Seminar: Can Artificial Intelligence Undermine Religion? With Hamza Andreas Tzortzis (2022-05-15) #

0:00:02 [Music]
0:00:05 and sisters and friends
0:00:07 and welcome to this online live seminar
0:00:13 can artificial intelligence undermine
0:00:17 religion
0:00:18 now brothers and sisters this is
0:00:21 a good topic because currently there is
0:00:24 a lot of drama
0:00:26 or there is a conversation going on
0:00:29 concerning ai
0:00:31 artificial intelligence
0:00:33 robots computer systems
0:00:36 advanced
0:00:37 computer systems and so on and so forth
0:00:39 and you have academics talking about
0:00:41 this you have people in the popular
0:00:43 online sphere
0:00:45 talking about this you see this in the
0:00:47 movies you see this on social media
0:00:52 on videos
0:00:54 that you can find on youtube and many
0:00:56 other places and there has been this
0:00:58 kind of conversation
0:01:01 going on concerning
0:01:04 consciousness and can robots be fully
0:01:08 conscious or is it just a simulation
0:01:10 of consciousness
0:01:12 and
0:01:13 there have been subsequent questions or
0:01:15 conversations concerning religion
0:01:18 theism
0:01:19 and the idea that there is something
0:01:21 special about human beings we have a
0:01:23 soul in the arabic islamic tradition
0:01:27 we have a spirit we have consciousness
0:01:31 and
0:01:32 the
0:01:32 reality of consciousness is
0:01:35 specific to human beings yes animals can
0:01:38 have consciousness too but we have
0:01:41 rational insights we have the ability to
0:01:44 attach
0:01:45 meaning to symbols we have an ability to
0:01:48 attach complex meaning to many symbols
0:01:52 and so the conversation has gone down
0:01:57 the path of well maybe in the future you
0:02:00 can have
0:02:01 a robot or a computer program or a
0:02:05 piece of hardware whether it's a robot
0:02:07 or not is almost irrelevant that can
0:02:09 have a program that can not only
0:02:12 simulate consciousness but it can be
0:02:14 truly conscious which is this idea of
0:02:17 strong ai strong artificial intelligence
0:02:20 that it really is
0:02:23 conscious from the point of view that it
0:02:24 has awareness and cognition just like a
0:02:27 human being
0:02:29 now that's the strong ai there is the
0:02:32 weak ai which basically says well no
0:02:35 computer programs can never can never be
0:02:39 fully conscious they only simulate
0:02:42 consciousness
0:02:43 they only only simulate cognition from
0:02:46 the point of view that they can just
0:02:49 manipulate symbols in a very advanced
0:02:51 and complex way but there is no way of
0:02:53 attaching meaning to the symbols and
0:02:55 that's the summary of today's seminar
0:02:57 basically but we want to break this down
0:02:59 further to empower you because the whole
0:03:01 point of sapience institute is that
0:03:04 we're here to empower you
0:03:07 to be able to share and defend islam
0:03:09 academically and intellectually and for
0:03:11 you to develop others to do so the same
0:03:14 and this means we have to address
0:03:16 contemporary questions and insha allah
0:03:19 god willing will be doing this
0:03:22 until allah gives us our last breath
0:03:25 so
0:03:26 let's
0:03:28 go through these slides okay can
0:03:30 artificial intelligence undermine
0:03:33 religion
0:03:34 well the first thing we need to talk
0:03:36 about is well what on earth is a.i
0:03:39 according to the late computer scientist
0:03:42 john mccarthy who was based at stamford
0:03:46 university he said it is the science and
0:03:48 engineering of making intelligent
0:03:51 machines
0:03:52 especially intelligent computer programs
0:03:55 it is related to the similar task of
0:03:56 using computers to understand human
0:03:58 intelligence but a.i does not have to
0:04:01 confine itself to methods that are
0:04:03 biologically observable so from this
0:04:06 perspective we're getting the idea that
0:04:08 artificial intelligence is a science
0:04:11 it's
0:04:13 an engineering that tries to make
0:04:15 machines smart machines
0:04:18 intelligent
0:04:19 and it's related to
0:04:21 the action or the task of using computer
0:04:25 programs or using computers to
0:04:28 understand human cognition
0:04:31 now according to ibm and you can find
0:04:34 this on the website and by the way this
0:04:36 has been taken from their website and
0:04:37 you have the links and all the
0:04:40 books and references and bibliography at
0:04:42 the end of the seminar on the relevant
0:04:44 slide
0:04:46 now
0:04:47 ibm
0:04:48 they basically articulate ai in the
0:04:51 following way at its simplest form
0:04:53 artificial intelligence is a field which
0:04:55 combine combines computer science and
0:04:58 robust data sets to enable problem
0:05:00 solving
0:05:01 it also encompasses subfields of machine
0:05:04 learning and deep learning which are
0:05:06 frequently mentioned in conjunction with
0:05:08 artificial intelligence these
0:05:10 disciplines are comprised of ai
0:05:12 algorithms which seek to create expert
0:05:15 systems which make predictions or cl
0:05:18 classifications based on input data so
0:05:21 you're getting the idea here that
0:05:23 artificial intelligence is a domain of
0:05:26 knowledge if you like it's a field which
0:05:29 takes the understanding of computer
0:05:32 science and data
0:05:34 and there is there are the development
0:05:37 there is the development of complex
0:05:39 algorithms that can basically use that
0:05:42 data in a functional way meaning that
0:05:45 they can use it from the point of view
0:05:47 that give us solutions that make
0:05:49 predictions or they classify that data
0:05:52 or they interpret that data
0:05:55 so ai from this perspective especially
0:05:57 when it's related machine learning and
0:05:58 deep learning is essentially based on
0:06:01 data sets and algorithms
0:06:04 so
0:06:05 continuing with ibm's understanding of
0:06:07 this and this has been taken literally
0:06:09 from the ibm
0:06:10 ibm website and the links are provided
0:06:13 at the end of the seminar
0:06:15 now yes there is
0:06:17 a kind of connection between artificial
0:06:19 intelligence machine learning and deep
0:06:21 learning they're all related so let's
0:06:23 unpack some of these concepts so you get
0:06:24 them get to understand them at least on
0:06:26 a basic
0:06:27 level
0:06:28 so deep learning is actually comprised
0:06:31 of neural networks now
0:06:34 this sounds quite funny because this is
0:06:36 emulating the kind of or mirroring the
0:06:38 kind of
0:06:39 human understanding of the brain or the
0:06:42 understanding of the brain that we have
0:06:43 neurons now you have to
0:06:46 really understand that neural networks
0:06:47 are just basically
0:06:49 a kind of term that tries to mimic the
0:06:52 way
0:06:53 biological neurons signal to one another
0:06:55 so neural networks
0:06:57 in other words artificial neural
0:06:59 networks are just comprised of node
0:07:01 layers
0:07:02 containing an input
0:07:04 uh or
0:07:06 one or more hidden layers and an output
0:07:08 so basically it's just a kind of
0:07:09 relation between
0:07:12 inputs and outputs there's inputs and
0:07:14 outputs in a very complex way and there
0:07:15 are many layers of these inputs and
0:07:17 outputs and that's what it really means
0:07:18 really so this kind of understanding of
0:07:21 neural networks and deep learning is
0:07:24 nothing more fundamentally than just
0:07:26 basically node layers containing an
0:07:28 input layer one or more hidden layers
0:07:31 and an output layer and there is a kind
0:07:33 of connection between all of these
0:07:35 things there's a kind of relation
0:07:37 between these inputs and these outputs
0:07:40 so deep in the deep learning refers to a
0:07:43 neural network comprised of more than
0:07:44 three layers which would be inclusive of
0:07:46 the inputs and outputs
0:07:48 it can be considered a deep learning
0:07:50 algorithm so essentially all it is is
0:07:52 just layers of inputs and outputs that's
0:07:54 what it is
0:07:55 related in complex ways connected in
0:07:57 complex ways from that perspective it's
0:07:59 just inputs and outputs
0:08:02 and many layers of these
0:08:04 so i already explained this neural
0:08:06 networks also known as artificial neural
0:08:08 networks or a ns or simulated neural
0:08:12 networks s and ns are subset of machine
0:08:15 learning and are
0:08:17 at the heart of deep learning algorithms
0:08:19 the name and structure as i said are
0:08:21 inspired by the human brain mimicking
0:08:23 the way that the biological neurons
0:08:25 signal to one another so essentially
0:08:28 artificial neural networks are comprised
0:08:30 of node layers containing an input layer
0:08:32 one or more hidden layers and output
0:08:33 layer and all of these essentially are
0:08:36 just inputs and outputs
0:08:38 a complex relation between different
0:08:40 inputs and outputs and many layers of
0:08:42 these so for it to be deep uh it
0:08:45 basically means there is one or more
0:08:48 there's there is more than three of
0:08:49 these layers okay so hopefully that
0:08:51 makes sense
0:08:53 so the understanding of machine learning
0:08:55 and deep learning is is connected to
0:08:57 artificial intelligence
0:09:00 as we've just explained so
0:09:02 now if you want to break this down
