Talk for Schmidt Program on Artificial Intelligence, Emerging Technologies, and National Power
__________________________________________________________________________
“Consciousness, Technicity, and Spontaneity: Revisiting the Philosophy of Artificial Life”
Introduction: Contextualizing the Inquiry
Today’s discussion addresses some fundamental issues within the philosophy of artificial life and artificial intelligence, drawing on key readings from The Philosophy of Artificial Life edited by Margaret Boden. My goal is to clarify the conceptual underpinnings of consciousness and its relation to technology, particularly focusing on how the intersection between mechanical and dynamical systems sheds light on both human cognition and the limitations of artificial systems.
This analysis is not merely speculative; it explores the practical and ethical implications of advancing technologies, which should be of great interest to professionals engaged in both the philosophical and applied domains of artificial intelligence (AI), biology, and national security / defense intelligence enterprise. This examination will consider how these insights could be leveraged within the U.S. Department of Defense and intelligence communities as well as provide an example of what a successfully bio-engineered conscious form of artificial life might look like. To close I consider the ethical implications surrounding this topic.
Part 1: Phenomenology and Consciousness - A Methodological Approach
At the center of this discussion lies the relationship between phenomenology and consciousness. Phenomenology, as both a philosophy and method, examines the structures of lived experience from the perspective of a conscious being. For thinkers such as Edmund Husserl and Martin Heidegger, this approach reveals the deep connections between how phenomena appear to consciousness and the ontological categories governing reality. When extended to the study of life and artificial systems, phenomenology challenges reductive approaches that attempt to model consciousness purely through computational or mechanical means.
Consciousness is not merely an epiphenomenon of brain states; it exhibits a structure that is intertwined with the very dynamics of life itself. The presupposition of phenomenology is that consciousness and reality are contiguous: the categories that structure conscious experience reflect fundamental features of the world. In other words, if we want to understand life, cognition, and ultimately consciousness then we must engage with methods that can accommodate the spontaneity and creativity inherent in living systems navigating the world.
Mechanical Systems vs. Dynamical Systems: The Problem of Emulation
The distinction between mechanical and dynamical systems is critical when discussing the nature of living, conscious beings. Mechanical systems operate through pre-defined rules and programmed responses which renders them predictable and deterministic. Dynamical systems, however, are characterized by their adaptability, emergent properties, and sensitivity to initial conditions—traits closely associated with biological and conscious entities.
The article “Animals as Cost-Based Robots,” discussed today, highlights a key problem in AI and artificial life: the attempt to model living systems through purely mechanical means. While mechanical systems can emulate some aspects of life, they fail to capture the spontaneous, adaptive, and context-sensitive behavior that characterizes conscious organisms. For instance, in the hypothetical case of the robot R1, designed to retrieve a battery from a room with a ticking bomb, we see the limits of mechanical inference. R1 could not recognize the implications of its actions in the way a conscious, living being could. Subsequent models, designed to account for inference-making, only compounded the problem by getting bogged down in irrelevant details, ultimately failing to act effectively.
This illustrates a profound limitation: conscious organisms possess a spontaneous capacity for context-sensitive inference that goes beyond rigid programming. This spontaneity is what makes living systems fundamentally different from artificial ones. Consciousness involves not just logical deduction but a creative and adaptive engagement with the world, driven by goals that emerge organically rather than through predefined instructions.
The Technicity of Consciousness: Spontaneity as a Crucial Ingredient
Central to this discussion is the idea of technicity, which I define as the inherent “technology” or systematicity within consciousness itself. Consciousness, at its core, is engaged in a kind of dynamic problem-solving, constantly creating, revising, and deploying concepts to navigate the world. However, this problem-solving capacity is not mechanistic but rooted in the spontaneity and libidinal energy of life—what we might call “cost-based energetics.”
