Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news4.ner.bbnplanet.net!news3.near.net!paperboy.wellfleet.com!news-feed-1.peachnet.edu!gatech!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netcom.com!kovsky
From: kovsky@netcom.com (Bob Kovsky)
Subject: Re: Computers do not exercise freedom
Message-ID: <kovskyDBnz61.GGE@netcom.com>
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
References: <3u03sc$780@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 1995 16:58:48 GMT
Lines: 248
Sender: kovsky@netcom7.netcom.com

Mickwest wrote:
>
>I would like to ask the opponents of Strong AI for an example of a quality
>that a human mind has that a computer could not possibly have, even with a
>very advanced technology.
>
>Simply saying something like "intuition" or "emotion" will not do on its
>own. You have to present the example in three stages:
>
>1) Define what the example (say intuition) actually is.
>2) Describe a test to demonstrate its abscence.
>3) Explain how a human could have it and a computer could never ever have
>it.
>

     Human beings exercise freedom.  Freedom is the capacity to
act in a situation where structure is only partially defined. 
Computers (at least as presently available) require fully defined
structures.  Hence no computer can exercise freedom.  Indeed,
what is "mechanical" is not "free" and vice-versa.

     Because freedom is exercised in situations where structure
is only partially defined, it is impossible to describe a
fully-structured situation where freedom is exercised.  It is,
however, possible to describe a class of situations where
structures are partially defined and freedom is exercised.  Such
a class is presented where the task is the integration of two
structures, but where there does not exist a general structure
comprehending the two structures.

     Here is a detailed example.  

     You are moving into a new house.  Boxes are piled in the
kitchen.  In the boxes are dishes, silverware, cooking utensils,
pots and pans, cleaning materials, dry foods suitable for storage
at room temperature, and other items:  collectively call these
"articles."  You face the task of unpacking the boxes and
arranging the articles in the kitchen.  Some features of the task
follow.

     (1)  Your initial feeling is <uncertainty>.  There are many
articles.  You do not know how the arrangement will be
accomplished.  You expect that the task will require much time
and effort.  Perhaps you feel anxiety about the uncertainty and
the requirements of the task.

     Uncertainty and anxiety often signal a task requiring an
exercise of freedom.  These are reactions to acting in an
unstructured situation.  Kierkegaard wrote:  "Anxiety is the
dizziness of freedom."  

     (2)  As you apply yourself to the task of arranging the
articles in the kitchen, several <purposes> are present.  You
want the articles to be conveniently placed for their expected
uses.  You want to organize articles so that those with closely
related uses are physically close to one another.  You want to
preserve patterns you have previously developed for food
preparation, food service, and cleaning.  You want to store many
articles efficiently in limited space.  

     (3)  The purposes cannot all be perfectly accomplished. 
Some storage spaces provide easier access than others.  The
separate cabinets and drawers, each with a fixed size, require
arbitrary groupings and divisions.  Because the layout of the new
kitchen is different from that of the old, accustomed patterns
must be revised.  Any actual arrangement will suffer from
inefficiencies.  Some of the purposes conflict.  You must <adjust
imperfections>.

     (4)  The activity requires a large number of separate acts. 
You must do one act at a time.  You may simply open the most
available box, take out the first article, and put it where you
think it will end up.  Or you may have labeled the boxes and will
start with some group of articles, such as dishes, whose best
location is apparent.  Or you may sit down with pencil and paper
and try to "plan."  However you proceed, you must act on matters
as you encounter them.  "Acting on matters as you encounter them"
I call <spontaneity>.  "Spontaneity" means that there does not
exist a general approach to the problem of arranging articles in
a kitchen such that your task can be treated as a special case or
particular application.  

     (5)  As you work, any initial anxiety subsides.  You are
still uncertain about the decisions that must be made later, but
your attention is now focussed on the activity.  You become
<absorbed> in the task of creating a new structure.

     (6)  The description of the task so far has assumed you are
a single person and you alone are carrying out the task. 
Consider now an "extended example" where you and a partner have
decided to live together and both of you have contributed boxes
from your previously separate kitchens.  You must <co-operate> in
the task, and you know that whether you are able to co-operate
and how you jointly carry out the task will have consequences for
your partnership.  All of the features previously considered take
on additional meaning.

     The task of putting away articles in a new kitchen involves
two structures.  (Three structures in the case of a "partner.")  
You must <integrate> the structures, i.e. create a new structure
that combines the original structures.  Consider first the structures
separately and then their integration.

     One structure is defined by the cabinets, drawers and, in
general, the <spatial> arrangement in the kitchen.  This familiar
kind of structure requires little discussion.  It is defined by
geometrical quantities such as length, width and breadth of
volumes, thickness of materials and angle between planes.

     The other structure is defined by the <uses> of the
articles.  For example, in your experience it may be that two
articles, such as a flour sifter and a rolling pin, have been
frequently used together in cake baking.  Their frequent use
together makes them likely candidates for storage together in a
single drawer.  Or, you may have a set of knives.  When you need
to cut something you look to the set and choose the knife in the
set most suitable to the particular task; accordingly you want
the set stored as a single unit.  Dinner plates in a set of
dishes are interchangeable and you will want to store them in a
single stack.