0:09:03 fundamentally brothers and sisters all
0:09:05 it is is zeros on ones that's it okay
0:09:07 and this has been taken from a very kind
0:09:10 of basic website on explaining how
0:09:12 computers work okay and i've given the
0:09:14 link at the end of this seminar on the
0:09:16 relevant slide
0:09:18 but i have put this in place because if
0:09:20 you break it down to its nuts and bolts
0:09:22 it's just fundamentally zeros and ones
0:09:26 and those errors on ones are just
0:09:28 basically an
0:09:29 an electronic version of on and off
0:09:32 switches that's it
0:09:34 simple as that
0:09:35 and computers they use zeros on ones
0:09:37 which is
0:09:39 the the binary system okay so it's just
0:09:41 two digits one and zero
0:09:43 and this system is called binary and our
0:09:46 computers use it all the time
0:09:48 and
0:09:49 you know just like atoms make up
0:09:50 everything around us in the real world
0:09:52 everything in the digital world can be
0:09:54 broken down into binary in other words
0:09:56 zeros and ones even though we can't see
0:09:58 them it's all a bunch of ones and zeros
0:10:01 in and that is
0:10:02 really explained by
0:10:04 an electronic version of an on and off
0:10:06 switch so when you use complex computer
0:10:09 programs such as c plus plus or
0:10:11 javascript script or complex computer
0:10:14 algorithms when you talk about machine
0:10:16 learning and deep learning
0:10:18 fundamentally they're stored onto the
0:10:20 computer as xeros and ones which are
0:10:23 fundamentally the kind of electronic
0:10:26 version of an on and off switch i hope
0:10:28 that makes sense okay i'm trying to
0:10:29 break this down as simple as possible so
0:10:32 as i alluded to earlier
0:10:34 there is a difference between strong
0:10:36 versus weak ai strong ai and weak ai and
0:10:41 the type of ai that may be a problem to
0:10:43 religion is strong ai so let's
0:10:46 understand what these are
0:10:47 professor john stell a philosopher of
0:10:50 the mind he describes strong artificial
0:10:52 intelligence as
0:10:54 the appropriately programmed computer
0:10:57 really is the mind really is their mind
0:10:59 in the sense that computers given the
0:11:01 right programs can be literally said to
0:11:03 have to understand and have cognitive
0:11:05 states so
0:11:07 from his perspective and there's nothing
0:11:08 controversial about this understanding
0:11:10 is that computer programs they literally
0:11:12 have cognitive states
0:11:15 and that means they literally have
0:11:17 cognition like a human being they have
0:11:19 awareness and subjective conscious
0:11:21 experiences because when we are when we
0:11:24 are undergoing a
0:11:26 a cognitive
0:11:28 cognition and we're thinking and we're
0:11:30 having rational insights
0:11:32 we also have a subjective feel a stream
0:11:34 of consciousness concerning these
0:11:36 rational insights this cognition this
0:11:39 thinking process
0:11:41 we are aware that we're having it and
0:11:43 there is a
0:11:45 what it's like to be in that cognitive
0:11:47 state so we have a sense of subjective
0:11:50 experience concerning what it's like to
0:11:54 have a rational insight or to be able to
0:11:57 to think about something deeply
0:11:59 so strong ai really basically is that
0:12:01 computer systems a computer program
0:12:04 really is a mind it has a cognitive
0:12:06 state and not only does it have a
0:12:08 cognitive state like a human mind but
0:12:10 just like a human mind is aware of that
0:12:13 state and there is a subjective element
0:12:15 concerning that too
0:12:17 now weak ai is kind of different because
0:12:20 weak ai is
0:12:21 is that computers do not have
0:12:23 consciousness in this sense they do not
0:12:24 have cognition in this sense they only
0:12:27 simulate cognition in other words they
0:12:29 only simulate thought and understanding
0:12:32 they only simulate having a rational
0:12:34 insight they don't really have a
0:12:36 rational insight they don't really have
0:12:38 cognition like we do they only simulate
0:12:41 so
0:12:42 our problem or our question today is not
0:12:45 about weak ai it's more about strong ai
0:12:49 so let's raise the question strong ai a
0:12:52 problem for religion can it be a problem
0:12:54 for religion
0:12:55 well if you think about it if artificial
0:12:59 intelligence becomes fully conscious
0:13:01 from the perspective of strong
0:13:02 artificial intelligence
0:13:04 it's going to support the view that
0:13:06 consciousness is based on physical
0:13:07 functional processes and interactions
0:13:09 and in simple language it's going to
0:13:11 support the kind of philosophical
0:13:13 naturalists perspective that everything
0:13:15 can be reduced and understood by
0:13:17 physical processes
0:13:18 this means therefore that human
0:13:20 consciousness could have emerged without
0:13:22 anything external to the natural world
0:13:25 in other words there is no need for a
0:13:27 soul no need for war
0:13:29 no no need for divine interaction and
0:13:32 this would be problematic from the point
0:13:34 of view of religion as you know
0:13:36 however one could argue even if it were
0:13:39 the case even if
0:13:42 a.i could be fully conscious it does not
0:13:44 necessarily mean that religion is
0:13:46 undermined okay obviously there's more
0:13:48 to impact here but it doesn't
0:13:49 necessarily mean that religion is
0:13:51 undermined why because it could be
0:13:53 argued that god used these physical
0:13:55 functional processes god used these
0:13:57 physical processes that he put in place
0:13:59 that he he he created
0:14:03 in order to bring up bring about
0:14:04 consciousness
0:14:06 and therefore it did not require
0:14:08 something non-physical to ensure the
0:14:10 emergence of consciousness
0:14:12 right so once god created the system in
0:14:15 place and the physical process within
0:14:17 the system there was nothing required
0:14:18 outside of the system in order for
0:14:21 consciousness to
0:14:22 emerge but fundamentally obviously the
0:14:25 whole system had to be created and the
0:14:27 physical process within that system had
0:14:29 to be created by god in the first place
0:14:30 and that's why obviously from a more
0:14:32 fundamental theistic perspective
0:14:35 you know one would argue that all
0:14:36 phenomena that we observe are contingent
0:14:38 including physical processes computer
0:14:41 programs the hardware the software any
0:14:44 type of artificial intelligence these
0:14:45 are contingent in nature and obviously
0:14:48 if you refer to the argument from
0:14:49 contingency
0:14:51 all contingent things derive the
0:14:53 existence from a necessary independent
0:14:54 being so he wouldn't deny god's
0:14:56 existence per se and he wouldn't
0:14:57 necessarily deny religion unless of
0:15:00 course a particular religion
0:15:02 actually
0:15:03 you know highlighted exactly how the
0:15:06 installment took place exactly how
0:15:09 consciousness emerged but that is a
0:15:10 different discussion for another time
0:15:12 but generally speaking you know even
0:15:15 though we can
0:15:16 maneuver
0:15:18 away from strong eye even if strong eye
0:15:20 were to become a reality we could still
0:15:22 philosophically maneuver
0:15:24 it would provide the philosophical
0:15:26 naturalist
0:15:27 with
0:15:28 you know a a good argument they would
0:15:31 say look you know it seems that this
0:15:33 closed the system
0:15:35 this natural system the universe itself
0:15:38 and physical processes within the
0:15:39 universe can give rise to
0:15:42 consciousness cognition and subjective
0:15:45 consciousness inner subjective conscious
0:15:47 experiences therefore there is no need
0:15:49 for anything external to this system
0:15:51 because
0:15:52 just to remind every single one of you
0:15:54 if you've been following our work
0:15:55 philosophical naturalism is the
0:15:57 understanding that there is no divine
0:15:59 there is no supernatural and everything
0:16:01 can be explained by physical processes
0:16:03 in other words there is no non-physical
0:16:06 and
0:16:06 if there was something external to the
0:16:08 universe it doesn't interact with the
0:16:09 universe or affect the universe so they
0:16:11 would say look you know philosophical
0:16:13 naturalism is supported because strong
0:16:15 ai you know is a reality if it were to
0:16:18 be reality of course so it could support
0:16:20 their worldview the philosophical lenses
0:16:22 that these philosophical naturalists put
0:16:24 on their eyes in order to understand
0:16:26 themselves and reality but
0:16:29 notwithstanding all of that there is
0:16:31 still some space philosophically
0:16:33 speaking or intellectually speaking
0:16:34 rather for religion to maneuver and say
0:16:36 well religion is not necessarily
0:16:38 undermined because even if strong ai
0:16:40 were a possibility
0:16:42 it could be argued that god created this
0:16:45 system with these physical processes and
0:16:47 the combination of these physical
0:16:49 processes in complex interactions if you
0:16:51 like
0:16:52 could give rise to consciousness that
0:16:54 may not be adequate but that's not the
0:16:56 main purpose of our discussion today
0:16:57 anyway we could unpack that another time
0:17:01 so
0:17:02 how do we address strong ai
