Artificial intellect and human nature

As for the possibilities of information processing, they are significantly (potentially almost unlimited) expanded due to the inclusion of the individual brain in the above-mentioned mental “neural network” of the developing society, that is, at expense of the functioning of social consciousness. In view of the “duality” of human nature, the human consciousness also has a dual character. The consciousness in its particular manifestation is possessed by a separate individual. But consciousness is not a property of the individual inherent in him from birth. Only the ability to form consciousness, which is carried out as an individual being of social consciousness, is inherent in the human.

Society is undoubtedly the original reason for the consciousness appearance. However, such a position, which is true in general terms, gives as little for understanding the essence of consciousness as the representation (in general form also true) of its function of a developed brain. Only the interaction of two coherences - a human as a biological being and society as a superorganism, “cross-cutting” on one common object - the individual - causes the need for consciousness. The fact is that the individual, as we have already noted, on the one hand, is a coherent system in himself, an organism that has its own highly developed adaptive mechanisms, and on the other hand, is an element of another coherence (society), which, in order to maintain its coherence as an organism, must also have appropriate adaptive mechanisms, but does not have a special separate organ for their formation, and therefore “uses” for this purpose the same thing - the brain of each human. And therefore, a human in one brain simultaneously has two multidirectional adaptive systems - the individual, aimed at the preservation and development of a multicellular organism (each separate person), and the social, aimed at the preservation and development of the “superorganism” (an element of which is this human) - society.

In humans, this is manifested by the ability of rational-logical thinking, called mind. In other words, the mind is a cognitive “mechanism” for processing (consciously or not) information in accordance with the objective laws of logic, since only in this form can they be adequately perceived also by another human. In accordance with them, the mind carries out synthesis (generalization), the transition from the particular to the general, the subordination of particular phenomena to the general principle. The transition to the abstraction level is carried out, which allows, on the basis of the selection of many elements having the same type of characteristic (i. e., the general totality) and the choice of the unit of analysis, to study the arrays (systems) of these elements, ensuring the suitability of the analysis results, as obtained by a generally significant algorithm, for another individual. The process of forming a judgment or making a decision applicable to a certain class of objects or phenomena is based on it. This, in turn, allows to have a judgment about a particular case a priori if there is a generalized information.

We again pay attention to the fact that rational-logical thinking itself does not lead to action, but only prepares its programme. And the action is performed on the influence of emotions, which are directly related to the preservation and development of the coherence that they represent, which also impact on the very rational-logical solutions of the problems that arise in this case. To illustrate this, we consider the problem of “thinking machines” - the robots, which are quite often the storylines of science-fiction works.

The problem was most clearly, apparently, presented in the famous work of Isaac Azimov “I, robot” [3] with its no less famous “three laws of robotic technology”. And this problem arises only due to the predetermined in advance anthropomorphism of the alleged robots, for which this creates the possibility of comparing them with a human and by functions. But the fact is that such robots, about which Azimov wrote, never existed, do not exist now and will never exist. And those that seem to be there are no more than toys, the capabilities of which will never be comparable to the capabilities of a human. This is unfeasible, but, above all, no one needs it.

The main thing here is that a human, being an element of society, represents himself a coherent and structurally unified biological formation. All his structural-functional components- subsystems - from those intended for locomotion to the controlling central nervous system - are structurally combined in a single coherence, having a functional relationship and harmonious combination with each other and common life-supporting subsystems. Serious disturbances in any of these subsystems lead to the death of the whole organism. At the same time, the “spare parts” are not provided by nature. Therefore, the actions of the individual are largely directed by the desire to preserve this coherence, which also determines the specifics of the controlling central nervous system functioning.

