Home » Posts tagged 'Ethics'
Tag Archives: Ethics
John Wyatt is a doctor, author and research scientist. His concern is the ethical challenges that arise with technologies like artificial intelligence and robotics. On Tuesday this week (11th March 2019) he gave a talk called ‘What does it mean to be human?’ at the Wesley Methodist Church in Cambridge.
To a packed audience, he pointed out how interactions with artificial intelligence and robots will never be the same as the type of ‘I – you’ relationships that occur between people. He emphasised the important distinction between ‘beings that are born’ and ‘beings that are made’ and how this distinction will become increasingly blurred as our interactions with artificial intelligence become commonplace. We must be ever vigilant against the use of technology to dehumanise and manipulate.
I can see where this is going. The tendency for people to anthropomorphise is remarkably strong - ‘the computer won’t let me do that’, ‘the car has decided not to start this morning’. Research shows that we can even attribute intentions to animated geometrical shapes ‘chasing’ each other around a computer screen, let alone cartoons. Just how difficult is it going to be to not attribute the ‘human condition’ to a chatbot with an indistinguishably human voice or a realistically human robot. Children are already being taught to say ‘please’ and ‘thank you’ to devices like Alexa, Siri and Google Home – maybe a good thing in some ways, but …
One message I took away from this talk was a suggestion for a number of new human rights in this technological age. These are: (1) The right to cognitive liberty (to think whatever you want), (2) The right to mental privacy (without others knowing) (3) The right to mental integrity and (4) The right to psychological continuity - the last two concerning the preservation of ‘self’ and ‘identity’.
A second message was to consider which country was most likely to make advances in the ethics of artificial intelligence and robotics. His conclusion – the UK. That reassures me that I’m in the right place.
See more of John’s work, such as his essay ‘God, neuroscience and human identity’ at his website johnwyatt.com
Writing about ethics in artificial intelligence and robotics can sometimes seem like it’s all doom and gloom. My last post for example covered two talks in Cambridge – one mentioning satellite monitoring and swarms of drones and the other going more deeply into surveillance capitalism where big companies (you know who) collect data about you and sell it on the behavioural futures market.
So it was really refreshing to go to a talk by Dr Danielle Belgrave at Microsoft Research in Cambridge last week that reflected a much more positive side to artificial intelligence ethics. Danielle has spent the last 11 years researching the application of probabilistic modelling to the medical condition of asthma. Using statistical techniques and machine learning approaches she has been able to differentiate between five more or less distinct conditions that are all labelled asthma. Just as with cancer there may be a whole host of underlying conditions that are all given the same name but may in fact have different underlying causes and environmental triggers.
This is important because treating a set of conditions that may have family resemblance (as Wittgenstein would have put it) with the same intervention(s) might work in some cases, not work in others and actually do harm to some people. Where this is leading, is towards personalised medicine, where each individual and their circumstances are treated as unique. This, in turn, potentially leads to the design of a uniquely configured set of interventions optimised for that individual.
The statistical techniques that Danielle uses, attempt to identify the underlying endotypes (sub-types of a condition) from set of phenotypes (the observable characteristics of an individual). Some conditions may manifest in very similar sets of symptoms while in fact they arise from quite different functional mechanisms.
Appearances can be deceptive and while two things can easily look the same, underneath they may in fact be quite different beasts. Labelling the appearance rather than the underlying mechanism can be misleading because it inclines us to assume that beast 1 and beast 2 are related when, in fact the only thing they have in common is how they appear.
It seems likely that for many years we have been administering some drugs thinking we are treating beast 1 when in fact some patients have beast 2, and that sometimes this does more harm than good. This view is supported by the common practice that getting the medication right in asthma, cancer, mental illness and many other conditions, is to try a few things until you find something that works.
But in the same way that, for example, it may be difficult to identify a person’s underlying intentions from the many things that they say (oops, perhaps I am deviating into politics here!), inferring underlying medical conditions from symptoms is not easy. In both cases you are trying to infer something that may be unobservable, complex and changing, from the things you can readily perceive.
We have come so far in just a few years. It was not long ago that some medical interventions were based on myth, guesswork and the unquestioned habits of deeply ingrained practices. We are currently in a time when, through the use of randomly controlled trials, interventions approved for use are at least effective ‘on average’, so to speak. That is, if you apply them to large populations there is significant net benefit, and any obvious harms are known about and mitigated by identifying them as side-effects. We are about to enter an era where it becomes commonplace to personalise medicine to targeted sub-groups and individuals.