0:17:04 from this perspective how do we address
0:17:06 it how we've the previous slide assumes
0:17:09 that strong ai say it's a possibility
0:17:11 how could we respond but now we're
0:17:13 saying well is
0:17:15 well and now we're questioning is strong
0:17:16 air possibility and i would argue of
0:17:18 course not and this is the consensus
0:17:21 from my understanding and reading of
0:17:23 philosophers of the mind
0:17:25 because there are problems for strong ai
0:17:28 the first problem is what you what you
0:17:31 may know as the hard problem of
0:17:33 consciousness and there are two main
0:17:35 questions concerning the heart problem
0:17:37 of consciousness and we're focusing on
0:17:39 the the second main question which is
0:17:41 can inner subjective conscious
0:17:43 experience arise from physical processes
0:17:45 fundamentally it's a fundamental
0:17:47 question
0:17:48 so let's unpack the hard problem of
0:17:49 consciousness now the hard problem of
0:17:52 consciousness brothers and sisters is
0:17:54 concerned with the nature and source of
0:17:55 our conscious experience and by the way
0:17:57 conscious experience is also known as or
0:17:59 referred to as phenomenal experience in
0:18:02 the language of the philosophy of the
0:18:03 mind
0:18:04 and the heart problem of consciousness
0:18:06 raises two key questions number one what
0:18:08 is it like for a particular organism to
0:18:11 have a phenomenal conscious experience
0:18:12 in other words what is it like for a
0:18:15 particular organism to have an inner
0:18:16 subjective conscious experience okay
0:18:19 this is
0:18:20 a very key question in other words what
0:18:22 is the nature of someone's subjective
0:18:24 conscious experience and this is more of
0:18:26 an epistemic question there is a
0:18:27 knowledge gap i know what it's like for
0:18:30 me to have a hot chocolate on a sunday
0:18:32 morning but i don't know what it's like
0:18:34 for someone else to have a hot chocolate
0:18:36 on a sunday morning
0:18:38 and even if i were to map out all the
0:18:40 neurochemical firings in their brain and
0:18:42 correlate to that experience it will
0:18:44 still not give me that knowledge of what
0:18:45 it's like for them to have a hot
0:18:47 chocolate on a sunday morning even if i
0:18:50 know what it's like it doesn't
0:18:51 necessarily follow i know what it's like
0:18:53 for them to have a hot chocolate on a
0:18:55 sunday morning right even if i use words
0:18:57 like sweet and creamy these are just
0:19:00 utterances that echo or describe my
0:19:04 inner subjective conscious state they're
0:19:05 vehicles to meaning and meaning is a
0:19:08 representation of what's what's
0:19:09 happening inside subjectively so my
0:19:13 understanding of creamy and sweet could
0:19:15 be totally different to that person's
0:19:17 understanding even if they use the same
0:19:19 descriptions
0:19:20 when they're having a hot chocolate on a
0:19:22 sunday morning
0:19:23 so you know there is an epistemic gap a
0:19:26 knowledge gap what it's like for a
0:19:28 particular conscious organism to have an
0:19:30 inner subjective conscious experience
0:19:32 now the second question which is really
0:19:35 the question that we're focusing on
0:19:36 concerning artificial intelligence
0:19:39 strong ai
0:19:40 is why and how do phenomenal experiences
0:19:43 in other words why and how
0:19:45 do
0:19:46 inner subjective conscious experiences
0:19:49 arise from physical processes and you
0:19:51 could raise another question what is the
0:19:52 ultimate source of these experiences now
0:19:54 why is this important for strong ai for
0:19:56 us to challenge strong ai well
0:20:00 it's important because
0:20:03 strong ai is supposed to really be
0:20:06 conscious it has human cognition and it
0:20:09 has awareness and it has inner
0:20:10 subjective conscious states if it has
0:20:13 inner subjective conscious states then
0:20:15 how on earth can we explain that these
0:20:18 inner subjective conscious states arise
0:20:20 from some heart from some hardware and
0:20:22 software which are fundamentally
0:20:24 physical processes
0:20:25 because physical processes are blind and
0:20:28 cold and we're going to unpack in the
0:20:30 future we're going to unpack that in a
0:20:31 few moments but considering the hard
0:20:33 problem the epistemic question professor
0:20:35 david sharmas who's known to have
0:20:37 propagated the he coined the term heart
0:20:40 problem
0:20:41 or at least he was the one who
0:20:43 popularized it he he says the really
0:20:45 hard problem of consciousness is the
0:20:47 problem of experience when we think and
0:20:50 perceive there is aware of information
0:20:52 processing but there's al there's also a
0:20:54 subjective aspect what unites all these
0:20:57 states is that there is something it is
0:20:59 like to be in them all of them are
0:21:01 states of experience if any problem
0:21:03 qualifies as the problem of
0:21:05 consciousness it is this one in this
0:21:07 central sense of consciousness an
0:21:09 organism and a mental state is conscious
0:21:12 if there is something it is like to be
0:21:13 in that state so he's really kind of
0:21:15 summarizing the first question of the
0:21:17 heart problem now philosopher torren
0:21:20 alter he's summarizing the second
0:21:22 question which and the second question
0:21:23 by the way is not an epistemic one it's
0:21:25 an ontological one it's the source and
0:21:28 nature of our inner subjective conscious
0:21:30 experiences and he says how does my
0:21:32 brain's activity generate those
0:21:34 experiences
0:21:36 why those are not others indeed why is
0:21:39 any physical event accompanied by
0:21:41 conscious experience
0:21:42 the set of such problems is known as the
0:21:44 hard problem of consciousness even after
0:21:47 all the associated functions and
0:21:49 abilities are explained why one might
0:21:51 reasonably wonder why there is something
0:21:53 it is like to see letters appear on a
0:21:56 computer screen so the main part of what
0:21:58 he's saying is
0:22:00 why is any physical event accompanied by
0:22:03 conscious experience how does my brain's
0:22:05 activity generate those experiences
0:22:08 especially when we understand that
0:22:10 physical processes are blind and cold ai
0:22:13 processes are blind and cold the
0:22:15 hardware is blind and cold whether it's
0:22:17 a computer a chip a robot these are
0:22:21 fundamentally based on physical
0:22:22 processes now from a philosophical
0:22:24 naturalistic perspective they are blind
0:22:26 and cold to say otherwise is to define
0:22:30 philosophical is to define philosophical
0:22:32 naturalism in some in some other way is
0:22:35 to give it some kind of magical
0:22:36 properties which
0:22:38 from my understanding no philosophical
0:22:40 naturalist worth their salt would even
0:22:42 mention such a thing and we know
0:22:43 physical processes whether it's ai
0:22:45 processes a hardware software program a
0:22:48 robot a chip whatever the case may be
0:22:50 the zeros on the ones the electronic
0:22:53 on off switches these are blind and cold
0:22:58 zeros on ones are blind and cold
0:23:00 brothers and sisters especially when
0:23:01 we're talking about strong ai because
0:23:03 fundamentally strongly i can be reduced
0:23:04 to zeros and ones and they're blind and
0:23:08 cold and zeros and ones by the way are
0:23:09 just the kind of electronic
0:23:11 representation of on and off switch
0:23:13 so
0:23:15 these zeros and ones these physical
0:23:17 processes
0:23:18 are
0:23:19 blind and cold meaning they do not have
0:23:21 an intentional force directing them
0:23:23 anywhere and they are called they're not
0:23:25 aware of themselves or where of anything
0:23:27 outside of themselves
0:23:29 so given the fact that the physical
0:23:32 process the zeros and the ones in the
0:23:34 context of strong ai and the phenomenal
0:23:37 reality meaning the subjective
0:23:39 consciousness the fact that we have
0:23:40 awareness are completely different we
0:23:43 can easily say at least from a
0:23:44 metaphysical point of view our
0:23:45 metaphysical intuitions tell us that
0:23:47 they're not the same they're totally
0:23:48 different so what remember the the key
0:23:51 question that we want to refer to
0:23:52 concerning the hard problem
0:23:54 why and how do these phenomenal
0:23:56 experiences why and how does this
0:23:57 awareness why and how does this inner
0:23:59 subjective conscious experience arise
0:24:01 from physical processes and in from the
0:24:03 context of strong ai how does
0:24:06 you know if if it were to be the case
0:24:08 how does
0:24:10 strong ai
0:24:11 true
0:24:12 consciousness with awareness and
0:24:14 cognition arise from blind zeros on ones
0:24:18 code zeros and ones
0:24:20 there's nothing that intentionally
0:24:21 directs them anywhere and these zeros
0:24:23 and ones are not aware of themselves or
0:24:24 wherever anything outside of themselves
0:24:26 so to claim the more we know about these
0:24:28 physical processes the more we know
0:24:30 about the computer system and the
0:24:31 program and the more we develop yeah
0:24:33 from a knowledge perspective
0:24:35 you know to claim that is not going to
0:24:37 give you
0:24:38 uh knowledge about how they are how