An artificial device that simulates this functioning in a certain way is also, to some extent, represents a unity of constituent parts and elements, the interaction of which allows the coherence to perform certain functions. But the compliance of these requirements is not at all compulsory for it. Firstly, the purpose of the functioning of such a device is not internal, but is set externally when it is created. Secondly, the replacement of the failed parts and elements does not cause fundamental difficulties. But, equally importantly, the control subsystem does not necessarily have to be spatially combined with the executive subsystem. It may constitute a disproportionately large part of the overall device and control sensors and actuating mechanisms remotely, being in all cases reliably protected, still having the required number of such mechanisms of various types and different localizations, also interacting if necessary, including by means of control subsystem. And the need to preserve each of them is determined not by the necessity to maintain the coherence of the entire system, but only by technical and economic feasibility, that is, it does not significantly affect the nature of the functioning of the control subsystem as a whole.

The external aim and the unity of any number control of executive mechanisms that do not have (or have limited) own aims do not lead to those internal contradictions that occur in the coherent components (individuals) of a higher order whole (society), resolved by the appearance of consciousness. The exclusion, as a rule, of direct exposure to the actions of the probabilistic-statistical environment also eliminates the need for the control subsystem in emotions, there is no independent from the externally given aim stimulus to action. In other words, an artificial system does not simply need the constitutes of the most essential points of “natural intellect”. But this very circumstance also limits its functional opportunities.

Thus, the functioning of artificial intellect is significantly limited by the fundamental incompleteness of semantic information and the absence of axiological information. Without having its own requirements that “interfere” in the solution of the “intellectual” tasks, the artificial intellect is based on “too correct”, black-and-white logic - “true-false”. But in real activity, such logic is not fully applicable. For the natural intellect in the process of solving practical (as also a large extent of scientific) problems deals not only with the true and the false, but also with delusions - that being false under certain conditions performs the role of the true. The delusions are not errors in logical constructions, but a natural consequence of the fundamental incompleteness of our knowledge - both those that specifically relate to their practical side and the general current laws in the world.

And then it is not so rare that the fact turns out to be wrong when from the formal logic point of view it is completely correct. And sometimes vice versa. But society as a whole, and each individual personally, are forced, nevertheless, to solve vital tasks even if there are delusions. And if they were directed solely by the “correct” logic, many problems would be fundamentally unsolvable. But both individuals and society persistently do not want to recognize the result obtained on the basis of formal-logical thinking in a number of cases. Some individuals pay for it with their destinies, and the society with failures. This is quite often a natural consequence of such “persistence”. However, in other cases, they are ultimately right, and the society as a result takes another step in its development.

As mentioned above, the artificial system fundamentally does not imply a value-oriented attitude to the world. And it, as we tried to show, is extremely important in the functioning of “natural intellect”. In fact, not a single rather complex and important task that actually arises before people (except for artificially formalized ones) is solved in a completely “reasonable” way, that is, purely on the basis of formal logic, if only because, it is infinitely complex in its entirety due to its practical reality, and the vast majority of information, as a rule, is inaccessible. When a problem is solved in a rational-logical (scientific) way, as a result, we receive an answer containing both truth and delusions. Further scientific research will iteratively eliminate the delusions, increasingly approaching the “absolute truth” without ever reaching it. And yet, our brains encourage us to take the action aimed at achieving final results, because “the moment our brain carries out the very beginning of the action, it is already charged with waiting for results ... the action that has not been implemented yet captures the brain, adjusts it to expect the upcoming results and subsequently valuate these results” [1].

Our true knowledge of the external world (as well as of ourselves) has always covered only a small part of the object essence. As V. I. Vernadskiy correctly noted, “the unchanging scientific truth is the distant ideal to which science aspires and on which its workers are constantly running. Only some, still very small, parts of the scientific worldview are incontrovertibly proven or fully correspond to formal reality at this time and are scientific truths” [29]. Scientists, through their activities, more or less successfully strive to eliminate the delusions, but inevitably go into the new ones. That is, the information at our disposal that guides us has never been true in its entirety. And, nevertheless, the society lives and develops in this informationally far from mastered environment - and all this is due to the nature of the processing of the available information by its “natural intellect”. Despite the fact that the most part of the world explanations were incomplete and even incorrect, we were somehow satisfied with them. L. Leonov has a wonderful phrase: “At all times, there was enough available information to explain everything in the world.” And in general, the actions based on them, due to the nature of the public consciousness functioning, really led mainly to positive results. But if the processing of the available information was carried out by some “artificial intellect” with its “iron logic” even at the highest level, then the humanity, entangled in the delusions, would probably have disappeared from the face of the Earth long ago. It also lives and develops exactly because of its “illogicality” - despite the importance of logic.

