Searle, Intentionality, and the Future of Classifier Systems

Illinois Genetic Algorithms Laboratory
Department of General Engineering
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Urbana, IL 61801.

Searle, Intentionality, and the
Future of Classifier Systems
David E. Goldberg
Illinois Genetic Algorithms Laboratory
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Urbana, IL 61801
deg@uiuc.edu

1980 v. Now
Remember thinking how cool LCSs


were.
Just apply them to gas pipelines


and voila, all AI problems of
Western Civilization would be
solved.
Started to ask John for examples


of successful application.
Found out that I was in the


middle of an interesting idea, not
a working computer program.
John H. Holland (b. 1929)

Roadmap
Are we happy with LCSs?


What’s Searle got to do with it.


Revisiting the Chinese room.


Art Burkes had it right.


Designing a conscious computer.


Searlean program for LCSs:


Computational consciousness not impossible.
–
From consciousness to intentionality.
–
Intentionality and beyond.
–

What are we missing?


What should we do?


Are We Happy With LCSs?
Have made progress:


Increasingly competent, solve hard problems
–
quickly reliably and accurately.
Principled manner.
–

But don’t seem very intelligent:


Do what we tell them.
–

Not autonomous in any serious sense.
–

Our discussions are largely technical.
–

Are we focused on right problems?
–

What’s Searle Got to Do With It?
Mill Prof of Philosophy of Berkeley.

Philosopher of language and mind.


Early work took off from Austin’s work on

speech acts.
Searle is Darth Vader of artificial

intelligence.
Notorious Chinese Room argument has

always puzzled me.
In many ways, Searle is high philosophical

priest of emergence.
John R. Searle (b. 1932)
Rejects dualism & materialism.

Couldn’t understand how he could miss

possibility of more than mere systactical
translation.

The Chinese Room Argument

Strong AI is not possible on a computer.


Monolingual English speaker in a room with


Chinese writing (story)
–

2nd Chinese symbols (questions)
–

Instructions in English for relating first set of symbols
–
to second.
3rd set of Chinese symbols (answers)
–

English speaker does not understand Chinese even


if answers are indistinguishable from those of
Chinese speaker.

Cracks in the Chinese Room

Mind, Language & Society,

Basic Books, 1998, p. 53.
“When I say that the brain

is a biological organ and
consciousness a biological
process, I do not, of course,
say or imply that it would
be impossible to produce an
artificial brain out of
nonbiological materials.”

More Searle

“The heart is also a biological organ, and the


pumping of blood a biological process, but it is
possible to build an artificial heart that pumps
blood. There is no reason, in principle, why we
could not similarly make an artificial brain that
causes consciousness.”
Searle was complaining about direct approach to


intelligence.
Without consciousness and intentionality there


cannot be intelligence.
How do we create an intelligent, conscious being?


Arthur Burks Had Interesting Take

Robots and Free

Minds, University of
Michigan, 1986.
“Tonight I will

advocate the thesis: A
FINITE
DETERMINISTIC
AUTOMATON CAN
PERFORM ALL
NATURAL HUMAN
FUNCTIONS.”

Chapter 5: Evolution and Intentionality

“The course of biological evolution from cells

to Homo sapiens has been a gradual
development of intentional systems from
direct-response systems.”
“The [intentional] system contains a model of

its present status in relation to its goal and
regularly updates that model on the basis of
the information it receives. Finally, it decides
what to do after consulting a strategy, which
has value assessments attached in to various
alternative courses of action.”

CS-1 Had Bio/Psycho Roots
CS-1 had reservoirs for

hunger and thirst (Holland
& Reitman, 1978).
Schemata processors

paper had reservoirs, too
(Holland, 1971).
CS-1 worked in maze

running task.
But design was Lockean.


Tabula rasa for everything

except rule firing,
apportionment of credit,
and rule discovery.
Is this enough?

Thesis: Can’t take shortcut

around consciousness and
intentionality.

So You Want a Conscious Computer

What does this mean?


Consciousness is complex, emergent

phenomenon.
How can we design it?


Don’t throw pieces together and hope for

the best.
My experience: Emergent phenomena

emerge when (a) key elements are present
and (b) system tuned properly.
Consider more Searle.