0:24:41 inner subjective conscious experience
0:24:42 arise because our metaphysical in
0:24:45 metaphysical intuitions tell us that
0:24:48 in the subjective conscious experience
0:24:50 awareness cognition from a human point
0:24:52 of view is totally different than blind
0:24:54 physical processes in the context of
0:24:56 stronger eye blinds zeros and ones
0:24:59 so you know to claim that if we know
0:25:01 more about this physical stuff we're
0:25:03 gonna know how it arises is false
0:25:05 because it's equivalent of saying
0:25:08 knowing more about the wall in front of
0:25:10 you will give you rise to knowledge
0:25:13 about the moon
0:25:14 and we're not asking the case we know
0:25:16 that knowing more about the wall in
0:25:18 front of you will not give rise to
0:25:20 knowledge about the moon because the
0:25:22 wall and the moon are fundamentally
0:25:24 different just like in a subjective
0:25:26 conscious experience are fundamentally
0:25:27 different
0:25:28 to
0:25:29 blind physical processes and blind zeros
0:25:32 and ones okay
0:25:34 so one would argue that strong ai
0:25:36 is it how could it ever be the case
0:25:39 that
0:25:40 fully conscious
0:25:42 artificial intelligence can arise from
0:25:45 non-conscious code blind physical
0:25:47 processes blind zeros and ones
0:25:49 it doesn't make sense it's it's like
0:25:51 saying let's believe in magic that's
0:25:53 what it's basically saying
0:25:54 and we know something that something
0:25:57 cannot give rise to something if it does
0:26:00 not contain it in the first place or
0:26:01 have the potential to give rise to it
0:26:04 something cannot give rise to something
0:26:07 else if it does not contain it in the
0:26:09 first place or have the potential to
0:26:11 give rise to it likewise blind code
0:26:13 zeros on ones do not have in the subject
0:26:16 of conscious experience how can they
0:26:17 give rise to it and blind zeroes on ones
0:26:20 even if they causally
0:26:21 they they interact they interact in
0:26:23 causally complex ways cannot give rise
0:26:26 to inner subjective conscious experience
0:26:28 from that perspective
0:26:31 now
0:26:32 one would argue well he made some broad
0:26:35 claims here but there are physicalist
0:26:37 approaches in the philosophy of the mind
0:26:39 that tries to explain consciousness
0:26:42 i agree there's something like
0:26:43 eliminative materialism reductive
0:26:45 materialism functionalism emergent
0:26:47 materialism strong
0:26:49 emergent materialism weak emergent
0:26:51 materialism and there are many other
0:26:53 empirical theories that are based on
0:26:55 these fundamental approaches to the
0:26:57 philosophy of the mind
0:26:59 we don't
0:27:00 have time to explain these and they they
0:27:02 are not needed with regards to
0:27:04 explaining
0:27:05 strong ai and dealing with today's
0:27:07 question they're not needed however
0:27:10 i will briefly introduce functionalism
0:27:12 which broadly speaking is the approach
0:27:14 that underpins the computational
0:27:16 approach to the mind which is important
0:27:18 for today's discussion
0:27:19 but if you want more unpacking
0:27:21 concerning some of the statements i've
0:27:22 just mentioned and unpacking of the kind
0:27:25 of different approaches to the
0:27:26 philosophy of the mind the physicalist
0:27:28 approaches at least there is going to be
0:27:30 a forthcoming seminar on the hard
0:27:32 problem of consciousness philosophical
0:27:34 naturalism theism and the physicalist
0:27:35 approach to the mind in detail inshallah
0:27:38 okay
0:27:40 so functionism which really underpins
0:27:42 the computational approach to the mind
0:27:45 so
0:27:45 what is functionalism well a
0:27:48 functionalist basically defines
0:27:50 consciousness as the functions or roles
0:27:52 it plays emerging from a set of
0:27:55 relations within an organism or in a
0:27:56 system it doesn't matter it could be a
0:27:58 lump of gray matter or it could be a
0:28:00 computer system and really these
0:28:03 relations are what it's the relations or
0:28:05 there are relations between inputs
0:28:08 mental states and outputs
0:28:10 for example
0:28:12 i see my bus arriving and that's the
0:28:14 input i experience the internal mental
0:28:17 state of worrying or being action
0:28:19 anxious i'm going to be late
0:28:21 which is the mental state and then i run
0:28:23 towards the bus stop which is the output
0:28:25 so you see there is a relation between
0:28:27 the input
0:28:29 i'm the bus is arriving
0:28:31 the mental state oh my god i'm gonna be
0:28:33 late and then i run towards the bus stop
0:28:36 which is the output
0:28:38 now what's very important to understand
0:28:40 from a functionalist point of view and
0:28:42 this has been well understood if you
0:28:43 read the works of ned block and others
0:28:46 you see that just because you could
0:28:48 understand or figure out the relations
0:28:51 between the input the mental states and
0:28:53 the outputs
0:28:55 it doesn't mean that now you have
0:28:57 knowledge of what it's like to be in a
0:28:59 particular mental state or what it's
0:29:00 like for someone else to be in a
0:29:01 particular mental state which is really
0:29:03 the first part of the heart problem of
0:29:05 consciousness
0:29:06 or why these inner subjective conscious
0:29:09 states or these mental states arise from
0:29:11 physical stuff
0:29:13 it's just giving you an understanding of
0:29:15 the relations between the input and
0:29:16 metastates and outputs it's not giving
0:29:18 you an understanding of how these mental
0:29:20 states how this awareness or how this
0:29:23 inner subjective conscious reality
0:29:25 arises from this kind of physical system
0:29:28 so it doesn't really address it at all
0:29:29 functionalism doesn't address it at all
0:29:31 so just to give you another example so i
0:29:34 could understand or i can understand
0:29:36 when someone sees a dangerous dog
0:29:38 running towards them which is the input
0:29:40 they would experience fear which is the
0:29:42 mental state the inner subjective
0:29:43 conscious state then they'll run for
0:29:45 safety which is the output now just
0:29:47 because i understand the relation
0:29:48 between the input dog running towards
0:29:50 them
0:29:51 the fear which is the mental state and
0:29:54 the output which is running for safety
0:29:57 just because i understand that relation
0:29:58 it doesn't now make me understand what
0:30:00 it's like for someone else to be in that
0:30:01 conscious state as we mentioned with the
0:30:03 examples previously
0:30:04 but fundamentally from the point of view
0:30:06 of today's seminar it doesn't give us
0:30:08 any understanding or give us any
0:30:10 explanation how these mental states
0:30:12 arise from physical processes
0:30:15 how they arise from blind cold physical
0:30:18 processes
0:30:20 just to remind you blind meaning there
0:30:21 is no intentional force directing this
0:30:23 physical process anywhere and these
0:30:26 physical processes are not aware of
0:30:27 themselves aware of anything outside of
0:30:28 themselves and from the point of view of
0:30:29 strong ai
0:30:31 fundamentally these zeros on ones which
0:30:32 are really a representation of an
0:30:34 electronic on and off switch they're not
0:30:36 aware of themselves or where anything
0:30:38 any they're not aware of anything
0:30:39 outside of themselves and also and also
0:30:42 brothers and sisters and friends
0:30:44 there's no intentional force directing
0:30:46 these zeros and ones anywhere or
0:30:49 from that perspective right
0:30:51 so that was the first main problem
0:30:54 it's the first main problem this is the
0:30:56 fundamental problem
0:30:58 the second part the second question of
0:31:00 the hard problem of consciousness how
0:31:02 does awareness how does this meant to
0:31:04 stay how does this inner subjective
0:31:05 conscious experience how does this
0:31:06 phenomenal state arise from physical
0:31:09 processes
0:31:11 when these physical processes are blind
0:31:13 and cold they're not intentional force
0:31:14 direct and directing them anywhere and
0:31:16 not aware of themselves and aware of
0:31:17 anything outside of themselves it just
0:31:19 doesn't make any sense
0:31:22 because remember something cannot give
0:31:24 rise to another thing if it does not
0:31:26 contain or have the potential to give
0:31:28 rise to it
0:31:29 and these things these physical
0:31:30 processes whether it's a computer system
0:31:32 whether it's reduced to the electronic
0:31:34 version of on and off switch the zeros
0:31:35 and ones these things are not they don't
0:31:38 have any intentional force directing
0:31:40 directing them anywhere they're not
0:31:41 aware of themselves aware of anything
0:31:43 outside of themselves so how can you
0:31:45 combine these things to produce
0:31:47 something that has awareness
0:31:49 to make such a claim is like i believe
0:31:51 in magic right
0:31:53 so that's the first main problem
0:31:55 the second main problem which is the key
0:31:57 problem is what you call the syntax
0:31:59 semantic problem
0:32:01 it's it could be formulated in the
0:32:02 following question
0:32:03 can artificial intelligence attach
0:32:06 meaning to symbols
0:32:09 the first thing to understand is this
