained these words, "I sat there shocked ...; these comments are not the sort of thing one is used to hearing at a colloquium" [L1], in reference to the mention of a particular historic Figure of note, Christ.

The position, that any form of dualism is untenable, rests on the belief that the questions raised in this particular debate have been resolved by modern science. Or, given that questions still exist, that eventual answers will be forthcoming (assuming, of course, that definite answers will ever exist in this area) and will support a monist view.

Some of those who oppose the dualist position have a belief that physics will provide the answer, given that physics is the mainstay of science. However, even here there are doubts. To quote Hawking in his recent popular exposition: "we have redefined the task of science to be the discovery of laws that will enable us to predict events up to the limits set by the uncertainty principle." [H1] However, he also states that any "physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis: you can never prove it." [H1] Despite this humble view by one of the most gallant of scientist, one still finds those strongly leaning to the monist view and castigating any other view under the name of "science".

There are AI people on both sides and the middle of this issue, though it may not be a topic for 'polite' society; the approach taken to the issue may be to ignore it entirely in the spirit of pragmatism (don't care). There has been much philosophical support for pragmatism, with the empiricism of Locke, Hume, Mill [W1] providing a good basis.

In the interest of constraining reactions to the following presentation and deference to the materialistic bent of many modern views, there will be no reference to anything supernatural. And, the below material cannot be classified as dealing with metaphysics, though it will exceed the bounds of a positivist view.

Since there will be an emphasis on what is not known, by science, at this time, there needs to be a term that will allow some categorization without bringing in the pejorative connotations of "ghostly" [L1] attributes.

Hence, the below discussion will deal with some phenomenon that can be called preternatural, which deals with the inexplicable in terms of the known facts and laws of science, but not as being necessarily outside the universal natural order. Supernatural, on the other hand, concerns phenomenon which is existing or occurring through some agency beyond the known forces of nature. [B5] It can be argued that humans, at this time, do not know nature sufficiently to make the judgment between whether a phenomenon is entirely within nature or not.

The Debate, AI, and AI Practitioners

The debate mentioned in the above section has a different twist when it is encountered in AI circles, dealing mainly with the limitations of computer systems. These limitations are of several types, from issues of computability to suggestions that humans have mental qualities and processes that are not duplicable by machines.

The debate concerning man's versus a computer system's ability takes on a flavor that is not oriented to dualism necessarily. The Dreyfuss brothers are an example of view that opposes too much belief in the potential of computer systems. However, their position is stated as not wanting to be seen as that of a soulist or mystic. They do not want to "claim that there is anything in the brain transcending its electro-chemical activities." [D2]

The work of Searle in trying to show the limitations that might be inherent in computer systems is another example. Searle has taken a lot of criticism for a recent paper.[S2] A review in the periodical, AI Expert, suggested that a "danger exists that scientists may internalize the philosophical bases of their discipline so thoroughly that they mistake their point of view as 'truth' and conclude that anyone with a different perspective is a mystic." [B4]

To return to the Dreyfusses, their book [D4] is a very good review of philosophical issues that come into play in contemplation of humans and the qualities of humans. Their main argument rests upon what they call intuition, namely "unconscious and noninferential means by which human beings come to decisions". [D4] Simon stated that "most intuitive leaps are acts of recognition." [S4]

Whatever the definition of intuition, it is not attainable by computer systems according to the Dreyfusses, at least not at this point. The Dreyfusses spend a lot of argument on what entails an expert as well as defining the stages of expertise development. They argue that an expert does not deal in rules, rather the expert's "perception and understanding are based in our capacity for picking up, not rules, but flexible styles of behavior" [D4]

The Dreyfusses are not anti-computer. They write that "computers properly used need not alienate us from our everyday experienced-based intuition". Rather, "put in its proper place rational deliberation" which is the type of thinking associated with computing "sharpens intuition". [D4] They are not explicit about what intuition is, however as stated above they do not want to take a stance that looks to be dualist.

The Dreyfusses write that society "must encourage its children to cultivate their intuitive capacities in order that they may achieve expertise, not encourage them to become human logic machines". [D4] Now, intuition can be said to be more than just the complement of logic. But just what is intuition?

One can make the claim for intuition that borders on the paranormal. Many modern thinkers, though, are not comfortable with things verging on the preternatural. The debates over the potential capabilities of computer systems, in comparison to human capabilities, has these elements.

From an empirical viewpoint, current AI systems might be interesting, but they certainly are not a sufficient basis for some of the claims that are common. However, anyone is allowed their view, especially if privately held. When one holds up one's view, yes, just like is being done in this paper, then that makes one's belief susceptible to challenge.

In regard to claims that may have more basis in fancy than fact, this is not restricted to AI or computer science alone. Pais writes about the gap between theory and experiment that is becoming apparent in modern physics. He writes that many "of the most recent theoretical activities are highly speculative." There are "new mathematical structures ... erected with few ... data to back them up." He adds further, "One discerns a developing gap between fact and fancy." [P1] And he hopes that scientists get back to empirical issues and obtain more facts. But is this possible as particle physic experiments require ever larger capital expenditures, higher power inputs, and longer times?