Shooting for C Not Crazy

Shooting for GA competence was crazy.


Have accomplished.


How:


Considered essential elements.
–

Built qual/quant theories of how they worked.
–

Designed until limits of performance achieved.
–

Can do the same for

consciousness/intentionality!!

Searle’s Greatest Hits

Mind as biological phenomenon.


Function of consciousness.


Features of consciousness.


How the mind works: Intentionality.


The good stuff comes from intentionality:

Language & other institutional fact.
What are we missing?


Mind as Biology
Consciousness is the primary feature of

minds.
3 features of consciousness:

Inner: in body and in sequence of events.
–
Qualitative: certain way they feel.
–
Subjective: first person ontology (does not
–
preclude objective epistemology).
Enormous variety of consciousness: smell a

rose, worry about income taxes, sudden
rage about driver, etc.

Functions of Consciousness
What does it do? What is survival value?


What doesn’t it do for our species?


Consciousness is central to our survival.


All actions a result of conscious thought

followed by action.

Consciousness, Intentionality, & Causation

Represent world, and act on representations.


Intentional causation: Not billiard ball causation.


Not all consciousness intentionally causal, but much

is.
Should be best understood; are we not in touch

with it always? Descartes’s error.
Yet difficult to describe: Can describe objects,

moods, thoughts, but not C itself.
Problems:


Not itself an object of observation (consciousness
–
observes but is not observed).
Tradition of separating mind/body: dualism.
–

Features of C
Ontological subjectivity.
1.

C comes in unified form. Thinking and feeling go on
2.

at same time in same field of C: Vertical & horizontal.
C connects us to world (Tie to intentionality).
3.

C states come in moods.
4.

Always structured.
5.

Varying degrees of attention.
6.

C is situated.
7.

Varying degrees of familiarity.
8.

Refer to other things
9.

Always pleasurable or unpleasurable
10.

How the Mind Works: Intentionality

Primary evolutionary role of C is to relate

us to environment.
Cannot eliminate intentionality of mind by

appealing to language; already
intentionality of the mind.
Searle: Urge to reduce it to something else

is faulty.
DEG: As designers we need to reduce it to

something and then find conditions of
emergence among those things.

Intentionality as Biology

Thirst, hunger as basic, causing desire to

drink or eat.
Once this granted, camel nose under the

tent, intentions based on other sensory.
Isn’t reality “confirmed” by our “success” in

achieving intentional goals over and over
again.

Structure of Intentional States

Intentionality as way mental states are directed at

objects & states of affairs.
Can be directed at things that don’t exist?


How can this be?


Distinguish between type of intentional state and

content.
Content: rain; Types: hope, believe, fear rain.


Structural features:


Direction of fit
–
Conditions of satisfaction
–

Direction of Fit
Term: from Austin, foreshadowed by Wittgenstein,


examples Anscombe.
Anscombe’s lists:


Shopping list: Beer, butter, bacon. Husband matches
–
world to list.
Detective’s list: Follows shopper, “beer, butter,
–
bacon,” matches list to world.
Not all intentional states like this: e.g. when you


are sorry, assume match between mind and world.
Intentional state is null.

Conditions of Satisfaction
Beliefs can be true or false.


Goals can be achieved or not.


Easier to understand in terms of speech acts.


Have 5 illocutionary points or types:


Assertive: commit to the truth.
–

Directive: direct hearer to do something.
–

Commissive: speaker promises to do something.
–

Expressive: speaker expresses opinion about state of
–
the world.
Declarations: speaker creates something with
–
utterance.

Intentional Causation
Intend to move body  body moves:

Example of intentional causation.
Differs from billiard ball or Humean causation.


Self-referential: intend to move body, body moves

because I intended  then intentional causation.
Critical to distinguishing natural versus social

sciences.
Intentional explanations not deterministic: Could

have done otherwise  gap is free will.

Good Stuff from Intentionality

Searle goes on to talk about language and

institutional facts (money, college degrees,
etc.).
Disappointment with LCS is it can’t get to

the good stuff.
Can’t do language.