0:32:12 artificial intelligence is really an
0:32:14 extension of us it's an extension of our
0:32:17 own awareness it's an extension of our
0:32:19 own of our own consciousness it's an
0:32:21 extension of our own cognition remember
0:32:24 artificial intelligence from this
0:32:26 perspective is not an independent system
0:32:28 with the with the ability to engage in
0:32:30 real cognition
0:32:31 ai artificial intelligence was designed
0:32:34 developed and made by human beings that
0:32:36 can attach meaning to symbols human
0:32:38 beings can attach meaning to symbols
0:32:43 we can do that
0:32:44 a i is just a protraction of our ability
0:32:47 to engage in
0:32:49 uh cognition in real cognition in this
0:32:51 case our ability to attach meaning to
0:32:54 symbols we can do that computer systems
0:32:57 can't do that they just simulate our
0:33:00 real
0:33:01 cognition
0:33:03 and william hasker really just
0:33:05 eloquently summarizes this point he says
0:33:08 computers function as they do
0:33:10 because they have been constructed by
0:33:13 human being
0:33:14 endowed with rational insight a computer
0:33:18 in other words is merely an extension of
0:33:20 the rationality of its designers and
0:33:22 users it is no more independent source
0:33:24 of rational thought than a television
0:33:26 set is an independent source of news and
0:33:30 entertainment all computers do is mirror
0:33:33 our ability they don't have the ability
0:33:37 all computers do is mirror our ability
0:33:39 to attach meaning to symbols they don't
0:33:41 have the ability to attach meaning to
0:33:42 symbols this is a for them it's just an
0:33:45 arrangement of symbols it is syntax it
0:33:48 is not semantics okay let me break this
0:33:51 down further for you
0:33:53 when we talk about syntax and semantics
0:33:55 we're talking about this concept in the
0:33:58 philosophy of the mind called
0:33:59 intentionality okay
0:34:02 so when we say i ai cannot have any real
0:34:05 cognition they only simulate our
0:34:07 cognition
0:34:09 what we're saying is they don't have
0:34:11 intentionality because human beings are
0:34:13 only really intelligent from that
0:34:14 perspective we have intentionality so
0:34:16 what's intentionality
0:34:18 intentionality is that our reasoning our
0:34:20 cognition is about or of something and
0:34:24 that is associated with me okay
0:34:27 and
0:34:28 conversely computer programs are not
0:34:30 characterized as having meanings all
0:34:32 they do is manipulate symbols remember
0:34:34 the zeros and ones they manipulate zeros
0:34:36 on ones that's all they do really
0:34:37 fundamentally the electronic
0:34:40 on and off switch that's all they do
0:34:42 it's just a sequence or
0:34:44 or or many many many thousands and
0:34:46 millions if you like of on-off switches
0:34:48 electronic on and off switches that's
0:34:50 all it is it could be an on on off off
0:34:52 of on on off on off whatever the case
0:34:55 may be it's just a complex arrangement
0:34:57 of those that's what it is and those
0:34:59 things do not have meaning they're just
0:35:02 syntax it's just arrangement or symbols
0:35:04 okay and they cannot attach meaning to
0:35:06 those symbols
0:35:07 now for the computer system for the ai
0:35:09 system if you like
0:35:11 the symbols are not about or of
0:35:13 something
0:35:14 all computers can see inverted commas
0:35:16 are the symbols that manipulate
0:35:18 irrespective what we may think the
0:35:20 symbols are about or off
0:35:22 so computer systems or
0:35:25 the way the computer systems manipulate
0:35:27 these symbols do not have the feature of
0:35:29 intentionality they're not about
0:35:32 something or of something right in other
0:35:35 words you could even extend it to say
0:35:36 they're not aware of themselves or aware
0:35:38 of anything outside of themselves but
0:35:39 from the point of intentionality
0:35:41 it's just on and off switches it's not
0:35:44 about something or of something but
0:35:47 human beings when we have cognition it
0:35:49 is about or of something
0:35:51 and that is and that relates to meaning
0:35:55 so let's break this down a little bit
0:35:57 further to really get you to understand
0:35:58 the difference between meaning and
0:36:00 symbols in other words syntax and
0:36:02 semantics syntax is like
0:36:04 symbols and semantics is meaning so take
0:36:07 these two sentences okay the following
0:36:09 sentences i love my family which is
0:36:12 english and
0:36:15 i love my family which is in greek
0:36:17 now these two sentences they have the
0:36:19 same syntax they have the same meaning
0:36:22 in other words i love my family and this
0:36:25 refers to semantics the meaning of the
0:36:26 sentences but the syntax is different in
0:36:29 other words the symbols are not the same
0:36:31 they're unalike now if you never knew
0:36:33 anything about the greek language and i
0:36:35 told you to put the alpha there the rama
0:36:37 there the alpha next to the rama and so
0:36:40 on and so forth and give you the right
0:36:41 spacing and give you the right symbols
0:36:44 and make you arrange it in the in the
0:36:46 correct way it wouldn't give rise to
0:36:48 meaning
0:36:49 it wouldn't give rise to meaning you
0:36:51 could do this any language
0:36:53 for example you could say
0:36:54 i love you and then you could say in
0:36:56 turkish senis
0:36:58 i love you which means i love you and
0:37:00 you could say in greek
0:37:03 all of these three sentences have the
0:37:05 same
0:37:06 semantics the same meaning i love you
0:37:09 but they have different syntax
0:37:12 now if you only knew the turkish
0:37:13 language and you knew how to spell
0:37:15 senior when you spelt it you could
0:37:19 attach the meaning to those symbols
0:37:20 because you know the meaning of the
0:37:22 language but if you didn't know english
0:37:24 and you didn't know greek even if it
0:37:26 gave you all of the right combinations
0:37:29 of the symbols in other words the
0:37:30 letters it would not give rise to the
0:37:32 meaning of i love you for you
0:37:35 and this is very very important to
0:37:37 understand
0:37:38 and therefore from this perspective the
0:37:40 following argument can be developed
0:37:42 computer programs are syntactical based
0:37:45 on syntax in other words based on the
0:37:46 manipulation of symbols
0:37:48 minds have semantics minds have meaning
0:37:52 syntax by itself is neither sufficient
0:37:54 nor constitutive for semantics
0:37:57 so symbols arrangement of symbols by
0:37:59 themselves are neither sufficient nor
0:38:01 constitutive
0:38:02 for meaning therefore computer programs
0:38:05 by themselves are not minds therefore
0:38:07 they don't have
0:38:08 uh full consciousness you can't have
0:38:10 strong ai
0:38:11 and if you don't if you can't have
0:38:12 strong ai then religion is not
0:38:14 undermined
0:38:16 now this leads us to talking about the
0:38:19 chinese realm experiment brothers this
0:38:21 is a phenomenal phenomenal thought
0:38:22 experiment
0:38:24 and
0:38:24 professor john cell
0:38:26 and i'm going to use my book the divine
0:38:28 reality the newly revised edition to
0:38:30 read from john cells
0:38:32 chinese wrongful experiment and it's
0:38:35 quoted in the book
0:38:36 and the references you have
0:38:38 at the end of this seminar on the
0:38:40 appropriate slide so
0:38:42 um
0:38:43 let me read it for you what is the
0:38:44 chinese room thought experiment now
0:38:47 listen to it very carefully and i'll
0:38:48 i'll explain it further as well but just
0:38:50 listen to it
0:38:51 imagine you are locked in a room and in
0:38:54 this room are several baskets full of
0:38:56 chinese symbols
0:38:58 imagine that you like me do not
0:39:00 understand a word of chinese
0:39:02 but that you are given a rule book in
0:39:05 english
0:39:07 for manipulating the chinese symbols
0:39:09 the rules specify the manipulation of
0:39:12 symbols purely formally in terms of
0:39:14 their syntax not the semantics
0:39:16 so the rule might say
0:39:18 take a squiggle squiggle out of basket
0:39:20 number one and put it next to a squiggle
0:39:23 squiggle sign
0:39:24 from basket number two
0:39:26 now suppose that some other chinese
0:39:28 symbols are passed into the room and
0:39:31 that you're given further rules
0:39:33 for passing back chinese symbols out of
0:39:36 the room suppose that unknown to you the
0:39:38 symbols passed into the room are called
0:39:40 questions by the people outside of the
0:39:42 room and the symbols you pass back out
0:39:45 of the room are called answers to
0:39:47 questions suppose furthermore that the
0:39:50 programmers are so good at designing the
0:39:52 programs that you are so good at
0:39:55 manipulating the symbols that very soon
0:39:57 your answers are indistinguishable from
0:40:00 those of a native chinese speaker
0:40:03 there you are locked in your room
0:40:05 shuffling your chinese symbols and
0:40:07 passing out chinese symbols in response
0:40:09 to incoming chinese symbols
0:40:11 now the point of the story simply is
0:40:13 this
0:40:14 by virtue of implementing a formal
0:40:17 computer program from the point of view
0:40:19 of an outside observer you behave
0:40:22 exactly as if you understood chinese but
0:40:25 all the same you do not understand a
0:40:27 word of chinese