The scientific thought has overcome and is overcoming this incompleteness of knowledge, gradually approaching the truth. But in constant practical activity, such an approach cannot suit the society, because, due to the delusions, it does not lead to a result usable for practical application. And that is what we need, and one way or another we get it. However, here additionally the laws not related to rational-logical (semantic) information, but to axiological information, take effect. And the latter is organically related to the needs of a person, subjectively reflecting the objective needs of both the society and the individual. In particular, the solution of problems includes the aesthetic attitude of a person to reality in addition to logic, the purpose of which is not truth, but the value (that is, the compliance with the needs of the society). But without a subjective component related to the needs of a particular system, the value-based judgment is basically impossible. With regard to the artificial intellect, it makes no sense to talk about needs, and, consequently, about values, because it does not have its own purpose and the material carrier of it does not have its own coherence in relation to the external environment.

In other words, the vital tasks of the society are successfully solved due to its special organization as a system. Such a system is sometimes called chaordic, because it seems to combine chaotic and orderliness - as two sides of one coin. Its positive qualities are caused by the fact that with a high level of orderliness and organization as a whole, there is an autonomy, a certain freedom and flexibility of its constituent parts, which effectively prevents the disintegration of the system as a coherent formation. The adaptation of both the individual and the society to any environment in the biosphere is provided thanks to the capabilities of the human brain, which, “conditioned genotypically, enhances phenotypic adaptability” [18, p. 123]. Therefore, during a social evolution, the individual did not undergo compulsory morphological changes in biological evolutionary processes. At the expense of the relevant organization, the society took them upon itself. With its structural changes, only a social consciousness (culture) changed, and accordingly an individual consciousness: “the whole history of “homo” was the history of culture, which eventually replaced the history of biological evolution” [13, p. 22].

Finally, we will touch upon another issue concerning the problems of “extraterrestrial intelligence” and our possible relationship with it. When it is said of a hypothetical multiplicity of the worlds, inhabited by intelligent beings, it is taken for granted that such beings may most likely be smarter than we are. And why smarter? That is why, they have passed a longer way of development. Yes, a longer historical way will inevitably increase the amount of knowledge, as today's human knows incomparably more than his distant ancestor. But does that mean that he is smarter? By no means - just because over the past 35-40 thousand years, a human has not changed biologically, including his “organ of thinking” - the cerebral apparatus. And if it increased and became more complicated, would a person become smarter? He wouldn't.

First of all, the mind is determined by logic, and logic, as we have noted, is not a function of the individual brains, but of their interactions. Only it develops the logical criteria of thinking. Of course, the development of the individual “thinking apparatus” is important, because these processes are possible only at some level. But, secondly, the development of a specific structure is a consequence of “exercises in thinking”, and as for quantitative characteristics, the Neanderthal brain exceeded the mass of the Cro-Magnon brain, and nevertheless the latter “won the survival competition”. And the dolphin's brain is more massive than the human brain, which doesn't make it smarter. Thirdly, the brain is the most important organ of survival, but it consumes a disproportionate amount of resources. This is a general law of life - the higher the level of organization, the greater the specific energy consumption. The human brain, which makes up only 3 % of the body mass, accounts for from 10 to 25 % of total energy consumption, so some “big-headed creatures” would not have evolutionary advantages.