It’s not yet routine and easy, but with dedication, skill and persistence together with advances in statistical techniques and machine learning, all this is becoming possible. We must thank people like Dr Danielle Belgrave who have devoted their careers to making this progress. I think most people would agree that teasing out the distinction between appearance and underlying mechanisms is both a generic and an uncontroversially ethical application of artificial intelligence.
Consciousness, freedom and moral responsibility
Answering the question ‘Are we free?’ at the level of society suggests that the big multi-nationals have assumed control over many aspects of our lives (see: “What is control?”). Answering the same question at the level of the individual is much more difficult. It raises some profound philosophical questions to do with consciousness, freewill and moral responsibility. In considering issues of moral responsibility it is worth first examining ideas about the nature of consciousness and freewill.
There are legal definitions of responsibility and culpability that can vary from one legislative system to another. There are definitions within moral philosophy (e.g. Kant’s Categorical Imperative). There are mental health definitions that aim to ascertain whether a person has ‘mental capacity’. However, it is generally accepted that to have moral responsibility people need to consciously exercise freewill over the choices they make. Moral responsibility entails having freewill, and for people, freewill entails a self-determined and deliberate conscious decision.
John Searle regards consciousness as an emergent property of biological processes. There are no contradictions between materialistic, mentalistic and spiritual accounts. They are just different levels of description of the same phenomena. Consciousness is to neuroscience as liquid is to the chemistry of H2O. There is no mind / body problem – mind and body are again just different levels of description. It’s linguistic usage that confuses us. Consciousness does confer meaning onto things but that does not imply that subjective reality cannot be studied using objective methods.
YouTube Video, John Searle: Our shared condition — consciousness, TED, July 2013, 14:59 minutes
David Chalmers addresses head on the question of why we have conscious subjective experience and how reductionist explanations fail to provide answers. He suggests that consciousness could be one of the fundamental building blocks of the universe like space, time, and mass. He suggests the possibility that all information processing systems, whether they are ‘alive’ or not may have some degree of consciousness.
TED Video, David Chalmers: How do you explain consciousness?, Big Think, March 2014, 18:37 minutes
The view that degree of consciousness might correlate with how much a system is able to process information is set out in more detail in the following:
YouTube Video, Michio Kaku: Consciousness Can be Quantified, Big Think, March 2014, 4:45 minutes
Building on the idea that consciousness involves feedback, John Dunne from the Center for Investigating Healthy Minds, looks at self-reflexivity as practiced in many religions, and in mindfulness. Consciousness confers the capacity to report on the object of experience (Is ‘I think therefore I am’ a reported reflection on something we all take for granted?).
YouTube Video, WPT University Place: Consciousness, Reflexivity and Subjectivity, Wisconsin Public Television, March 2016, 40:17 minutes
The BBC have put together a short documentary on consciousness as part of its series called ‘The Story of Now’. Progress has been made in consciousness research over the last 20 years including in the measurement of consciousness and understanding some mental conditions s disorders of consciousness.
BBC, The Story of Now – Consciousness, February 2015, About 15 minutes
Susan Greenfield, addressing an audience of neuroscientists, says consciousness cannot be defined but suggests a working definition of consciousness as the ‘first person subjective world as it seems to you’. She distinguishes between consciousness, self-consciousness, unconsciousness and sub-consciousness. She considers boundaries such as ‘when does a baby become conscious?’, ‘are animals conscious?’, ‘what happens between being asleep or awake?’. Having ‘degrees of consciousness‘ seems to make sense and locates consciousness in transient (sub-second duration), variable ‘neural assemblies’ that have epicentres – like a stone creating ripples when thrown in a pond. The stone might be a strong stimulus (like an alarm clock) which interacts with learned connections in the brain formulated during your life experience, modulated by chemical ‘fountains’ that affect neural transmission. Depression involves a disruption to the chemical fountains and the experience of pain is dependent on the size of the active neuronal assembly. Consciousness is manifested when the activation of the neural assemblies is communicated to the rest of the brain and body. Sub-consiousness arises out of assemblies that are, in some sense, too small.