0:40:30 so brothers and sisters from this
0:40:32 perspective
0:40:34 this is similar to what's happening with
0:40:35 the computer program on artificial
0:40:36 intelligence system you have zeros on
0:40:38 ones
0:40:40 and just because the zeros and ones
0:40:42 they are they are combined in a
0:40:44 particular way to produce
0:40:46 what seems to be thinking seems to be
0:40:48 cognition it doesn't mean it's real
0:40:50 cognition like a human being with
0:40:51 awareness and with a particular
0:40:53 conscious mental state with the inner
0:40:54 subject of conscious mental state it
0:40:56 just simulates it just like the person
0:40:58 in this room simulates understanding
0:41:00 chinese but they have no understanding
0:41:02 of chinese they just have a rule book
0:41:04 just like a computer program
0:41:06 that is able to take these symbols and
0:41:08 manipulate and combine them in a
0:41:09 particular way
0:41:11 and to produce
0:41:12 other symbols even if it's deep learning
0:41:14 or machine learning all of that really
0:41:16 is just inputs and outputs manipulation
0:41:18 of complex symbols which are
0:41:19 fundamentally reduced to zeros and ones
0:41:21 which fundamentally are electronic
0:41:23 versions of or electronic manifestations
0:41:26 or representations of on off switches
0:41:30 so
0:41:31 that's what it is it's a it's a complex
0:41:33 program that puts symbols together that
0:41:36 simulates cognition simulates rational
0:41:39 insight simulates
0:41:41 cognition with apparently some kind of
0:41:43 awareness right all it is is a
0:41:45 manipulation of syntax there is no way
0:41:48 the system can attach meaning to the
0:41:50 symbol
0:41:51 and this thought experiment is is
0:41:53 brilliant it's absolutely brilliant
0:41:55 because you have a complex acute
0:41:56 computer program
0:41:58 it's in the english language
0:42:00 someone is passing chinese symbols into
0:42:03 the room you don't know
0:42:05 the meaning of the chinese symbols but
0:42:07 you have the program in place which is
0:42:08 an english language and if you
0:42:10 and it says if you see the squiggle
0:42:12 squiggle put this squiggle squiggle
0:42:13 together and you do that and you produce
0:42:15 the right answers now people outside the
0:42:17 room think that you know the meaning of
0:42:20 you know chinese you understand chinese
0:42:23 you understand the meaning behind these
0:42:25 symbols but you don't you just are able
0:42:27 to combine these
0:42:29 chinese
0:42:30 symbols or characters in the right way
0:42:32 that's all you can do and that's what a
0:42:34 computer program does
0:42:37 now brothers and sisters there is
0:42:38 something called the systems reply
0:42:40 because there is an objection and
0:42:41 professor john cell
0:42:43 he understood this objection quite well
0:42:46 and the objection object paul might
0:42:48 respond to this by arguing that although
0:42:50 the computer program doesn't know the
0:42:52 meaning the whole system does
0:42:55 now
0:42:56 cell calls this the system's reply and
0:42:58 he answers this very well
0:43:00 basically
0:43:02 think about it
0:43:04 why is it that the program
0:43:06 why is it that the program does not know
0:43:07 the meaning
0:43:09 the reason the program does not know the
0:43:11 meaning is because it has no way of
0:43:13 assigning meaning to the symbols correct
0:43:16 but since the computer program cannot
0:43:18 assign meaning to the symbols
0:43:20 how can a computer system which relies
0:43:22 on the program understand the meaning
0:43:24 you cannot produce understanding just by
0:43:27 having the right program that's the
0:43:28 point and even so he extended this
0:43:31 version of the chinese room though
0:43:33 experiment to show that the system as a
0:43:34 whole does not understand the meaning
0:43:36 and he says
0:43:37 imagine that i memorized the contents of
0:43:40 the baskets and the rulebooks so imagine
0:43:42 the contents of the basket the chinese
0:43:45 characters
0:43:46 you memorize them and you memorize the
0:43:48 rulebook
0:43:49 and you do all of the calculations in
0:43:51 your head right
0:43:53 you can even imagine that i work out in
0:43:55 the open i might even write it out and
0:43:56 work it on the open there is nothing in
0:43:58 the system in my head from this
0:44:00 perspective that is not in me
0:44:02 and since i don't understand chinese
0:44:04 neither does the system
0:44:07 so what he's basically saying is imagine
0:44:09 you had the baskets full of chinese
0:44:11 characters in your head and the rule
0:44:12 book in english to know how to
0:44:14 manipulate those chinese characters to
0:44:15 produce the right answers even if all of
0:44:19 that was in your head and you were to
0:44:20 work it out on a blackboard for example
0:44:23 or a whiteboard
0:44:24 even if you were able to do that
0:44:26 you still won't have understand the
0:44:29 meaning of those chinese symbols you
0:44:30 just were able to manipulate them in the
0:44:32 right way so the whole system that
0:44:33 becomes into your head and even though
0:44:36 the whole system is in your head you
0:44:37 still don't have any way of attaching
0:44:39 meaning to symbols you just can only
0:44:40 manipulate the symbols in this case
0:44:43 manipulate the chinese characters to
0:44:45 produce the right answers for the
0:44:47 observer who actually already knows the
0:44:49 meaning
0:44:52 but as with the philosophy of the mind
0:44:53 there's further contentions right
0:44:56 now loris colton postulates that cell's
0:45:00 chinese room thought experiment commits
0:45:03 the fallacy referred to as the deny of
0:45:05 the antecedent
0:45:06 so carlton maintains that soul commits
0:45:08 the fallacy because we are given no
0:45:11 evidence that there is only one way to
0:45:13 produce intentionality
0:45:15 and he claims that sir is assuming that
0:45:18 only brains have the processes to
0:45:20 manipulate and understand symbols in
0:45:22 other words intentionality
0:45:23 and computers do not and so carlton
0:45:26 presents the fallacy in the following
0:45:27 way
0:45:28 to say certain brain process equivalents
0:45:31 produce intentionality and
0:45:34 x does not have these equivalents
0:45:36 therefore x does not have intentionality
0:45:39 is to commit the form of fallacy deny of
0:45:41 the antecedent which is a logical
0:45:43 fallacy however
0:45:45 del jacquet maintains that soul does not
0:45:48 commit the formal fallacy if an
0:45:49 interpretation of souls argument is
0:45:52 if x intrinsically is intrinsically
0:45:55 intentional then x has certain brain
0:45:57 process equivalence and i didn't really
0:45:59 find this objection as satisfying in any
0:46:02 shape or form it's it's it's a pointless
0:46:04 objection but nevertheless
0:46:06 what dale continues to argue on behalf
0:46:09 of cell is well
0:46:11 you know
0:46:13 therefore some so must
0:46:15 believe in functionism or it's a
0:46:17 concession to functionism and he argues
0:46:20 that function is maintained that there
0:46:21 is nothing special about protoplasm the
0:46:24 brain
0:46:24 so that any properly organized matter
0:46:27 instantiating the right input program
0:46:29 duplicates the intentionality of the
0:46:31 mind
0:46:32 so from this perspective
0:46:35 cell seems to admit that machines could
0:46:38 potentially have the ability to
0:46:40 understand chinese if
0:46:42 these machines were arranged in the
0:46:45 correct input output program that
0:46:47 duplicates intentionality of the mind
0:46:50 right
0:46:51 however
0:46:53 the cell states i do i do see very
0:46:56 strong arguments
0:46:58 for saying that we could not give such a
0:47:00 thing in other words intentionality to a
0:47:03 machine where the operation of the
0:47:05 machine is defined solely in terms of
0:47:07 computational processes of over formally
0:47:09 defined elements in other words
0:47:11 arrangements of symbols right
0:47:13 the syntax
0:47:15 so so he was saying hypothetically from
0:47:17 a functionalist point of view if
0:47:19 hypothetically we'll be able to get the
0:47:20 right input output program
0:47:23 whether it's in protoplasm or a computer
0:47:25 system or anything else it's irrelevant
0:47:27 for the function list as long as it's a
0:47:29 popular organized matter that has the
0:47:30 right input output program and it
0:47:32 duplicates intentionality that this
0:47:35 input output program that can somehow be
0:47:38 about or of something yeah if it can
0:47:41 duplicate intentionality of the mind
0:47:43 then maybe
0:47:44 we can have a system
0:47:46 that is not a human that can have that
0:47:48 could be fully conscious
0:47:50 but does such a system exist
0:47:52 no
0:47:53 and also
0:47:55 the way we understand computers today
0:47:58 especially with the binary systems zeros
0:48:00 and ones
0:48:01 and the rearrangement of symbols in
0:48:03 other words syntax
0:48:05 how can you ever have intentionality
0:48:07 because all computer programs are
0:48:09 computer systems are a computer machine
0:48:11 is
0:48:12 is just defined solely in terms of
0:48:14 compute computational process over
0:48:16 formally defined elements in other words
0:48:18 just an arrangement of symbols a complex
0:48:21 arrangement of symbols and having
0:48:23 symbols alone do not give rise to