The same can be said about AI in a sense. There have been a lot of interesting lab-based models, however AI has failed in its meeting with the real world. One message of this paper is that AI theorists and practitioners might have more respect for human life than is evident. The trouble is that AI deals with issues that cut to the core of what it means to be human, therefore it is subject to scrutiny and criticism in light of human issues. AI also has a great potential for treading heavily on the human spirit.

AI proponents, of course, have the freedom to believe in their quest to duplicate man's intellectual abilities, either entirely or in part. The hope is though that another view with as much value is given some attention. This view holds that computer systems will support human endeavors via a synergetic cooperative relationship between man and machine. One benefit will be an improvement in the objectivity within human affairs. Any contemplation of the potential for a complementary co-existence between humans and computers ends in bewilderment at the vastness of this potential.

This paper is not challenging the need for science. Rather, it asks the question of what country and culture can set itself as the paragon model of how the human race will develop or how it should be modeled. AI folks need to be more aware of anthropological issues that are involved in the human and computer issue.

Humans have capabilities that are potentially infinitely interesting. The facts show that there is more to human existence than meets the eye, so to speak. Many human facilities are not covered in current models. Additionally, humans have a right to respect. Many computer advocates have a focus for their technology that has a basis in proving humans as being of little value. It is encouraging to see research that looks to alleviate some of the dangerous and monotonous work currently performed by humans.

However, research that focuses entirely on eliminating the human in the loop potentially are detrimental. One can argue about such thinking and an occurrence of creating a master race, except now the race will be artificial systems. [G1] In many cases, one wonders if those who do not fit into the expectations or plans will just be expended. Human behavior is not above applying such solutions. So far, social pressures have prevented experimentation with human life; it is not hard to imagine some modern scientific approaches, though, that see such limitations as detrimental to good 'science'.

Scientists can be classified into at least three groups. There are those who adopt a scientism view that is as dogmatic as those of some people of particular religious orientations. There are those who take the pragmatic approach and do not worry about issues beyond those they are empirically involved with. Then there are those who follow a religious belief, albeit from a private viewpoint that does not interfere with their science. Of course, many scientists might just incorporate their religious beliefs into their science.

There are the masses of humanity, though, who do not know what to think about the problems of the modern age. These people look to those of better minds for answers. Scientists and scientific views are quoted often in the popular press. Many of these reports only add to the mystifying effect. It is not flattering to AI, and computer science, for so much emphasis to be placed upon degrading human capabilities. How is it so easily forgotten just how meager have been our advances in relationship to anything of a cosmic scale?

There is an extremely rich texture to a human's life. In fact, though the ineffable may not be expressible, it is experienced. Certain art forms, such as poetry, catch a glimpse of a state proposed by Idealists. What one sees in AI literature, though, tends more toward a degrading view of humans.

AI is not totally at fault. Mathematics and science have reduced our views of life through the approaches that have been reinforced this century. Except for cosmology, most scientific views are so totally couched in a reductionistic flavor that it is no wonder that the average human turns to other statesmen of the realm of human knowing. The author of this paper believes that AI and computer systems can play a large role in the advancement of human affairs and become an enabler of human progress.

It was mentioned earlier that Bruno was burned at the stake. One author remarks that the "warfare of authoritarianism against science, like the warfare of ignorance against knowledge, has not diminished since Galileo's days." [H3] Generally, the authoritarian voice in this warfare is the clerical community.

But one must ask if some, who are on the science side, might have become as authoritarian about their science as is any cleric about their position. Perhaps, those who do the burning are not necessarily dualists upholding some dogma, rather it might be that dualists, who are trying to apply a scientific approach in a wise manner, are burned at the stake of ridicule by those holding counter views. [L1]

One often encounters while reading modern scientific publications this attitude: a religious focus in someone's life will lead to them being considered a might-has-been. Pascal has been accused thusly. [E2] Pascal did contribute in his Pensees to this age-old debate with his 'wager' that deals with believing, or not, in the afterlife. To paraphrase Pascal: If there was an afterlife and he was a believer, then he would merit the reward at his death. If there was no afterlife and he was not a believer, then there be no loss. If there was an afterlife and he was not a believer, then he would merit the punishment. If there was no afterlife and he was a believer, again there would be no loss.

A modern day cynic might add to the last case (there being no afterlife and believing there is) that the loss was of very good times and a good life. However, rather than emphasize the reward or punishment for views held, let us rephrase this as below: If there is an afterlife and I act as if there is then I may contribute to the uplifting of the human race. If I don't act as if there is the afterlife, then I may act to downgrade the human race. Is that an important issue?

We all face death eventually. So far, no one has produced scientific evidence that provides confirmation or denial of an existence beyond death. Yet, one can speculate on the experience for one who has spent their life in denial as they suddenly become aware of the Reality: opportunities lost, whatever else there might be, presupposing of course that such a review occurs. This too is part of the debate.

A particular milestone addressed in the debate occurred over 300 years ago and becomes a root of many argument patterns. Namely the recantation of Galileo under pressure. [H3] Galileo was vindicated, as is well known. For "less than 50 years after Galileo", Newton integrated "the work of Copernicus, Kepler, and Galileo so brilliantly with the principles of mechanics that the long-delayed triumph of those pioneers of science was irrevocable." And a potential argument against all religious beliefs became real.