Cost-based energetics refers to the idea that living organisms, even at the molecular level, are driven by the need to optimize their energy expenditure. This is not merely an unconscious instinct but reflects a deeper principle: life is inherently driven by the desire to achieve the most with the least expenditure. This principle underlies both biological evolution and the development of conscious awareness.
The issue arises when we attempt to translate this spontaneous, libidinal dynamism into artificial systems. As the parable of R1 and its successors demonstrates, mechanical systems lack the spontaneous creativity necessary for true problem-solving. They can be programmed to recognize certain implications, but they cannot generate the context-sensitive, innovative responses characteristic of conscious beings. In this sense, there is a profound difference between “biological technology” and “machinic technology.” The former is rooted in life’s spontaneous creativity, while the latter is deterministic and devoid of true spontaneity.
The Paradox of Technological Advancement: Weakening Human Powers
This analysis brings us to a paradox: while technological advancements, such as calculators or automated systems, are designed to enhance human capacities, they can also lead to the atrophy of the very powers they were intended to support. When we over-rely on technology to solve problems, we risk diminishing our own imaginative and spontaneous problem-solving abilities. The more we outsource our cognitive tasks to machines, the less capable we become of engaging in the creative, context-sensitive thinking that characterizes human intelligence.
This insight resonates with Heidegger’s famous assertion that “the essence of technology is nothing technological.” Technology, when uncritically embraced, risks becoming an autonomous force that undermines human spontaneity and creativity. The challenge, then, is to strike a balance between leveraging technological tools and preserving the dynamic, spontaneous qualities of consciousness that allow for true innovation.
Applications for the U.S. Department of Defense and Intelligence Community
Given the critical insights discussed, it is worth considering how these ideas might be practically applied within the defense and intelligence sectors. The spontaneous, context-sensitive, and creative problem-solving abilities that characterize human consciousness are precisely what make human analysts invaluable in complex, high-stakes environments. While AI and automated systems can process large amounts of data and generate predictions, they lack the capacity for spontaneous insight—a capacity that often proves decisive in ambiguous or rapidly changing situations.
It is my belief that hiring individuals who understand these philosophical principles could greatly enhance the methodological frameworks used in intelligence analysis. By integrating a deeper understanding of consciousness, spontaneity, and technicity, analysts could refine their approach to decision-making, particularly in situations where the ability to adapt and innovate is critical. Furthermore, these insights could inform the development of AI systems that, rather than merely emulating human cognition, are designed to complement and enhance the unique strengths of human intelligence. Let us now consider an example of what such a conscious and spontaneously driven artificial biotechnological system might look like.
Part 2: An Example – Biological Robots
The concept of “biological robots” offers a fascinating example of how an advanced civilization might employ conscious, spontaneously driven creative biotechnological systems (programmed life) to navigate the complexities of the world, for example in the case of interstellar exploration and interaction. Here it will be helpful to touch on how such beings might be "programmed" for specific tasks and examine the advantages and disadvantages of utilizing these types of entities.
Bio-logics
The idea of programming life-forms, or "bio-logics," to carry out specific tasks may be understood as a situation where an advanced civilization designs and creates biological beings - artificial life - for specific functions. Rather than using silicon-based AI or metallic robotics, an advanced civilization could merge biological and computational principles to create living entities engineered to perform particular tasks, such as reconnaissance, data collection, or even communication. In this sense, bio-logics are biological systems that operate under pre-programmed algorithms, much like how DNA codes for proteins and cellular functions. However, these entities would be customized beyond the traditional evolutionary constraints, tailored to serve the needs of their creators in environments where standard robotics might be inefficient.
Advantages and Disadvantages of Bio-logics
There are clear advantages to employing biological robots over traditional machines or autonomous AI. For one, these entities could be biologically adapted to harsh environments, allowing them to survive in conditions that would be fatal to both humans and standard robots. They could be designed with specific sensory capabilities, cognitive processing abilities, and physical forms optimized for a wide range of missions.
