Aporia - Praxis

I’ve chosen to write about three topics here – Artificial General Intelligence (AGI), climate change and war. The reason for choosing these three is that they relate so closely to matters already discussed in previous writings – Theoria, Poiesis and Polis. They are also considered to be amongst the most serious concerns for humanity in the current era. It’s not my intention to examine the three topics in detail – far less to offer solutions. Instead I’m looking to understand how these issues shine a light on how we all choose to live. Such existential threats can seem daunting and render us powerless in the face of difficulties too big to cope with. But if, rather than trying to solve the problems, we consider instead how they might inform and change our lives individually, then this offers us, in my view, a better approach. We have the opportunity of approaching the world differently rather than being burdened with guilt over being unable to change it. Turning first to AGI, it’s a step beyond its cousin – plain old AI. In very basic terms we might describe AI as ‘linear’, whilst AGI is ’non-linear’ (although there are still some non-linear features in AI). By non-linear, I’m meaning that what comes out of AGI is more than could ever be conceived from what has been put in – in other words, AGI is potentially ‘emergent’. From previous writings, we saw that life – and possibly consciousness – are emergent properties of the universe. So we can ask, how does natural emergence compare to the ‘artificial’ emergence of AGI? And that gives us two main questions: The first is, could consciousness be ‘substrate neutral’? The second is, could AGI ever be truly conscious? ‘Substrate’ refers to the thing that ‘carries’ the phenomenon that we are considering. So, in the case of consciousness, we might consider brain chemistry to be the substrate. From previous writings – in Theoria – we saw that there might be an ‘ultimate substrate’ – the universe as it is in itself, or as viewed from the outside. This too might be the substrate of consciousness. But our question for AGI is whether consciousness can emerge from a different substrate – that is, emerge just from computer chips and circuit boards. I don’t know if we’ll ever get an answer to this. Perhaps consciousness relies on life, and we will not be able to produce artificial life to host it. But I think that we will be convinced that AGI really is conscious. And as such, we will also consider it to have agency. Remember, from Theoria, that agency is – in my opinion – the hallmark of consciousness. And hence, AGI is a MORAL agent – if we are to consider it conscious then, by default, we would consider it ACCOUNTABLE. Thoughts on computers and robotics often refer to rules that we must incorporate in their design in order to make them safe for us humans. These we might consider to be moral rules. But the problem of giving those initial inputs to AGI runs much deeper than this. We saw from earlier writings that even behind our most objective scientific and mathematical truths about the world lie a set of assumptions about the nature of truth and knowledge itself. It’s difficult for us even to define what those assumptions are, or to say whether they are themselves either innate truths about the universe or instead a matter of human culture. But if AGI is to ‘reason’ the way that a conscious creature reasons (and not in the manner of current AI) then it seems reasonable to suggest that we must build in these initial assumptions. We cannot just provide ‘facts’ (and not even just facts so far as our best science understands them). We have to define a method of reasoning and a method of defining truth and knowledge themselves. And that’s really only the first step. There seems to be several more stages required until we could ever get to anything like moral reasoning. It is not just a case of defining moral rules. I don’t know if AGI will be a good thing for humanity, r a terrible thing, as some people are warning. But, as I’ve tried to show here, it raises all those questions about truth, knowledge, consciousness and even the nature of ultimate reality, that before now may have seemed like abstract philosophical speculation. Now – with AGI – we are forced to try to find answers. And maybe, in trying to build AGI, we will reach new insights that have evaded us before now. That, I feel, is the potential – and it’s an exciting potential. Turning now to climate change, we start with that tricky word – ‘sustainability’. To be precise about it, we might say that it means the long-term viability of Earth’s natural bio-sphere. Within this there are ‘renewable’ resources, such as sunshine, wind, tides and plant and animal matter. There are also non-renewables, such as ores and minerals, of which the Earth has only a more or less fixed reserve. But sustainability has a second meaning, and perhaps it could be described as what will maintain the current lifestyle of humans over the relatively long-term. This type of sustainability is a moveable feast. For instance, our energy sources have moved from wood to coal to oil and gas to nuclear to various types of (naturally) renewable resources. This type of sustainability (and the reason I say it’s for the RELATIVELY long-term) relies on what I’ll describe as an ‘expansionist’ approach. It’s expansionist in that, through technology, it seeks new materials and new sources of energy. And it’s expansionist