0:48:25 meaning give rise to semantics
0:48:29 and that's why you know
0:48:31 even if the functionists may have a
0:48:34 point
0:48:35 well the question here is well are
0:48:36 conscious machines possible
0:48:39 can we have such a machine in place
0:48:42 well in order to have such a machine in
0:48:44 place the robot or the machine would
0:48:46 have to be able to attach meaning to
0:48:47 symbols
0:48:49 but that would require something other
0:48:50 than
0:48:52 computational processes over formally
0:48:54 defined elements meaning it would have
0:48:56 to have something other than the ability
0:48:59 just to manipulate symbols it would have
0:49:00 to have the ability to attach meaning to
0:49:02 the symbols does such a machine exist
0:49:06 no
0:49:07 could they exist if they could
0:49:10 they would they would probably would
0:49:11 have to be able to attach meaning to the
0:49:13 symbols
0:49:14 and could they do that and if they could
0:49:15 do that
0:49:17 well
0:49:18 they could do it but it just doesn't
0:49:20 exist and the computer programs today
0:49:22 computer programs tomorrow
0:49:24 how deep deep learning is being
0:49:26 developed and machine learning and ai is
0:49:29 fundamentally just the complex complex
0:49:32 arrangements of syntax in other words
0:49:35 symbols fundamentally zeros on ones
0:49:38 fundamentally
0:49:39 the electronic version of on and off
0:49:41 switches combined in complex ways even
0:49:45 with many many layers of these
0:49:47 they are fundamentally just
0:49:50 symbols arranged in a particular way
0:49:52 syntactical arrangements
0:49:54 the the system itself or the program
0:49:56 itself has no way of attaching meaning
0:49:59 to those symbols it's just a simulation
0:50:03 of
0:50:04 human consciousness it's not like human
0:50:07 consciousness at all because humans can
0:50:10 attach meaning to the symbols the
0:50:12 program
0:50:14 just like what william hasker said is
0:50:16 just a kind of mirroring of that it's a
0:50:18 simulation of that so even if one were
0:50:21 to argue well maybe you can have from a
0:50:23 functionalist point of view a system in
0:50:24 place that has the right input output
0:50:26 type of program that you know
0:50:29 has that that has intentionality well
0:50:33 where is it because we're talking about
0:50:35 strong ai in the form of robots in the
0:50:37 form of computers in the form of the
0:50:39 hardware that we know today and the
0:50:41 programs that we have today are just
0:50:43 based on
0:50:44 syntax not semantics
0:50:46 uh symbolic arrangements the
0:50:48 arrangements of symbols so you're
0:50:50 talking about this hypothetical that
0:50:51 just doesn't exist that's the point here
0:50:55 and even if you were to adopt a
0:50:56 functionalist understanding and that's
0:50:58 why we addressed it earlier in the
0:51:00 seminar if you address a functionalist
0:51:02 understanding remember functionalism is
0:51:04 just the relation between input mental
0:51:06 states and outputs even if you know the
0:51:08 relations it doesn't explain why these
0:51:11 mental states arise from seemingly cold
0:51:13 blind physical processes
0:51:17 so from this perspective religion is not
0:51:19 undermining brothers and sisters
0:51:20 according to rocco gennaro
0:51:23 many philosophers agree with seoul's
0:51:25 view that robots could not have
0:51:27 phenomenal consciousness in other words
0:51:29 they could not have inner subjective
0:51:30 conscious experience they could not have
0:51:32 the ability to attach meaning to symbols
0:51:35 they they they they are not aware of
0:51:37 that process either and that's why some
0:51:40 philosophers argue that to build a
0:51:41 conscious robot qualitative experience
0:51:44 must be present and that's something
0:51:46 that they're really pessimistic about
0:51:49 and to quote to explain consciousness is
0:51:51 to explain how the subjective internal
0:51:53 appearance of information can arise in
0:51:55 the brain and so to create a conscious
0:51:57 robot would be to create subjective
0:52:00 internal appearance of information
0:52:01 inside the robot no matter how advanced
0:52:04 would likely not make the robot
0:52:06 conscious since the phenomenal internal
0:52:08 appearances must be present as well why
0:52:10 because a i cannot attach meaning to
0:52:13 symbols it just manipulates them in very
0:52:15 complex ways the human mind therefore
0:52:18 consciousness is only simulated not
0:52:21 actualized
0:52:22 therefore there will never be a strong
0:52:24 version of an ai therefore religion is
0:52:28 not undermined you can have the islamic
0:52:30 view that
0:52:32 consciousness
0:52:33 or if you want to connect it to the
0:52:36 concepts of the roar of the soul
0:52:38 was given to us from a supernatural
0:52:41 perspective
0:52:42 and it's not based on blind cold
0:52:44 physical processes so brothers and
0:52:46 sisters this is your bibliography the
0:52:49 websites that i referred to very basic
0:52:51 websites for you to understand machine
0:52:53 learning neural networks
0:52:55 free to understand basic computer
0:52:56 science like the binary system zero
0:52:59 zeros and ones
0:53:00 and here are the references
0:53:02 with uh that i mentioned uh lawrence
0:53:05 carlton uh rocco gennaro
0:53:08 willian haska
0:53:09 del jacquet and the references of
0:53:12 of john cell
0:53:14 various various various works
0:53:16 so brothers and sisters i hope you
0:53:18 enjoyed that let's now have some
0:53:20 questions
0:53:21 um
0:53:22 i realize i may have been bent most of
0:53:24 the time i do apologize i was going that
0:53:26 way i should have been going that way
0:53:28 but inshallah the important thing was
0:53:29 that you listened to me and you and you
0:53:31 went through this presentation
0:53:33 so
0:53:35 bismillah let's um let's have some
0:53:37 questions
0:53:52 let's have some questions brothers and
0:53:54 sisters
0:54:02 okay let's see if you guys can ask some
0:54:04 questions
0:54:11 bear with me
0:54:12 scroll from the beginning
0:54:16 okay
0:54:23 people are giving their salams
0:54:27 to
0:54:39 okay so
0:54:40 [Music]
0:54:45 i'm just looking through these questions
0:54:47 to find a question
0:54:48 a lot of these things are comments which
0:54:51 some of them are just reflecting what
0:54:52 i've said
0:55:12 which has been mythologized by modernist
0:55:14 machines can never think
0:55:16 yeah they can't think like humans that's
0:55:17 for sure they can only simulate thinking
0:55:24 i can't really
0:55:30 i can't really
0:55:34 i can't really see any questions
0:55:40 there are some discussions that are not
0:55:42 relevant or related to the topic as per
0:55:45 usual
0:55:59 ah this is a very question good question
0:56:04 i don't get it isn't the electrical
0:56:05 signals considered zeros and ones the
0:56:07 same signals are produced by the brain
0:56:10 well even if that were to be the case so
0:56:12 you have neurons firing for example
0:56:14 here's a problem you are making in a
0:56:17 subjective conscious experience
0:56:19 identical to those
0:56:22 electrochemical firings
0:56:24 and that is a problem because you'll be
0:56:25 assuming a physicalist ontology or
0:56:27 you'll be assuming a physicalist
0:56:30 understanding of the mind for example
0:56:32 you may be assuming eliminative
0:56:34 materialism of reductive materialism
0:56:35 that you could reduce consciousness
0:56:38 in this case in a subjective conscious
0:56:40 experience to these neurochemical
0:56:42 firings but that would be assuming that
0:56:44 you won't be proving that because
0:56:46 remember the two main questions of the
0:56:49 hard problem of consciousness the first
0:56:51 one is what is it like for
0:56:53 a particular conscious organism to
0:56:56 have a specific conscious experience i
0:56:59 know what it's like to have a hot
0:57:01 chocolate on a sunday but i don't know
0:57:02 what it's like for you to have a hot
0:57:03 chocolate on sunday even if we describe
0:57:05 it as the same i don't know what it's
0:57:06 like for you
0:57:07 the second question is well how does
0:57:10 inner subjective conscious experience
0:57:11 arise from seemingly
0:57:14 blind code physical processes
0:57:16 these two questions cannot be answered
0:57:18 with the assumption of your question
0:57:21 which is
0:57:22 in in this case we could say it's
0:57:24 reductive materialism or
0:57:26 or reductive physicalism that you can
0:57:28 reduce in a subjective conscious
0:57:30 experience
0:57:32 to
0:57:33 neurochemicals firing
0:57:35 that's but that's the question itself
0:57:36 can we
0:57:38 you're assuming it to be true without
0:57:39 any evidence yes
0:57:41 neuroscience is the science of
0:57:42 correlation there may be a correlation
0:57:44 when you have neurochemicals firing with
0:57:46 the inner subject subjective
0:57:48 consciousness experience but it doesn't
0:57:49 mean it is the same as the insubjective
0:57:52 conscious experience
0:57:54 and that's why you have these two main
0:57:55 questions of the hard problem that you
0:57:56 can't answer with reductive materialism
0:58:00 or reductive physicalism
0:58:02 and or even other aspects of physicalism
0:58:05 and obviously this today's seminar
0:58:06 wasn't about that and we are going to
0:58:08 have a seminar specifically unpacking