Some particular belief system may have been invalidated by Galileo's and Newton's efforts; however a reasonable look at the events, though, indicates that the problem was due to some having held views that conflicted with scientifically obtained facts and a reasonable interpretation of these facts. Human nature has many quirks. It has not been uncommon in science this century for there to be heated debates about theories.

In a sense, the issue of Galileo recantation was nothing more than a wart on some belief-based views. It was not a fatal wound, though many in science think as if it were so. Most arguments against religion take the form of showing how religious leaders say and do stupid things. [L1] There is no look at social value that, perhaps, results from a collective activity such as participating in a religion. Neither is there consideration of the personal value that might be attained from such an orientation.

Human as members of a collective

As stated earlier, most arguments about possible influences of a higher dimension on human affairs are based upon those religious teachings most familiar to western thinkers. There are plenty of other examples for the benefits of religion that could be raised, however this paper will only look at one example.

Islam, in all its aspects, is poorly, if at all, understood by those in the cultures of european origin. Islam is interesting in the context of AI because it can be related to the Judeo-Christian heritage which has received so much criticism. That basis alone is no reason for refutation of the beliefs of Islam. This paper can not expand upon Islam, however some of the characteristics of the Islamic are pertinent to human characteristics that need to be addressed by AI (or those dealing in the human sciences) and to the dualism issue.

The Muslim, a human of Islamic persuasion, "dwells in a universe where religion has the central place" in his or her life. [S1] Having grown up in a culture with a strong split between church and state, most westerners do not understand such a world view. However, the Muslim has a strong tradition to follow and, "in resolving to follow the straight path of Islam", the Muslim sets his "feet upon a way trodden by countless others, prophets, saints, heroes, pious and learned men from the very beginning of the world." [S1]

Islam started in the 7th century with the teachings of Mohammad. The beginning of a religion with the teachings of a historic figure is an interesting topic in its own right that is pertinent to understanding human nature, however this paper will not expand on this topic because of space constraints.

In contrast to the Islamic culture, with its emphasis on the "communal, social aspects of life above all else: life lived in concert with others" [S1], both the western culture and the eastern culture were evolving in entirely different paths. Western culture has "progressively encouraged outward individual action" while the "Orient has emphasized the interior life of the individual." [S1]

And it is from this same western culture that AI has sprung. The caution one must extend to AI theorists and practitioners is that any theoretical basis that claims to extend to all humanity will have to consider the views of other cultures, such as the Islamic and Oriental cultures. Otherwise, a one-culture view will be too narrow a view to be declared universal.

An example is forthcoming. The beliefs of Islam are definitely dualistic in nature, and there are many references in the Koran in regard to the soul and the afterlife of humans.[A2] In regard to life and mind, a statement, such as, "the majority are agreed that the spirit is an object through which the body lives" [A1], is evidence of just how strong the dualist position is within the Islamic community. Or further, the "spirit is a body which is too subtle to be perceived, and too great to be touched: it cannot be expressed in any other way than as being existent." [A1] This last quote follows the theme of this paper that humans experience an ineffable that a scientific view has trouble grasping. This failure, though, in no wise, invalidates these experiences.

These examples of Islamic beliefs are provided only to indicate to those who may not have been exposed to such strong beliefs that such beliefs exists. The characteristic of a human to believe and that beliefs have substantive support in culture and phenomenon, need to be taken seriously and respected. Of course, one could postulate that, given sufficient time to study the Koran and the Islamic culture, counter arguments against the belief are possible and would be developed. That is not the issue, though. What is more important is that millions of people currently hold this belief. And over the past 12 centuries many millions more people have lived as Muslims.

One has to wonder on the commonness of the messages from Moses to Christ to Mohammed. The power of these three Leaders in capturing the attention and devotion of their respective followers through the centuries is demonstrable and evident, even to this modern age. One might state these phenomena of belief by millions as a collective delusion, however, that would not negate the existence of the beliefs nor would it represent a true 'scientific' viewpoint to so offhandedly dismiss such an amazing and major fact.

This paper cannot address these issues further, as it would require a digression into religion and theology. But the questions about such power as held by these Leaders remain to be answered.

Humans, Myths, and the Ineffable

C. G. Jung wrote much about the human psyche, including the human need for myths. He opinion-ed that "no science will ever replace myth, and a myth cannot be made of any science." [J4] Jung spent his professional life studying the myths of man and noting the commonality of myths across cultures and time. Myths are the result of creatively interpreting the unconscious, the "primeval ocean" [J3] in his view. Jung wrote "that the creative power that modern man pours into science and technics the man of antiquity devoted to his myths." [J2] The modern scientist has succeeded in dominating some serious intellectual energies in the development of his mind. "Only a very few individuals succeed in throwing off mythology in epochs of exceptional intellectual exuberance" [J2] such as we face now. But "the masses never" [J2] do succeed in throwing off myths. One wonders how much myth-making there is in some adherence to modern views of science.