Apparently, the human brain as a result of the previous evolution was objectively formed optimal in its characteristics. In interaction with others, it is able to understand everything without exception. In other words, as Vernadskij said, “the evolutionary process is inherent only in living matter” [30]. No biological (and we cannot even imagine others yet) creatures, whatever they turn out to be, can be smarter than a human. Nor can an artificial non-biological structure be “smarter” than a human - no matter how fast it processes the information: it is basically impossible to resist against “objective” logic. In general, the concrete realization of opportunities is determined by education and training. There is a case when a French ethnographer adopted a two-year-old girl lost in the Amazon jungle from a local “wild” tribe that was running away from the strangers. The girl grew up and successfully continued the professional activities of her stepfather. This completely refutes the “inferiority complex” in comparison with other possible civilizations. No matter how much more information they possess, no matter how far they have advanced in their scientific and technological development, this advantage can only be situational.

Conclusion

Consequently, the natural intellect, based on the capabilities of the human brain to process information, is not a direct consequence of its functioning. It is a result of the social nature of information processing by the totality of the cerebral structures of the individuals who make up the society. To do this, they are combined into a certain, universal “neural network” through special material agents - signs. This structure is based on a universal thesaurus - culture, in the process of its functioning.

Regarding the artificial intellect, we state that it is now and will be in future for the society a powerful tool for interacting with the surrounding world. A tool - but in no case an agent that determines its aims and objectives. The artificial intellect as an assistive mean is created, and will be created in the future by people to achieve the same aim that “natural” intellect serves - to meet the needs of the society in general, and the individual in particular.

In such a format, in our opinion, it should be thought over how (and for what) the features of the “natural intellect” will be embodied in the artificial intellect. Not being professionals in this field, we do not consider it possible to give any recommendations to the specialists. But, nevertheless, we hope that the above observations about the human nature (and his “natural” intellect) will touch up on new thoughts about the techniques and methods of implementing more effective approaches to the development. of what is called now the artificial intellect, someone who works in the field of computer science.

References

1. Anohin, P K. (1998). Izbrannye trudy: kibernetika funkcionalnyh sistem [Selected works: cybernetics of functional systems]. Moskva: Medicine, 400 p. (in Russian).

2. Antomonov, Yu. G. (1976). Razmyshleniya ob evolyucii materii [Reflections on the evolution of matter]. Moskva, 172 p. (in Russian).

3. Azymov, Aizek (1987). Ya, robot [I, the robot]. Kyiv: Veselka, 270 p. [in Ukrainian].

4. Bondarev, V. N. (2002). Iskusstvennyj intellekt: uchebnoe posobie dlya vuzov [Artificial intelligence: textbook for universities]. Sevastopol: SevNTU, 615 p. (in Russian).

5. Brian, M.-V (2012). Social insects: Ecology and behavioural biology. Berlin, 388 p.

6. Derevianko, S. P., Prymak, Yu. V., & Yushchenko, I. M. (2020). Shtuchnyi intelekt ta emotsiinyi shtuchnyi intelekt yak fenomeny suchasnoi kohnityvnoi psykholohii [Piece intelligence and emotional piece mind as a phenomenon of contemporary cognitive psychology]. Naukovi zapysky Natsionalnoho universytetu «Ostrozka akademiia». Seriia «Psykholohiia»: naukovyi zhurnal. Ostroh: Vyd-vo NaUOA, 11, 115-119 (in Ukrainian).

7. Dotsenko, S. I. (2019). Pro pryrodnyi ta shtuchnyi intelekt kibernetychnykh system. [About natural and piece intelligence of cybernetic systems]. Radioelektronni i kompiuterni systemy, no. 3, 4-18 (in Ukrainian).

8. Epshtejn, R. (2017). Mozg ne kompyuter [The brain is not a computer]. URL: http://inosmi.ru/ science/ 20170401/239013776.html

9. European Parliament resolution of 16 February 2017 with recommendations to the Commission on Civil Law Rules on Robotics (2015/2103(INL). URL: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P8-TA-2017- 0051+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN&language=EN#BKMD-9.