YouTube Video, The Neuroscience of Consciousness – Susan Greenfield, The University of Melbourne, November 2012, 1:34:17 hours
Some of the latest research on where in the brain consciousness seems to manifest can be found at:
Big Think Article, Harvard Researchers Have Found the Source of Human Consciousness, Phil Perry, January 2017
Prof. Raymond Tallis, however, has some issues with reductionists theories that seek to explain humankind in biological terms and attacks the trend towards what he calls neuromania. He also rejects mystical and theological explanations and, while not embracing dualism, argues that we have to use the language of mind and society if we are to further our understanding.
YouTube Video, Prof. Raymond Tallis – “Aping Mankind? Neuromania, Darwinitis and the Misrepresentation of Humanity”, IanRamseyCentre, December 2012, 18:16 minutes
YouTube Video, David Eagleman: Brain over mind?, pop tech, April 2013, 22:25 minutes
Here is a radio introduction:
BBC Radio 4, Neuroscientist Pauls Broks on Freewill and the Brain, November 2014, 11 minutes
Pinker thinks that our freewill arises out of the complexity of the brain and that there is no reason to postulate any non-mechanical entity such as the soul. He distinguishes automatic responses (such as pupil dilation) from those that are based on mental models and can anticipate possible consequences which are sufficient to account for freewill.
YouTube Video, Steven Pinker: On Free Will, Big Think, June 2011, 2:17 minutes
Alfred Mele speculates on their being different grades of freewill and throws doubt on experiments which claim to show that decisions are made prior to our becoming consciously aware of them.
YouTube Video, Does Free Will Exist – Alfred Mele, Big Think, April 2012, 15:10 minutes
Is consciousness necessary for freewill? Do we make decisions while we are not consciously aware of them? If we do, then does that mean that we are not exercising freewill? If we are not exercising freewill then does that mean we have no moral responsibility for our decisions?
According to Denett, consciousness is nothing special. We only think its special because we associate it with freewill. However, the only freewill that matters is the responsibility for our actions that biology has given us through mental competence. The competence to reflect on our own thoughts and those of others, to anticipate consequences of our actions, and to see and evaluate the consequences, gives us both freewill and a responsibility for our actions.
YouTube Video, Daniel Dennett Explains Consciousness and Free Will, Big Think, April 2012, 6:33 minutes
Freewill and moral responsibility
Where do we draw the line between behaviour that we explain as driven by neurological/ neuro-chemical factors and those we explain in psychological, disease and demonic terms? Professor Robert Sapolsky shows how behaviours that were once explained as demonic are now explained neurologically. This parallels a shift from believing that the locus of control of peoples’ (unusual and other) behaviour has moved from demons and gods, to people, to disease, to brain structures and chemistry. What does this say about our sense of autonomy, individuality and ability to create moral positions?
Youtube video, 25. Individual Differences, Stanford, February 2011, 53:53 minutes
Assuming that we do have choice then this brings with it moral responsibility for our actions. But moral responsibility according to which system of values? Sam Harris argues that we take an odd stance when considering moral questions. In general we are willing to accept that different people are entitled to take different stands on moral questions and that there are no right or wrong answers. We tend to leave moral judgements to religions and are prepared to accept that in principle any moral value system could be right and therefore we cannot criticise any. However, Sam Harris points out that we do not do this in other domains. In health, for example, we are prepared to say that good health is better than bad health and than certain things lead to good health and should be encouraged while other don’t and should be discouraged. By the same token, if we accept that certain moral choices lead towards enhanced wellbeing (in others and ourselves) while other choices lead to pain and suffering then the normal application of scientific method can inform us about moral decisions (and we can abandon religious dogma).
TED Video, Sam Harris: Science can answer moral questions, TED, March 2010, 23:34 minutes
Peter Millican discusses the relationship between freewill, determinism and moral responsibility. He describes Hume’s notion of responsibility, how ideas of right and wrong arise out of our feelings, and how this is independent of whether an act was determined or not. However, our feelings can often be in conflict with lower order feelings (the desire to smoke) constraining higher order feelings (wanting to give up smoking) and that our higher order freewill can therefore be constrained, giving us ‘degrees of freewill’ in relation to particular circumstances.
YouTube Video, 7.4 Making Sense of Free Will and Moral Responsibility – Peter Millican, Oxford, April 2011, 9:48 minutes
Corey Anton sets out a philosophical position – there is ‘motion without motivation’ and ‘motion with motivation’. We call ‘motion with motivation’ ‘action’. Some motivations result from being pushed along by the past (x did y because of some past event or experience) and some motivations are driven by the future (x did y in order to). Freewill is more typically associated with actions motivated by the intention to bring about future states.