Jung thought that the "primeval ocean of the unconscious" [J3] is not necessarily the subconscious. He asked, " how do we know that the unconscious is 'lower' and not 'higher' than the conscious." [J3] Jung hypothesized a "collective unconscious" that is "common to all". He spent his professional life collecting and analyzing data about some human characteristics, which work caused him to hold "certain views which others find inadmissible." But Jung held that "the unexpected and the incredible belong in this world." [J4]

It is the opinion of the author that one can interchange 'collective unconscious' with the discarded term, 'ether'. An updated definition of the ether would emphasize it as energy that we utilize from a realm which we influence via our mental activities. Experiments of physics demonstrated that the concept of ether is not necessary for the theories of physics. However, the issue of energies that come into play at a psychological level have not adequately addressed. More on this below.

In the absence of myths that results from certain modern views, humans will try to build their own myths even to the point of couching the mythical in scientific terms. The press abounds with popular views on the mysterious, for most people, aspects of modern science. In one book, the author reports his experiments on trying techniques that are oriented toward developing an insight into powers that are latent within the human psyche. In particular, he attempted to gain insight into higher realms but quit after several months, finding that "the experiences were so deeply frightening and disturbing" that continuation would threaten his "mental health". [R3]

In a more recent publication, this author has words that are more computer related and of interest here. Reality, in the mind of this author, is "an incompressible computation by a fractal cellular automata of inconceivable dimensions." [R4] This exactly shows how our language and thinking are constrained by our experiences. He is not alone in bringing the latest jargon to attempting a description of the reality we all share and of experiences felt vaguely but of which we do not know enough for definitive answers. Another author opinion-ed, as stated above, that some physicists "have become aware that they are confronting the ineffable". [Z1]

Now, that statement was in regard to those pursuing that basic scientific discipline expected to provide the most reliable answers. But, quantum mechanics, as mentioned above, itself is bordering on the mystical and finding itself unable to overcome the principles of uncertainty. From their attitude, it's hard to determine any such reticence on the part of some AI theorists.

There are many reported characteristics of humans that have no adequate scientific explanation. It is understandable that a skeptical attitude is taken towards the existence of these characteristics, as there have been many examples of fraudulent reports and of duplicity in these areas.

However, total suppression of recognition of the possibility of these characteristics does not negate the existence of the phenomena. It is not hard to propose that there are many human qualities that are latent and are socialized out of awareness through education and social pressures. Hence, it makes sense to look at children for evidence of phenomena that, perhaps, should be looked at further.

Take as an example of the near-death experience (NDE). Children have been reported as describing this experience consistently. Adults have reported similar experience, but these report, though they show some consistent, are not as consistent as found with children.

A recent newspaper article summarized the statements of children who have undergone such a dramatic experience. A pediatrician, who is studying the phenomenon, reported that "seven-year-olds, 3-year-olds and even 2-year-olds all describe the same thing." [W3]

There are several explanations that have been proposed for the phenomenon, and the experience has even been reproduced in a controlled setting. The same article reports that when a brain surgeon "electrically stimulated the sylvian fissure in the temporal lobe ... above the right ear", patients frequently "had the experience" that is similar to a NDE. What do NDErs communicate to us: namely an "experience of God, visiting with dead relatives and friends, or a panoramic view of their lives". [W3] These descriptions, perhaps, should be read with a thought about Pascal's wager as background. His wager resulted from an experience that he had of an ineffable nature. The fact that time has elapsed since Pascal was on this planet only indicates that some phenomena persist despite denials.

Turning toward other human ineffable situation, communication beyond language has received much interest lately, namely those of a non-verbal and behavioral type. The observations in this area show that all information is not conveyed via language.

However, there are other forms of inter-human communication that border on the preternatural. Some of these are expressed as shared feelings, such as familial or groupal. The interplay that occurs between two or more people is one area that is not captured by any current computer models. In fact, the phenomenon is not even well described, however that humans create something other than the sum of the parts is obvious. Every human, who have been personally involved with another, has experienced an ineffable sense of communication. Of course, some will accept this more than others.

The realm of emotions can be a tricky business, and introspection is suspect in some cognitive fields. Nevertheless, emotions are a major part of a person's life, such as those while holding a baby, watching a sunset at the beach (for some people anyway), and so forth.

Yet, a common experience of parents is the frustration of trying to determine the discomfort causes of a baby and of failing to do so. Empathy has its limits. There are other incidences, continually, of misunderstandings caused by a communication breakdown. One prevalent in today's news concern male-female interactions, such as unwanted pursuit of intimacy to a violent extreme. Jane says no, but Joe sees yes; and so it forth.

These examples of the lack of communication on a conscious level do not disprove the possibility of an unconscious communication. We all know we are influenced to a great degree by our peers and even other groups. There are many possible types of influences to which we are subject that need to be explored, such as those of the same space-time locus, possible influences from other space-time loci, influences from cohorts of the same persuasion, influences from those with whom one is not compatible. Jung in his ruminations hypothesized the "collective unconscious" [J4] by which we are influenced. How can these ideas be explored in a scientific manner? Is it even possible? Mainly, it is a matter of the proper model and approach. But more on that later.