     We integrate structures all the time.  (Sometimes the word
"co-ordination" is more apt.)  Some tasks of structural
integration require an exercise of freedom, and some do not.  For
example, dialing a telephone requires the integration of muscular
action with numbers seen, heard or remembered; but no freedom is
required.

     Any particular task (or sub-task) either requires an
exercise of freedom or it does not.  When no freedom is required,
the task is mechanical.  The division between mechanical tasks
and free tasks is important.  When the task involves the
integration of structures, that division can be expressed as
follows:  if the structures to be integrated are <congruent>, the
integration can be performed mechanically; if the structures to
be integrated are <incongruent>,  the integration requires an
exercise of freedom.  There is a method of analysis to ascertain
whether two structures are congruent or incongruent.

     Two structures are congruent when they fit together in a
clear and definite fashion.  The simplest case occurs when each
item in the first structure corresponds to exactly one item in
the second structure, and vice-versa; this is a <one-one>
relation.  Such a one-one relation connects each muscular act in
dialing a telephone number with a digit.  

     Two structures are incongruent when they do not fit together
in any clear or definite fashion.  The varieties of incongruence 
are infinite and incongruence is most easily 
shown by example, such as the example of arranging articles in
your new kitchen.  There are at least three ways in which the
spatial structure and the structure of uses are incongruent.

     1)  The spatial structure is <objective>, while the
structure of uses is <subjective>.  That is, the spatial
structure exists in reality independent of any person's
experience: it can be defined precisely and any dispute can be
resolved by neutral measurement.  The structure of uses, on the
other hand, arises from associations in experience and any
dispute about such associations is pointless -- each person has
her or her own experience.

     2)  The spatial structure is simply <present>.  At this
moment, there it is.  What the spatial structure may have been at
some other time is irrelevant.  The structure of uses, on the
other hand, is based on <history> and <anticipation>.

     3)  The defining features of the spatial structure are the
partitions in cabinets or other storage units and the surfaces,
such as counter tops.  These features are <boundaries>; they
divide regions of space.  The defining features of the structure
of uses, on the other hand, are <clusters> based on the relations
between articles based on history or reason (consider the
articles used in baking, the set of knives, or the stack of
dinner plates discussed above).

     The contrasting features of the two structures (objective
vs. subjective; present vs. historical; boundary vs. cluster)
means that the two structures do not fit together in a clear or
definite way.  The two structures are incongruent.

     There is a general class of tasks where a boundary structure
must be integrated with a cluster structure.  Some further
examples may be useful.  Compare each example with the decision
to put the potato masher in either the second or third drawer in
the cabinet devoted to cooking utensils.

     1)   A librarian assigns a Library of Congress
classification (boundary structure) to a book (sometimes a
cluster of topics).  Should a study of Napoleon's mysterious
final illness be considered medicine or history?

     2)   An apartment building designed for professionals' "home
offices" must be treated as "residential" or "commercial" for
zoning purposes?  (Land-use "zones" are defined by boundaries;
the uses allowed in each zone are clusters.)

     3)   A consultant must recommend either an IBM-clone or a
Macintosh system for a medical office.  (An either-or choice is
defined by a boundary; each computer system comprises a cluster
of advantages and a cluster of disadvantages.)

     4)   A jury awards a specific number of dollars (boundary
structure) to compensate a plaintiff crippled in an automobile
accident for loss of enjoyment of life, pain and suffering
(cluster structure).

     Each of these tasks requrires the integration of a boundary
structure with a cluster structure.  Each requires an exercise of
freedom, sometimes called "judgment."

     Previously an extended example was introduced in which you
and a partner, each formerly living separately, are merging your
kitchen articles as part of a merger of your lives.  In the
extended example, there are not two, but three structures.  The
third structure is the structure of uses involved in your
partner's kitchen articles.  Now, all three structures must be
integrated.

     In general, the structure of your uses of your kitchen
articles will be incongruent with the structure of your partner's
uses of his or her kitchen articles.  You may favor grinding
coffee beans and dripping water through a filter; but your
partner likes an electric percolator.  Your food processor is
used occasionally for making bread, your partner's is used
constantly for preparing elaborate vegetarian dishes.  You and
your partner decide to put the inferior quality processor in the
garage; but where in the kitchen will you store the one you
expect to use?  Which spices will you put in the small ornamental
rack near the stove and which in the cupboard?

     I have used specific illustrations of points of incongruence
between your structure of uses and that of your partner.  I do
not know of any <general> features of incongruence (such as the
objective-subjective, present-historical and boundary-cluster
pairs of features that were used above to contrast the spatial
structure and your structure of uses).   Some pairs of
incongruent structures can be analyzed through general features
and some cannot.  Accordingly, the feature of spontaneity acquires 
even greater significance in this extended example.  It is not
possible even to "plan" how the task will be carried out.


*   *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *   * 
    Bob Kovsky          |  A Natural Science of Freedom 
    kovsky@netcom.com   |  Materials available by anonymous ftp
                        |  At ftp.netcom.com/pub/fr/freedom
*   *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *   * 
