Philosophy Now Forum

The Oxford English Dictionary's definition of artificiality: Something that has been made or produced by human beings rather than occurring naturally.

VS

How I see it:
Artificiality is not real - it is born from the ideas and beliefs we have learned to accept and that now define parts of existence as natural while others, man made objects, are labeled artificial.

A caveman hits one rock with another, chipping off a sharp edged piece that he attaches to the tip of his spear. Is the handcrafted piece of rock artificial?
No, most of us would reply.

A blacksmith of medieval England forges a sword over glowing coals. Is the man made sword artificial?
I am not sure, might be our most honest reply.

Scientist of a high tech company create a robot capable of analysing and responding to sensory input from a range of connected sensors. Is the resulting robot artificial? Yes, sure it is!

The answers we come up with always depend on the meaning we attach to certain objects. The object itself contains no trace of artificiality; it is only our opinion of the object that renders it natural or artificial.
Stating that the artificial is “something that has been made or produced by human beings rather than occurring naturally,” is a definition that would only make sense if humans were themselves unnatural and as such artificial. But humans – just like anything else in the universe - can only create as they are and as such would have to be unnatural to create the artificial. The idea that the natural - humans included - can create the unnatural, artificial, is a misconception that exists nowhere but in thought.

Lets wind back time to when we were born. A baby knows nothing about the world; its mind is a blank slate and can be filled with ideas and concepts very similar to an artificial memory bank awaiting its data. The young human learns from other humans – human knowledge programmed into a new human being by its older peers. Human ideas and beliefs transmitted from one mind into an emptiness that is full of potential, eventually creating a new mind (or rather belief system) that rests on the same, man made structures the old mind was relying on when transferring its knowledge.
A man-made copy of a mind arises, rewiring the virgin neuronal network of the brain into a representation of its own. Of course there are other influences, other minds, other thoughts, that the child adopts, but this doesn’t change the fact that the new mind that the child now considers its own is essentially man-made – apparently a key ingredient of artificiality…

This raises the question: Are our minds, our intellects, really artificial?

Considering the above, yes, in a way, we, our image of our selves as well as of the world, are man made and if Made By Man is a label for artificiality then our thoughts and ideas, the beliefs and concepts we value and regard as natural actually meet the standards we have set for something to qualify as being artificial.

So… Are humans really AIs?
It depends how we look at it.
If robots that see, hear, feel and react to their environment are AIs then so are we.
If robots are natural then, again, so are we.

Rather, robots and AIs are extensions of us with increasing integration.

Perhaps in this process, as human frailty is replaced by reliable machine parts, we will find out who "us" is?

We don't have to wait for that to happen to find out who we are.
Just take away what you are not and see whats left.

AlexW wrote: ↑Wed May 23, 2018 3:26 am Definition of artificiality: Something that has been made or produced by human beings rather than occurring naturally.
...
A man-made copy of a mind arises, rewiring the virgin neuronal network of the brain into a representation of its own. Of course there are other influences, other minds, other thoughts, that the child adopts, but this doesn’t change the fact that the new mind that the child now considers its own is essentially man-made – apparently a key ingredient of artificiality…

This raises the question: Are our minds, our intellects, really artificial?

Your definition of being artificial has nothing to do with the capabilities or functionality of the thing. It has to do with how it was made or produced.

So the copy-of-mind example is pretty irrelevant to this definition. Turns out that I was made by my parents, so that makes me more artificial by your definition than does your network example. Only human defecations would be artificial. Also, a robot or space ship produced by an alien would be natural since it was not made or produced by humans.

I'm pointing out what I see to be deficiencies in your definition of 'artificial'. Fix that, and the argument of the rest of the OP makes more sense.

Noax wrote: ↑Wed May 23, 2018 11:51 am Your definition of being artificial has nothing to do with the capabilities or functionality of the thing. It has to do with how it was made or produced.

This is not my definition of artificiality - its the Oxford English Dictionary's definition... sorry if this didn't come across as intended. Will edit the post.

Noax wrote: ↑Wed May 23, 2018 11:51 am the copy-of-mind example is pretty irrelevant to this definition

Is it?
What I am trying to point out is that your mind has been made by human beings just like any other artificial object has been made by human beings. And if we believe that whatever is made by humans means that the product is artificial then so is your mind (and your body).
I think it is important to understand that the border between natural and artificial is arbitrarily drawn - and that, when following either side to the absolute, either nothing or everything is artificial - it really only depends on the conceptual framework one employs.