In another area of human experience, some research has shown that prayer can contribute toward the health of a patient. One study showed that it was the mechanics of the prayer, rather than the target or substance of the prayer, that produced the benefit. One Harvard cardiologist actually prescribes prayer for patients [W4], expecting that there will be results without requiring an explanation. Our daily experience is full of actions taken without conscious support; in fact, if every action of daily life required a detailed description of its characteristics or proof of its veracity, an unhealthy paralysis would result. In terms of prayer, one can speculate that such actions cause their beneficial effect by the consciousness attuning itself to a basic benevolent force that controls the collective unconscious [J4] or to a psychic form of energy [C2].

One author wrote that the nature of consciousness is "science's biggest mystery". [H2] In regard to some quantum theorists postulating super-luminal communication, based upon Bell's theorem, he states that consciousness might be a "private manifestation of deep quantum reality". [H2] Bell's theorem requires that "our quantum knowledge" be "non-local." [H2] He wrote, "it is difficult to see what use we could make of such non-local connections. On the other hand, perhaps these connections are not there for us to 'use'". [H2]

In a book that summarized the current knowledge about the brain, the authors stated that "Plato's dualism poses special problems" for scientists. "Synchronicity" is one big mystery of the dualist's view. However, reasonable explanations can be made, though they are beyond the scope of this paper. One, though, can guess that somewhere down the pike, "there's going to be a wonderful crisis in the minds of scientists" [H4] when the existence of many phenomenon can no longer be denied or their reality avoided. Two of the most catastrophic, in the author's opinion, will be proof that there are other intelligent beings in the universe and that humans are regularly influenced over the 'ether', usually called telepathy.

Many of these phenomena can have a scientific explanation, though not necessarily to the level required by the logical positivist. [W1] However, the future will have some phenomena so bordering on the fantastic that the staunchest pragmatist will no longer be able to deny their existence. One can only speculate what the reactions will be when the human race does find out it is not alone in the universe. In regard to telepathy, everyone has stories about their own experiences. With some physicists moving toward the mystical, as we have seen from some recent writings, and if the existence of non-local influences can be established, this, too, will cause major upheavals within science.

Extensions required for mathematics and science

In regard to explaining some of these phenomena related to human nature, extensions to modern scientific thinking will be required. Three areas where new ideas need to be incorporated are mathematics, logic, and physics, especially electro-magnetic theory. Einstein said that the object of all science is "to co-ordinate our experiences and to bring them into a logical system." [E1] It does not make sense that a whole class of experiences is ignored by science and that some modern views discourage any recognition of the reality of the experiences.

One modern view accepts the proposition that the mind is an emergent characteristic. 'Emergence' has already been introduced into psychology; the existence of emergent qualities in perception was recognized and introduced by the Gestalts early this century. [R2] Question arise, though, about emergent qualities: are they there potentially? from where does an emergent quality arise? Another modern approach focuses on the nerve network as a basis for consciousness [M1][R1], again with emergence as a key.

It is not far from the statements about the origin of emergent qualities to thinking about pre-existence, despite objections otherwise; this, then, leads to a form of dualism.

The mind may be thought of as a potential awaiting the proper evolutionary state of human physiology. Again, further questions: where is this potential, what is its form? There is one basic truism that cannot be ignored: something does not arise from nothing. [B2][H1]

An example of emergence might be a seed from which a plant emerges, given the right conditions. On observing a seed, there may be a means to predict the plant's characteristics given that the seed is from a known and well studied species; however, for the plant, potentially existent from that seed, there is no current means by which to know how the plant will look once it grows. In fact, any inspection of the seed by someone ignorant of the particular species could tell very little about its potential.

Arguments in these areas come to the problem of precedence, such as the chicken and its relationship to the egg. We can observe the cycle that is involved based upon our knowledge of life. Do we have now or can we ever determine the order of emergence for these phenomena? It is in issues such as these, and there are more than commonly accepted in some views, that motivated the work, early in this century, to limit scientific inquiry to those areas for which only objective statements may be phrased. [W1] Hence, whole classes of phenomena were defined as being outside the bounds of science. But the experiences that give rise to a dualist view are not negated by being excluded from acceptable scientific inquiry. Hence, interest in this area continues.

There is not doubt that the discipline of scientific objectivity has brought much benefit to human existence. It has not contributed to explaining many aspects of life, though, especially in areas humans regularly experience. It is just the appreciation for what we do not know that leads some to consider the ineffable. [Z1]

Science does not give absolute results. [H1] There is a serious basis for considering all knowledge as relative. Some computer scientists appear to have the opinion that a computer system might overcome the relative-ness of scientific knowledge. Though the personal view of the author is that relativity is important to computer systems, intelligent computer systems will provide some degree of objectivity to humans that is not possible otherwise.

Our problem is that the current mathematical approaches act like blinders for our thinking. The drawback is from using set theory as a basis. Mathematics has emphasized the ideas of collections, via sets, from work of Cantor, Russell, and others. [K1][S3]

The issue with a set theoretic approach is not from its anomalies. Russell's theory of types overcame this anomaly of the set approach, namely, how to overcome self-reference. [R5] The issue is more with how to handle infinite sets. Russell was aware that the intuitionists' stand on this matter could invalidate a lot of the work in mathematics. Of necessity, mathematics must deal with both intension and extension. By extension, a class "is defined by enumeration of its terms", however this method will not allow "dealing "with infinite classes" [R5]. We deal with infinite classes daily through various approximations.