in that it will seek new sources for materials and new sources of fuel for its energy supplies. The expansionist approach – and this brand of sustainability – is not necessarily limited by the natural sustainability of the Earth. The expansion might continue outwards into the solar system and then to other star systems and other galaxies. The upshot is – if we keep our expansion going – then we will never have to live within the natural limits of the Earth. We will always have ‘sustainability’ of the moveable feast variety and never of the natural variety. Well, of course, climate activists will wish to bring a lot o information to us about the problem itself and the various methods of mitigation and adaptation that may be brought to bear. And they will, almost without exception, be on the ‘natural sustainability’ side of things – what I sometimes describe as ‘stay-at-home-and-tend-your-garden’. Expansionists, meanwhile, see this as contrary to our human motives of exploration, discovery and adventure. They’ll even say that the stay-at-home-and-tend-your-garden option is not possible. Let’s set all detail aside and assume for a moment that the stay-at-home-and-tend-your-garden approach is possible – that by leading simpler lifestyles and limiting technology and energy use – we can have everyone on Earth living at a modest but reasonable level of comfort and to have a flourishing natural world that’s free from pollution. Okay, well, even if this really is still possible, the fact is that only a relatively small minority of people TRULY want this. The majority – either through their own choice or swept along by the consumer capitalist mindset that accompanies the expansionist view of life – the majority DO NOT WANT the kind of sustainability that respects the natural limits of the Earth. The majority do not want to stay home and tend their gardens! So, if you accept my argument so far, then we can ask, what are the consequences? Well, one thing might be that there’s a radical global shift in human culture, such that the stay-at-home-and-tend-your-garden view becomes the large majority. If that’s not going to happen then we’d have to ask, what are the prospects for the expansionist approach? The limits for expansion are those things described above – new materials, new sources of fuel and energy, new territory, and yes, it’s territory that I think will rescue us from the current ‘pinch point’. It’s expansion – on a truly massive scale – out into the solar system. You may welcome this of course, or you might see it as a truly horrific conclusion. I’m not suggesting that it’s an all-or-nothing situation. Efforts to avoid climate change are still highly worthwhile, but, whilst the expansionist view of the world is still the dominant view, all this is doing is easing the pinch point – giving us a little more time to conquer the solar system! In the meantime, for those of us still of the stay-at-home-and-tend-your-garden mindset, there’s another aim that seems important. We are not likely to convert the whole world to our views. But can we at least live the simple, naturally sustainable, and possibly off-grid lifestyle that we preach to others? It seems like there’s a lot that’s put in the way of people who want to do this – by governments and by society at large. We are often forced to have an ID card. A fixed address. A phone and various other paraphernalia. It would be good if we could build our own homes if we wanted, without too much by way of punitive regulations by governments. It would be good if vehicles, household appliances, phones and laptops were as easy to repair as possible and had universal and interchangeable spare parts. It would be good if all things were made to be beautiful and elegant instead of disposable and cheap. And why should we be forced to be online or to use an app, just to do our banking and pay our bills? Governments and education systems seem not to want us to be free-thinking autonomous individuals. The result is they produce either drones or delinquents. It’s a worthwhile cause, I think, to resist all these intrusions and inconveniences and to be able to live a free and simple life, if that is our heart’s desire. Turning finally to war, the idea of ‘natural justice’ – an innate right of self-defence – has been discussed in previous writings (Polis). Government has simply extended this concept to wider and wider groups up to today’s nation states. When a soldier goes to war, they are fighting therefore for a concept – fighting for the idea that a nation has the right of self-defence. We try to set limits on war, but there seems to be no limit to the atrocities that another nation might choose to inflict on our own nation. Therefore, despite paying lip-service to rules, nations, if they can afford to do so, will arm themselves against the worst imaginable scenarios. Perhaps there are rational arguments that can be offered for why war is futile. But it is difficult to make a case against the threat I’ve suggested above – the possibility of an enemy who is absolutely without conscience or mercy. In previous writing I have spoken of the transactional nature of government. This is the ‘social contract’ at its most basic. When it comes to war, especially nuclear war, we are being offered the ultimate transaction. The nation that stockpiles nuclear weapons is saying, in effect that they would blow up the whole world rather than be subjugated by another nation. That’s