10. Fejerbah, L. (1955). Izbrannye filosofskie proizvedeniya [Selected philosophical works]. Moskva, 2, 942 p. (in Russian).

11. Gelvecij, K. A. (1994). Pro liudynu, yii rozumovi zdibnosti ta yii vykhovannia [About a man, his mental abilities and upbringing]. Kyiv, 416 p. (in Ukrainian).

12. Griffen, L. (2021).The society as a superorganism. The scientific heritage. 67(5). 51-60.

13. Hart, F. (1990). Dann of a Millennium. Boston, 122 p.

14. Ilenkov, E. V (1984). Dialekticheskaya logika. Ocherki istorii i teorii [Dialectical logic. Essays on history and theory]. Moskva, 320 p. (in Russian).

15. Kabulov, R. T. Otricatelnaya entropiya i sushnost zhizni [Negative entropy and the essence of life]. URL: http://www.chronos.msu.ru/old/RREPORTS/kabulov_otritsat_entropiya.pdf

16. Kolmogorov, A. N. (1964). Avtomaty i zhizn [Automata and life]. Vozmozhnoe i nevozmozhnoe v kibernetike - Possible and impossible in cybernetics. A. I. Berga, E. Ya. Kolmana (Ed). Moskva: Nauka, 10-29 (in Russian).

17. Kuznecov, V. G. (2005). Slovar filosofskih terminov [Dictionary of philosophical terms]. Moskva, 731 p. (in Russian).

18. Lem, S. (1975). Filozofia przypadku, Krakow: Wydawnictwo Literackie. 1. 298 p.

19. Lorenz, Konrad (1961). King Solomon's Ring. Methuen, London, 202 p.

20. Muller, V (2016). Fundamental issues of artificial intelligence. Oxford: Springer, 572 p.

21. Pavlovskie klinicheskie sredy [Pavlovsk clinical environments]. (1954). Moskva, 1, 644 p. (in Russian).

22. Pchelianskyi, D. P, & Voinova, S. A. (2019). Shtuchnyi intelekt: perspektyvy ta tendentsii rozvytku [Piece intelligence: prospects and trends in development]. Avtomatizaciya tehnologichnih i biznes- procesiv -Automation of technological and business processes, 11 (3), 59-64 (in Ukrainian).

23. Picard, R. W. (2003). Affective Computing: Challenges. International journal of human studies, 59(1), 55-64.

24. Raoult, D. (2009). Creationism - remember the principle of falsifiability. The Lancet. 372, 9656, 2095-2096.

25. Schrodinger, E. (1944). What is Life? The Physical Aspect of the Living Cell. University Press, Cambridge, 91 p.

26. Shevchenko, A. I. (2016). K voprosu o sozdanii iskusstvennogo intellekta [On the issue of creating artificial intelligence]. Shtuchnii intelekt, 1, 7-15.

27. Trostnikov, V. N. (1970). Chelovek i informaciya [Man and Information]. Moskva: Nauka, 190 p. (in Russian).

28. Tsvetkov, V. Ya. (2015). Information Relations. Modeling of Artificial Intelligence, 8(4), 252-260.

29. Vernadskij, V. I. (1989). Biosfera i noosfera [Biosphere and noosphere]. Moskva: Nauka, 261 p. (in Russian).

30. Vernadskyi, V. I. (2005). Naukova dumka yak planetarne yavyshche [Scientific thought as a planetary phenomenon]. Vybranipratsi. Kyiv: Naukova dumka, 100-265 (in Ukrainian).

31. Viner, N. (1958). Kibernetika i obshestvo [Cybernetics and society]. Moskva: Yzdatelstvo ynostrannoi lyteraturbi, 200 p. (in Russian).

32. Zozulya, Yu. I. (2003). Intellektualnye nejrosistemy [Intelligent neurosystems]. Moskva: Radiotehnika, 144 p. (in Russian).

Размещено на Allbest.ru