Even an attempt to collect within a non-infinite class has its problems. A good example, in fact, is with the attempts to perform a very large finite collection, such as the 1990 U. S. Census. This attempt at counting has its difficulties, due to the dynamics of the class members and the changing nature of the world through the time of the counting.

The reality is that humans as scientists have to deal with collections. Russell held the opinion that it was necessary to "look for instances" [R5] and to prove existences. Mathematics "has practical uses". [R5] Rather than just to establish self-consistency and non-contradictory-ness, mathematics needs to be applied.

Another problem with set theory is its "all or nothing" membership view. [D5] This problem can be overcome somewhat by fuzzy set theory. But that there is the issue that "the universe is never fuzzy." [D5] It is not possible to deal with the notion of a whole beyond bounds or a class which we can label 'UNKNOWABLE.'

Russell wrote that we need to see that aggregates differ from what he called "unities." [R5] The work of the Gestalt psychologists of this century has a basis in the same idea: that "the whole is different from the sum of its parts." [R2]

An issue is how can one express the idea of a whole, especially when the whole is not known fully or cannot be known. The modern scientific approach is to break a whole into its parts; this view presupposes a whole that can be encompassed and whose parts are isolatable. In many cases, we only know a part of a whole without any insight into the whole itself. We may not even know that something is part of a whole. The experiences with particle physics have demonstrated that parts that are known have severe limits on what might be known of them and that all parts may not be knowable.

Another issue is in expressing a whole, of which we may know some parts, however this knowledge of the parts does not diminish what we do not know about the whole. Science generally attributes boundaries in order to facilitate derivation of a solution. The issue of whether the universe is closed or open is an example. Each alternative view can be supported but lead to different results.

The class of all knowledge is inexhaustible and therefore can be called infinite. Nevertheless, we deal with knowledge as if it can be bounded. The inception of a knowledge expansion within this century, the rate at which knowledge has been growing in this 'information age', and the technological successes from applying this knowledge reinforce the tendency to emphasize how much we know. However, such gall in the face of the infinite is nothing more than a modern version of an anthropomorphism.

The purpose for bringing up this argument is that a new paradigm is required that goes beyond the focusing on collections only. A description of this paradigm is not being declared here, due to the constraints on the paper size. Rather the recognition of a need for a mind-set shift is suggested, the potential benefits to science of which shift may be more than came from the recognition of the conversation laws. [H3] Since these changes will require a notational device, perhaps a basis might be found in topology. [A2][K1][S3] Extensions to this branch of mathematics have been proposed for biological studies, for example. [R1] Minsky alluded to the importance of topology to the future of AI, as another example. [W2]

Whatever the approach that will be taken, it will mean more than using the term, infinity, as the concept of the infinite was tamed by Cantor. Modern analysis has made great use of this taming. [S3] However, there are other connotations of infinity that need to be addressed, with eternal-ness being one example. Space-time and the absolute limit of the speed of light were hypothesized by Einstein for his theory. [E1] These are under question by some in quantum mechanics with notions of the need for a super-luminal communication to explain results. [B3][H2][Z1] v Consider four possible classes of phenomena. Each of these has an analogy in mathematical terms, though any beyond the first would be called preternatural.

1) [a, b] - those with a beginning and an ending. One example is one particular human life, a common experience, so far, for any human is to be mortal. Another example is a terminating program. 2) [a, b] - those with a beginning, however the ending is not known. An example would be a non-terminating program [N1], providing no computer failure which is not very likely with our current level of knowledge. 3) ]a, b] - those with an ending, however the beginning is not known, no example is provided. 4) ]a, b[ - those without a beginning or an ending, an example could be the universe, the current beliefs in the Big Bang theory notwithstanding.

From our particular lives or the life of the human race, we don't have much insight or view into the limitations of cosmic phenomena, despite our thinking otherwise. We don't know whether there was a beginning to the universe. A view on this issue will different from the monist, dualist,or don't care positions.

One can say that God is the Endless Unknowable; the existence or not of God, for some, will resolve around how far a positivist view can be pushed. However, even the basic means for us to know, physics, is plagued by the uncertainty principle described by Heisenberg. Science can not disprove God or that there is a basis to a dualist position. The question becomes how much and by what means can we know God; the issue is clear, we can not ever know God entirely, and how much and what we can know is not a subject of this paper. However, one can not contemplate a loving God without realizing that there must be a means provided for such knowledge. [B1][B2]

In the area of logic, much has been written about the need to go beyond Aristotlean logic. One modern extension is fuzzy logic based upon fuzzy set theory. [D5]. However, we need to include the unknown, basically by incorporating a time element. There would be the true for now, false for now, but generally the unknown would always be there, and the unknown is not necessarily diminished by the growth of the knowns.