the deal – and somehow people don’t seem too bothered by this! Don’t seem to realise that even a minor exchange of nuclear attacks could quickly escalate to a full-scale holocaust. So I think the only case that can be made is for an almost universal change to human culture, such that we come to see war as fundamentally wrong and beyond any boundary of civil society. Meanwhile, good people have other things on their minds, and here we come full circle to the messages of previous writings – Theoria, Poiesis and Polis. Good people are seeking knowledge for its own sake. Being enchanted by Nature and being the means of grace through compassionate politics, meaningful work and through loving and convivial relationships. If we are invested in all these things then there is no room for war. I don’t feel I can offer any thoughts on exactly what to do – especially on this most difficult topic of war. The previous writings have, I hope, shown that there are many more questions than answers. When it comes to this writing – to Praxis – it’s again a matter of expressing questions, and the questions to consider are, I have to say, especially difficult. But I offer some comments here, to try to address the issues that have been explored. Let’s begin with the self and say, wouldn’t it be good if we could just be happy in the moment? Content with who we are and with our lot in life? Well, yes, surely we’d all like to be happy and content! But perhaps you see the problem. Most of us will have something in our lives that we’d like to be different. Perhaps we’d like to change jobs, or move house, or get married or get divorced. So, being happy in the moment seems like a kind of surrender – an acquiescence and acceptance of things that we’d really like to change. Striving for change though, well, that can make us unhappy. So there’s a dilemma. Now what if I were to tell you that there’s a solution to this? That it’s possible to be happy in the moment whilst still imagining and moving into change in your life? I’m not about to tell you how this is done because I don’t know the answer! And even if I had an answer that worked for me, it probably wouldn’t work for you. Now let’s look at it in terms of other people. As with the self, we might wish to just rest in how things are in the world. But then, surely, there’s an even greater dilemma. Things out there in the world are pretty terrible – and if you’re moved by the issues of war, climate change, social justice, politics or whatever, then probably you’d like to do something about those problems. Probably you’d like to make the world a better place. In earlier writings we’ve noted the highly transactional nature of politics. I have contrasted this with grace and with gift. The difficulties around helping others, in whatever form this might take – centre around questions of gift and grace. So, initially there’s the risk of making our giving into just another form of transaction. And then there’s the risk that our gifts are not the gifts of grace. Well, you might argue, if people are helped then does it really matter if the manner of giving or the motives for giving are a bit awry? Well, I’d argue that it matters a great deal and that trying to help in the wrong way or with the wrong motives could actually make things worse rather than better. On the other hand, the needs of the world are great, so doing nothing does not seem like an option. Our dilemma then is again, acceptance of the way things are in contrast to the way we’d like them to be. But here, in dealing with others, I’m suggesting that we act in the spirit of the gift and as a means of grace. And once again I have to tell you that I don’t know what this would mean – not for myself, and certainly not for others. But I think that somehow it’s possible. So I return to this question – this question of praxis – in my own life. I return to it again and again, because I think there is no question more pressing – given what we know – and indeed what we don’t know -what should we do? There’s a third thing – along this line of acceptance versus change. What if you could consider yourself all that you ever need to be right now, and consider other people to be fine, in and of themselves? Yet, at the same time, you figure that for the human project to be worthwhile people need to change. This, surely, is the ultimate dilemma! Again, I have no answer. But, at the very least, considering this question might prevent us from trying to get other people to change – which is surely a fool’s game! The previous writings have tried to encourage a contemplation of the big questions – the nature of the universe, of what is good, of what is sacred, of art, work, grace and gifting. And I simply offer this question of praxis – as one more subject of contemplation. Most people want answers, not questions. They look for guidance on what to do, not to be told that they should just think about questions. Indeed, be asked to think about questions they maybe hadn’t even thought about asking before! So you may think that I’ve not delivered – and I’d probably agree on that! Maybe it’s harder to have questions – easier to just jump to some settled view on things – especially if family, friends and the surrounding culture encourage us to do so. But, in closing, I just want to offer this one piece of advice – stick with the questions! Stick with the questions as long as you can! The questions, I belive, will deliver a life well lived.