Can’t form contracts.


Can’t create new institutional fact.


Construction of Social Reality

Need to clarify observer-independent &

observer-dependent features of the world.
Need 3 new elements:


Collective intentionality.
–

Assignment of function.
–

Constitutive rules
–

Observer Independent v. Dependent

Many features of the world independent of

our observations of them: observer
independence.
Many observer dependent: Something a

characteristic because of observer
judgment, but not relative to others.
OI vs. OD more important than mind-body.


DEG aside: Isn’t it dualism in the back door

though?

Collective Intentionality
Need the notion of “we intend together.”


Attempts to reduce to individual intention are

complex.
Existence of biological organisms with collective

intentionality suggests CI is a primitive.
DEG aside: Are social insects intentional in Searlean

sense? Could be that social affiliation is primitive,
certain behaviors hard wired. Then, CI results from
(a) naming the group, (b) attributing intention to it
(as-if intentionality), and (c) treating the as-if as
real.

Assignment of Function

Use of objects as tools:


Monkey uses stick to get banana.
–

Man sits on rock.
–

Physical existence facilitates function, but

function is observer relative.
All function assignment is observer relative.


Constitutive Rules

How to distinguish between brute facts and


institutional facts.
Types of rules:


Some rules regulate: “Drive on right side of road.”
–

Some rules regulate and constitute: Rules of chess
–
both regulate conduct of game and create it.
Constitutive rules have form: X counts as Y in C.


“Move two and over one” counts as a knight’s


move in Chess.”

Simple Model of Construction of Social Reality

Strong thesis: All institutional reality explained by 3

things:
Collective intentionality.
–
Assigned function  wall keeps people out
–
physically, but low fence or boundary marker keeps
people out by convention.
Constitutive rules.
–
Money example: Evolution from valuable

commodity to fiat currency.
Institutional reality powerful: X counts as Y in C can

be iterated and stacked forming powerful network
of institutional facts.

What Are We Missing?

Do not have C-machines.


Searle’s 10:


Ontological subjectivity.
1.
C comes in unified form.
2.
C connects us to world.
3.
C states come in moods.
4.
Always structured.
5.
Varying degrees of attention.
6.
C is situated.
7.
Varying degrees of familiarity.
8.
Refer to other things
9.
Always pleasurable or unpleasurable
10.

Unity Missing

Can argue that we have vertical unity in

message board.
Do not have horizontal unity.


My first proposal recommended

modifications to permit time series.
Modifications to rules.


Modification to the boards.


Moods & Pleasant/Unpleasant Missing

This is big.


Emotions are “engagement with the world”

(Solomon).
Necessary for judgment and values.


Don’t want a simulation.


Emotions:


Physiological component
–

Judgmental component
–

Other Things Missing

Attention


Gestalt structure


Situatedness & familiarity


Refer to other things (may have this)


What Should We Do?

Stuff we’ve gotten right: Sensors, association,

models (anticipation), learning
Can’t continue to work on same thing.


No serious architectural changes proposed to LCS.

Why?
Need:


Emotions: As judgments, source of values, and
–
arbiter of attention.
Multiple boards: As source of difference and
–
similarity. Main hope of quality of consciousness &
unity.
Center of intention rooted in “biological needs.”
–

How Do We Break This Down?

Tough problem.


If C is complex building block,

what are minimal essential
elements to achieve.
How do we know we’ve achieved

it (first person ontology, third
person epistomology)?
Sets of tests and experiments.


What theory needed to set

parameters of C?
Not unlike approach that cracked

innovation

Summary & Conclusions

Have accomplished quite a bit in classifier

systems.
Many of our questions are technical.


Deeper questions about whether we’re

attacking the right questions.
Need consciousness and intention to get

the “good stuff” of intelligent behavior.
Wrestling with Searle’s categories not a bad

place to start.

Searle, Intentionality, and the Future of Classifier Systems

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Searle, Intentionality, and the Future of Classifier Systems

Similar to Searle, Intentionality, and the Future of Classifier Systems (20)

More from Xavier Llorà

More from Xavier Llorà (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Searle, Intentionality, and the Future of Classifier Systems