The basic proposition is that the unknowable will always exist. However, the known and the knowable are very large indeed. In fact, one can argue that the knowable will grow endlessly and hypothesize that nature is an infinite subset of the unknowable.

The growth of the knowns has been recognized within the community of those who study human phenomenon. Simon mentioned that despite the growth of information "it is not safe to say that the professional chemist must learn more today than a half century ago." [S4] "He must know as much as a diligent person can learn in about a decade of study." [S4]

But a whole-part discussion can come into play here also, just as it did above. In terms of the knowns, we might say we have an idea of the whole. Especially, terminology that takes an object-attribute approach may allow identification of a particular object even when all attributes are not known. In fact, the quick adoption of object approaches within the computer science community results from its intuitive match with human mental models.

How do we handle the unknown, though, in the sense of the whole? In the past, when such was allowable, a priori reasoning came into play. Since in the history of humankind a priori approaches have been connected with charlatanism, the methods associated with this approach have become suspect and are the subject of ridicule, unnecessarily.

Science has taken to the a posteriori view as being the more tenable. Basically, the idea is to not ask questions that can not be answered. However, science cannot suppress the human instincts for pondering, which is intuitive. This is more a priori than not. All humans know what it is to be human, and the human experience has much involved with it that is ineffable. Since there is a basis human propensity for this form of reasoning, it must have some basis.

This paper is not trying to present answers. However, as above, think back to before the conservation laws and how these laws brought progress to physical science. In fact, they are the mainstay of most current theories. A suggestion can be made: a form of reasoning needs to be developed that focuses upon operational characteristics rather than proofs. One might say that it would be an acceptance of results that come within some bounds, which bounds might have a rigorous basis. However, the particular details behind the result derivation might not be known entirely.

In a discussion of the limits of an expert system, one participant stated his belief that "correctness is inherently unattainable." [D3] He added that "God made it this way; no amount of clever programming is going to change it." [D3] This point is central to the need for extensions to logic. In one report on a dualist-monist debate, there was a discussion of the known limitations of formal systems. Basically, the author stated his misgivings that even with a machine, via an algorithm, doing "guessing and learning and mistake making", [L1] there is "still a level of description at which the AI model looked like a consistent formal system." [L1]

Humans have the ability to deal with the complexity, including dealing with the ineffable. Of what a human can know, a large part is in experience only, that can not be expressed in speech, or language. Yet, this same human capability is underestimated in most modern views. The author of this paper believes that computer systems can provide assistance in this area too. What a challenge for AI!

As a final comment, the suggestion that electro-magnetic (E-M) theory needs to be extended to account for some phenomenon that are related to human nature. We are currently at the mid-1700 levels in this compared to the present E-M theory. At that time, there were phenomena that were observable consistently, though no one had a grasp on the underlying physics in order to develop explanations. In this day, there are phenomena that are observable and repeatable that go without attention because of limitations put upon science. As an analogy, one could say that, perhaps, the work of Gilbert has been done in this area. However, the knowledge of the phenomenon is somewhere around in a state as was E-M in the time of Coulomb. Definitely, there has been no Faraday and Maxwell, as of yet.

Conclusion

The study of human capabilities is a respectable task and AI can provide an objective basis for some of this study. [W2] There needs to be more emphasis on data, experiments, and unrestricted inquiry. However, the respect for human life and respect for the individual human is also a necessity. The human race exists, and AI is a reality. AI with its association with psychological phenomena must work with other human sciences. There is too much at stake for the human race to not allow these discussions.

This paper makes the proposal that the computer, through the work of AI, can be symbiotic helper of the human race. There are very many roles that a computer system can play. At this time, no one knows the limits to which a man-made system can go. A dualist's position is not necessarily anti-science nor is it anti-engineering. It definitely does not place a priori limitations upon the progress of the human race and its use of technology. One quote is appropriate: "O My Servant! Obey Me and I shall make thee like unto Myself. I say 'Be', and it is, and thou shalt say 'Be', and it shall be." [B1] The human race drive to mimic its Creator is as old as the debate discussed in this paper.

This paper could not do justice to these issues, which foster never ending debates. This paper did present a side of the argument that has not received sufficient attention, in the view of the author. One issue is that AI, as any discipline, needs to get beyond an introvert-ive look at its own self-consistency and to relate itself with the real world, and in doing so help improve the quality of life for all humans.

Mathematics and computer science can draw inspiration from more than just the "sanitized physical science approved by positivism"; it has taken, and can take, from "human institutions", such as business, religion, law, war, politics, ethics, gambling, mysticism, ritual, play. [D1]

The hope is that practitioners of modern science will not have to live split lives. To quote Jung quoting Faust, he saw himself as being torn between the "two souls" that "are housed" [J4] within his breast. Basically, our "private" and "public" [H3] faces are at variance. These battles within an individual are not that uncommon at all in the modern day and age. Many of my scientific friends, who are also religiously inclined, use the "separation of church and state" argument in the dichotomous relations between their work and their belief. Is it modern man's fate to have a split personality between his or her private beliefs and his or her professional mind-set? Perhaps, but is this inevitable?