YouTube Video, The Motives of Questioning Free Will, Corey Anton, 8:12 minutes
Intentionality and Theory of Mind
If it is our ability to reflect on our own perceptions and thoughts that gives us the capacity to make decisions, then, in the social world, we must also consider our capacity to reflect on other people’s perceptions and thoughts. This creates a whole new order of complexity and opportunity for misunderstanding and feeling misunderstood (whether we are or not). Watch the video below or get the full paper.
YouTube Video, Comprehending Orders of Intentionality (for R. D. Laing), Corey Anton, September 2014, 31:31 minutes
How do our ideas about other people’s intentions affect our moral judgements about them, and what is going on in the brain when we make moral judgements? Liane Young highlights the extent to which our view about a person’s intentions influences our judgements with respect to the outcomes of their actions, and goes on to described the brain area in which these moral evaluations appear to be taking place.
TED Video, TEDxHogeschoolUtrecht – Liane Young – The Brain on Intention, TEDx Talks, January 2012, 14:34 minutes
Even though we may not have a definitive answer to the question ‘Are we free?’, we can say some things about it that may affect the way we think.
- We cannot say definitively whether the world is pre-determined in the sense that every state of the universe at any one time could not have been otherwise. This partly arises out of our ignorance about physics and whether in some sense there is an inherent lack of causality.
- If the universe does obey causal laws then that does not mean that the state of the universe would be necessarily knowable.
- Whether or not the universe is knowably pre-determined is independent of our subjective feelings of consciousness and freewill. We behave as if we have freewill, we assume others are conscious sentient beings with freewill and the moral responsibility that arises out of this.
- However, within this framework there are acknowledged limitations on freewill, degrees of consciousness and consequently degrees of moral responsibility.
- These limitations and degrees arise in numerous ways including our own resources, imagination and capacity for reflections (self-consciousness), cognitive biases and controlling factors (including our own genetics, families, cultures, organisations and governments) that either subconsciously or consciously constrain our options and freedom to make choices.
- There could be a correlation between degree of consciousness and the integrated information processing capacity of a system, perhaps even regardless of whether that system is regarded as ‘alive’.
- Wellbeing seems to be enhanced by the feeling that we have the freedom to control our own destiny whether or not this freedom is an illusion.
- The more we find out about psychology, the mind and the brain, the more it looks as if we can explain and predict our actions and choices more accurately by an appeal to science than an appeal to our own intuitions.
- Our intuitions seem largely based on the pragmatic need to survive and deal effectively with threat within our limited resources. They are not inherently geared to finding the ‘truth’ or accurately modelling reality unless it has payoff in terms of survival.
- Some of our behaviour is ‘automatic’, either driven by physiology or by learning. Other behaviour is mediated by consulting internal states such as our interpretations and models of reality, and testing possible outcomes against these models as opposed to against reality itself.
- Our internal models can include models of our own states (e.g. when we anticipate how we might feel given a future set of circumstances and thereby re-evaluate our options).
- Our internal models can include speculations on the models and motivations of other people, organisations, other sentient beings and even inanimate objects (e.g. I’ll pretend I do not know that he is thinking that I will deceive him). Anything, in fact, can be the content of our models.
- We associate freedom with our capacity to have higher levels of reflection, and we attribute greater moral responsibility to those who we perceive to have greater freedom.
- We evaluate the moral culpability of others in terms of their intentions and have specialised areas in the brain where these evaluations are made.
- We evaluate the morality of a choice against some value system. Science offers a value system that we are prepared to accept in other domains, such as health. As in health there are clearly some actions that enhance wellbeing and others that do not. If we accept science as a method to assess the effects on wellbeing of particular moral choices, rather than use our fallible intuitions or religious dogma, then we can move forward in the achievement of greater wellbeing.
- Even if we could ascertain whether and how we are conscious and free, the ultimate question of ‘why?’ looks impossible to resolve.
Given the multitude of factors from physiology to society that control or at least constrain our decisions (and our speculations about them), it is no wonder that human behaviour appears so unpredictable. However, there are also many regularities, as will become apparent later.
Another take, by a physicist, on consciousness as an emergent property of the integrated processing of information.
YouTube Video, Consciousness is a mathematical pattern, June 2014, 16:36 minutes
Corey Anton illustrates how language contains within it, its own reflexivity. We can talk about how we talk about something as well as the thing itself.
YouTube Video, Talk-Reflexive Consciousness, Corey Anton, April 2010, 9:58 minutes