This is really true for all of our concepts - we draw a line between two apparent groups of things, one group fits the concept and the other is excluded from it. What we don't see is that the line doesn't really exist - it is only made up in thought, it has no meaning in reality. It is only a toy one can use to play around with and, for the fun of it, attach to certain things, but the thought-made attachment doesn't change the thing (by the way: if you follow this thought deeper you will find that there are no things... what is a thing without any attributes? it is no thing anymore!)

AlexW wrote: ↑Wed May 23, 2018 6:28 am We don't have to wait for that to happen to find out who we are.
Just take away what you are not and see whats left.

Not who I am but who we are, and it won't just be one thing.

For instance, if general AI does emerge and various intelligent machines go to explore the stars but humans back on Earth die out, AI are no longer human emissaries but a new line, just as humans were not ape emissaries, rather a new line. Yet, there is much of the ape still within humans and there will be much of humanity within AIs.

Greta wrote: ↑Thu May 24, 2018 3:34 am Yet, there is much of the ape still within humans and there will be much of humanity within AIs.

Yes, agree.

Greta wrote: ↑Thu May 24, 2018 3:34 am Not who I am but who we are, and it won't just be one thing.

Who we believe we are is based on who we think we are - this belief changes constantly and will always do so. As such we can never come to a final conceptual conclusion of who we are.
Who we really are is not who we think we are.

AlexW wrote: ↑Thu May 24, 2018 3:46 amWho we really are is not who we think we are.

Our perspective is naturally skewed by the inherent limitations of our existential situation, living within a thin protective layer of gases on the surface of one planet in a solar system amongst billions in just one of billions of galaxies.

What is not the self is a lot easier to observe than the self, certainly to quantify.

Greta wrote: ↑Thu May 24, 2018 4:51 am Our perspective is naturally skewed by the inherent limitations of our existential situation

Our perspective is only skewed due to our ignorance of who we are - there is no other problem.

Greta wrote: ↑Thu May 24, 2018 4:51 am What is not the self is a lot easier to observe than the self, certainly to quantify.

Agree - The Self cannot be quantified or observed - only mind-made parts can be.

AlexW wrote: ↑Thu May 24, 2018 5:45 am

Greta wrote: ↑Thu May 24, 2018 4:51 am Our perspective is naturally skewed by the inherent limitations of our existential situation

Our perspective is only skewed due to our ignorance of who we are - there is no other problem.

I find that existing on the inside does rather stuff up one's overview.

Greta wrote: ↑Thu May 24, 2018 6:07 am I find that existing on the inside does rather stuff up one's overview.

Not sure what you mean with that... can you please elaborate?

AlexW wrote: ↑Thu May 24, 2018 6:21 am

Greta wrote: ↑Thu May 24, 2018 6:07 am I find that existing on the inside does rather stuff up one's overview.

Not sure what you mean with that... can you please elaborate?

The easiest example is the Milky Way. Being on the inside of the galaxy we can't see it the way we see Andromeda. When it comes to the entire universe, the problem of being unable to gain an overview is more acute again.

Greta wrote: ↑Thu May 24, 2018 6:28 am Being on the inside of the galaxy we can't see it the way we see Andromeda.

While we perceive different things when being in a room inside of a building compared to when standing on the street looking at the building from the outside, there is still the same one doing the observing. The question is not about what we observe, but who is the observer.
Imagine there is no separate observer - is perspective still an issue?

AlexW wrote: ↑Thu May 24, 2018 6:48 am

Greta wrote: ↑Thu May 24, 2018 6:28 am Being on the inside of the galaxy we can't see it the way we see Andromeda.

While we perceive different things when being in a room inside of a building compared to when standing on the street looking at the building from the outside, there is still the same one doing the observing. The question is not about what we observe, but who is the observer.
Imagine there is no separate observer - is perspective still an issue?

I too have wondered if we are all simply the same entity looking through different eyes. That's what you are driving at, isn't it? We are, really, too - the biosphere. A part and yet apart. Until we are all connected like neurons, though, we remain functionally separate, connected tenuously by our communications. AI might be a factor there. Whether being so connected is desirable or not ...

AlexW wrote: ↑Thu May 24, 2018 2:41 am

Noax wrote: ↑Wed May 23, 2018 11:51 am Your definition of being artificial has nothing to do with the capabilities or functionality of the thing. It has to do with how it was made or produced.

This is not my definition of artificiality - its the Oxford English Dictionary's definition... sorry if this didn't come across as intended. Will edit the post.

So it is. By this dictionary definition, I am artificial, but a UFO space ship is not. Somehow I think the word was intended to mean something other than that. It sort of solves the whole question of if an AI can be conscious. The asker of the question is one himself by this definition.