Bibliography

----------------------------------------------
 

A1. Arberry, A. (translator) The Doctrine of the Sufis, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1979

A2. Arberry, A. The Koran - Interpreted, The Macmillan Company, New York, 1970

A3. Artin, E., H. Braun Introduction to Algebraic Topology, Charles E. Merrill Publishing Company, Columbus, OH, 1969

B1. Baha'u'llah, The Seven Valleys and the Four Valleys, Baha'i Publishing Trust, Wilmette, IL, 1967

B2. Barney, L. Some Answered Questions - Collected and Translated from the Persian of Abdu'l-Baha, Baha'i Publishing Trust, Wilmette, IL, 1964

B3. Barrow, J. The World within the World, Oxford University Press, New York, 1988

B4. Bourbaki, N. "Turing, Searl, & Thought", AI Expert, July, 1990

B5. Britannica World Language Dictionary, Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc., Chicago, IL 1965

C1. Carnap, R. The Logical Syntax of Language, Harcourt, Brace, and Company, New York, 1938

C2. de Chardin, T. The Phenomenon of Man, Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc., New York, 1959

D1. Davis, P.J., R. Hersh Descartes' Dream, The World According to Mathematics, Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, MA, 1987

D2. Davis, R.B. (Ed) "Expert Systems: How Far Can They Go? Part 1", AI Magazine, Spring, 1989

D3. Davis, R.B. (Ed), "Expert Systems: How Far Can They Go? Part 2", AI Magazine, Summer, 1989

D4. Dreyfuss, H.L and S.E. Mind over Machine, The Free Press, New York, 1986

D5. Dubois, D., H. Prade Fuzzy Sets and Systems: Theory and Applications, Academic Press, New York, 1980

E1. Einstein, A. The Meaning of Relativity, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1974

E2. Eves, H. An Introduction to the History of Mathematics, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York, 1976

G1. de Garis, H. "What if AI Succeeds?: The Rise of the 21st Century Artilect, AI Magazine, Summer, 1989

H1. Hawking, S. A Brief History of Time - From the Big Bang to Black Holes, Bantam Books, New York, 1990

H2. Herbert, N. Quantum Reality, Beyond the New Physics, Anchor Books/Doubleday, Garden City, NY, 1987

H3. Holton, G., D. Roller Foundations of Modern Physical Science, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Inc., Reading, MA, 1959

H4. Hooper, J., D. Teresi The 3-Pound Universe, The Brain - From the Chemistry of the Mind to the New Frontiers of the Soul, Dell Publishing Co., Inc., New York, 1987

J1. Jaynes, J. The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind, Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, MA, 1990

J2. Jung, C. G. Symbols of Transformation, Volume I, Harper Torchbooks, New York, 1956

J3. Jung, C. G. Symbols of Transformation, Volume II, Harper Torchbooks, New York, 1956

J4. Jung, C.G. Memories, Dreams, Reflections, Vintage Books Edition, New York, 1989

K1. Kelley, J. General Topology, Van Nostrand , New York, 1955

L1. Letovsky, S. "Ecclesiates: A Report from the Battlefields of the Mind-Body Problem", AI Magazine, Fall, 1987

M1. McCulloch, W. S., W. Pitts "The logical calculus of the ideas immanent in nervous activity", Bulletin of Mathematical Biophysics, May, 1943

M2. Minsky, M. The Society of Mind, Simon and Schuster, New York, 1986

M3. Mortimer, H. The Logic of Induction, Ellis Horwood Limited, Chichester, West Sussex, 1988

N1. Nelson, R. J. Introduction to Automata, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 1968

P1. Pais, A. Inward Bound, Of Matter and Forces in the Physical World, Oxford University Press, 1988

P2. Planck, M. The Philosophy of Physics, Norton, New York, 1936

R1. Rashevsky, N.  Mathematical Biophysics - Physico-Mathematical Foundations of Biology, Dover Publications, Inc., New York, 1960

R2. Rock, I., S. Palmer "The Legacy of Gestalt Psychology", Scientific American, Dec. 1990

R3. Rucker, R. Geometry, Relativity, and the Fourth Dimension, Dover Publications, Inc. New York, 1977

R4. Rucker, R. The Five Levels of Mathematical Reality, Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, MA, 1987

R5. Russell, B. Principles of Mathematics, W. W. Norton & Company, New York, 1938

S1. Savory, R. (Ed) Introduction to Islamic Civilization, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1976

S2. Searle, J.R. "Is the Brain's Mind a Computer Program?, Scientific American, Jan. 1990

S3. Simmons, G. Introduction to Topology and Modern Analysis, McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., New York, 1963

S4. Simon, H.A. The Sciences of the Artificial, The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1985

W1. White, M. The Age of Analysis, The New American Library, New York, 1955

W2. Science in '90s looks at humans, Wichita Eagle, Wichita, KS, Jan. 1990

W3. Belief in 'near-death' drives doctor's quest, Wichita Eagle, Wichita, KS, Sep. 1990

W4. 'Faith factor' proves itself as healing force, Wichita Eagle-Beacon, Wichita, KS, Apr 1989

Z1. Zukav, G. The Dancing Wu Li Masters, An Overview of the New Physics, Bantam Books, New York, 1986

     1990           John M. Switlik