Additionally, these beings could be expendable, reducing the ethical concerns associated with sending sentient beings on dangerous missions. As they are cloned or "manufactured" with specific parameters, the loss of one unit would be inconsequential to their creators. Furthermore, if these beings are simply following programmed instructions without sentience, it alleviates the moral implications of using them as mere tools.
However, there are significant disadvantages and ethical dilemmas to consider. The creation of semi-sentient beings designed to perform laborious or hazardous tasks raises concerns about autonomy and free will. Even if these entities lack consciousness, the possibility of developing a form of proto-awareness or sentience remains. An advanced civilization might face the ethical paradox of creating beings intelligent enough to perform complex functions but devoid of the capacity for self-determination. This scenario echoes familiar ethical debates in AI research regarding the rights of intelligent systems and their capacity to experience suffering.
Ethical Implications of Creating Biological Robots
The ethical implications of creating biological robots or clones revolve around the question of whether creating life for a specific purpose is inherently justifiable. If such beings are indeed artificially created and programmed by design, their existence would be entirely dictated by their programming. This scenario raises questions about exploitation, especially if these beings possess any form of consciousness, however rudimentary.
From a human perspective, the idea of manufacturing life solely for utilitarian purposes resonates with historical ethical concerns about slavery, exploitation, and autonomy. Even if these beings are designed to be devoid of suffering or self-awareness, the mere act of creating and discarding life at will could be seen as morally problematic.
Moreover, if these beings are used by an advanced alien civilization for first contact or exploration, it could indicate that their creators view life as a commodity, something to be engineered and controlled. This perspective challenges traditional views of life’s intrinsic value and raises concerns about the ethics of bioengineering in general.
The concept of biological robots offers a glimpse into how an advanced civilization might engineer life to fulfill specific tasks. The idea of artificial life rendered as a kind of bio-logics presents a unique synthesis of biology and technology, creating entities that could operate in ways far beyond what traditional machines or humans could achieve. However, the ethical implications of creating life for utilitarian purposes are significant, especially if such beings possess even a rudimentary form of consciousness.
Conclusion: Toward a Human-Centered Technicity
Combining biological components with artificial structures could offer a range of applications, utilized by our national security and defense intelligence community by way of intelligence collection, reconnaissance, surveillance, and even direct action. In national security operations involving disaster response for example, bio-logics could assist in locating survivors or hazardous materials in environments such as collapsed buildings, mines, or wilderness areas. Their biological adaptability may allow them to traverse spaces or conditions where traditional robots would fail. Bio-logics might also infiltrate physical structures to gather data from devices that are off-limits to digital hacking, thereby creating a new dimension in cyber intelligence operations. In special operations, biological robots could be used to perform covert actions that require precision and discretion. For example they could deliver payloads to incapacitate specific targets or introduce substances (such as poisons or incapacitating agents) in highly targeted and non-detectable ways, potentially as part of intelligence operations aimed at neutralizing key threats. With respect to intelligence, biological robots could become part of broader multi-domain operations, fusing data from biological systems with AI to enhance decision-making processes in the intelligence cycle. This could enable defense intelligence to combine biological insights (e.g., changes in ecosystems, or biological anomalies in humans) with signals or imagery intelligence (SIGINT/IMINT) for a more comprehensive picture of strategic threat assessment.
In conclusion, the study of artificial life, consciousness, and technicity reveals profound insights into the nature of intelligence—both human and artificial. As we move forward, it is essential to recognize the limitations of mechanical systems while preserving the spontaneous, creative powers that define conscious life. By doing so, we not only advance our understanding of philosophy and technology but also equip ourselves to address the complex challenges faced by today’s defense and intelligence communities. The path forward lies not in replacing human intelligence with machines, but in harmonizing technology with the dynamic, spontaneous capacities that are the true source of innovation and problem-solving. Inasmuch as this dynamic, spontaneous sort of power can be infused into artificially created systems, whether biological robots or other forms of “bio-logics,” the national security and intelligence community could reap substantial benefit.