0:58:12 eliminative materials and reductive
0:58:13 materials and functionalism emergent
0:58:15 materialism and so on and so forth in
0:58:17 light of the heart problem so we will
0:58:19 address that but hopefully the way of a
0:58:21 justice question is enough because
0:58:23 you're assuming that actually the
0:58:25 electro electrical signals in the brain
0:58:27 or the neural chemicals firing just like
0:58:29 the zeros and ones in the computer
0:58:31 is identical to inner subjective
0:58:33 conscious experience but that's not the
0:58:34 case or they give rise to inner
0:58:37 subjective conscious experience in some
0:58:39 way
0:58:40 but you have to prove that you can't
0:58:41 just assume it's because you're raising
0:58:43 the question
0:58:44 and when we focus on those two questions
0:58:46 of the heart problem we realize well
0:58:47 hold on a second
0:58:49 physicalism especially in the conception
0:58:52 of eliminative
0:58:54 materialism and reductive materialism oh
0:58:56 by the way physicalism and materialism
0:58:58 and these two terms in the philosophy of
0:59:00 the mind are used synonymously they have
0:59:01 different histories and slight different
0:59:03 meanings but they use synonymously okay
0:59:05 anyway so
0:59:07 you know
0:59:08 the physicalist understanding of
0:59:09 eliminative materialism of reductive
0:59:11 materialism or reductive physicalism
0:59:13 you know
0:59:14 can't answer the two problems of the
0:59:16 hard problem of consciousness
0:59:19 unless you want to assume you want to
0:59:21 assume them to be true but then you just
0:59:23 you just you're not proving your
0:59:25 assumption you're just assuming your
0:59:26 assumption right
0:59:27 and i hope that does that make sense if
0:59:29 you want more further
0:59:31 unpacking let me know
0:59:43 so hamza are you saying that this is a
0:59:45 holy frivolous pursuit not worth
0:59:47 investigating no i'm not saying that
0:59:50 i'm not really i'm i'm neutral
0:59:51 concerning that question i'm just saying
0:59:53 it's not a problem for
0:59:55 religion or for kind of a theistic world
0:59:58 view
0:59:59 or specifically a religious world view
1:00:00 with this understanding of consciousness
1:00:02 and the soul
1:00:36 good question rami or good point i think
1:00:38 the real question is is learning the
1:00:40 same as consciousness because we can
1:00:41 create systems that learn
1:00:43 well
1:00:44 do we we create systems that have that
1:00:47 you have an algorithm that
1:00:50 that is is works upon
1:00:52 an existing data set even if that
1:00:54 current data set is not categorized yes
1:00:57 it can derive
1:00:59 um it could categorize that data and
1:01:01 provide solutions
1:01:03 if you want to call that learning then
1:01:04 so be it but is it learning the way we
1:01:07 learn with real cognition and that has
1:01:10 an element of awareness and inner
1:01:11 subject and conscious state or conscious
1:01:14 quality to it no and that's why you're
1:01:16 right because we can create systems that
1:01:18 can learn from that perspective but and
1:01:20 people call that ai but it's a force
1:01:22 equivalency agreed it's not the same as
1:01:24 we just as i just mentioned
1:01:40 let's go
1:01:53 let me just find a few more questions
1:01:55 brothers and sisters
1:01:57 bear with me
1:02:02 some of your comments are really funny
1:02:04 man honestly it's like you know what
1:02:06 what do you guys eat or sometimes i want
1:02:09 to say would you guys smoke
1:02:10 [Laughter]
1:02:13 i want to kid it
1:02:15 um
1:02:18 it's bear with me bear with me
1:02:21 let's just increase the size of this
1:02:45 okay reihan khan says should muslims be
1:02:47 against a.i no ai is just a tool
1:02:51 and you use that tool for good or for
1:02:53 bad
1:02:54 and it's simple as that i mean i would
1:02:57 argue i would i haven't done much
1:02:59 research on this but social media is a
1:03:02 kind of interesting tool because people
1:03:04 think that they're free
1:03:06 but the kind of algorithms actually
1:03:09 they almost
1:03:11 have the effect of social influence yeah
1:03:14 and that has been shown so you know i
1:03:17 mean cognitive science scientists say
1:03:19 you know if you want a healthy
1:03:21 you know
1:03:22 psychology or sense of self
1:03:25 don't don't don't um scroll or don't use
1:03:29 instagram
1:03:31 professor
1:03:32 john vivaki from the university of
1:03:34 toronto
1:03:35 i consider him a friend i've engaged
1:03:37 with him a few times twice i did a
1:03:39 podcast with him
1:03:41 and he's a great human being and he
1:03:44 mentioned in one of our interactions in
1:03:45 canada at the university of toronto he
1:03:48 basically says
1:03:50 get off instagram it's
1:03:52 literally not good for you right
1:03:54 so
1:03:55 yeah
1:03:56 you know algorithms can be used for good
1:03:58 or bad consider an algorithm like a
1:04:00 knife
1:04:01 you can cut a mango and share it with
1:04:04 your brothers and sisters in humanity or
1:04:06 you can
1:04:07 kill someone right so you can use it for
1:04:09 good or for bad
1:04:35 okay let's take one more question
1:04:45 spare with me
1:05:00 it's very interesting so
1:05:03 this is the final question now moody
1:05:06 says why can't consciousness just be
1:05:07 seen as something that emerges from an
1:05:09 absurd number of computations that we
1:05:10 can't track
1:05:11 this is usually what atheists say well
1:05:13 not all atheists say this and this
1:05:15 really is assuming
1:05:18 the physicalist approach to the mind
1:05:20 known as emergent materialism okay
1:05:24 now there is a problem with emergent
1:05:26 materialism there are two
1:05:28 forms
1:05:29 of emergent materialism
1:05:32 the first form is the weak form and the
1:05:35 strong form and by the way i'm just
1:05:36 going to summarize this but we're going
1:05:37 to have a seminar in detail concerning
1:05:38 emergent maturities
1:05:41 the weak form brothers and sisters of
1:05:43 emergent materialism basically says that
1:05:46 there are
1:05:47 complex processes that are causing it
1:05:50 connected in complex ways
1:05:53 and
1:05:54 when we understand
1:05:56 how they are causally connected in
1:05:59 complex ways
1:06:01 then we will be able to understand how
1:06:04 consciousness emerges because what does
1:06:06 emergence mean it basically says that
1:06:08 there is a property that emerges
1:06:10 that you cannot find in the individual
1:06:12 processes but because there are many of
1:06:14 these processes that are causally
1:06:16 connected in complex ways you'll have a
1:06:18 property emerging that cannot be find in
1:06:20 the individual parts of the system or
1:06:22 the
1:06:23 individual parts of the physical
1:06:24 processes or the individual physical
1:06:27 process it only emerges this unique
1:06:29 property emerges as a result of this and
1:06:33 these
1:06:35 these many
1:06:36 physical processes causally
1:06:39 connected in complex ways okay
1:06:41 so and they say once we understand how
1:06:45 that happens then we'll basically you
1:06:48 know
1:06:49 have a true understanding but that
1:06:50 really just assumes reductive
1:06:53 materialism or reductive physicalism to
1:06:55 be true
1:06:56 which basically is another way of saying
1:06:58 well yes consciousness
1:07:01 can be
1:07:02 is identical or reduced to in some way
1:07:06 or explained by in some way by physical
1:07:10 processes but
1:07:12 reductive materialism can't answer the
1:07:14 heart problem of consciousness
1:07:16 right any of the questions
1:07:19 because remember the two questions of
1:07:20 the heart problem of consciousness
1:07:21 number one what is it like for a
1:07:22 particular conscious organism to have an
1:07:24 inner subject of conscious state and
1:07:25 number two
1:07:26 why and how do these
1:07:29 do these physic do these inner subjects
1:07:31 of conscious states arise from seemingly
1:07:33 cold blind physical processes
1:07:36 reductive materialism or this type of
1:07:38 physicalism can't answer those questions
1:07:40 because the first question is
1:07:42 oh
1:07:43 well
1:07:44 you know it's a physical process in the
1:07:46 brain it's neurochemicals firing okay
1:07:49 but if i were to map out
1:07:51 the person in question his or hers
1:07:55 uh
1:07:56 neurochemicals of the neurochemicals
1:07:58 firing in their brain the
1:07:59 electrochemical synchronous in their
1:08:00 brain map those out
1:08:03 and correlate to the inner subjective
1:08:04 conscious experience it won't give me
1:08:06 don't give rise for me to know what
1:08:07 their conscious experience is
1:08:09 that's the first point
1:08:12 even if that mapping was the same as
1:08:13 mind mapping and i had a similar
1:08:15 experience
1:08:17 i i
1:08:18 all we're doing is
1:08:20 um
1:08:21 using my
1:08:22 descriptions of the experience
1:08:24 and coronating it with their
1:08:25 descriptions even if we use the same
1:08:26 descriptions
1:08:28 and assuming
1:08:29 that we're having exactly the same inner
1:08:31 subject of conscious experience which we
1:08:33 should be false
1:08:34 so the point is it can't answer the
1:08:36 first question because when you map out
1:08:37 all the electrochemical processes and
1:08:39 all the electrochemical
1:08:40 firings or happenings are happening in
1:08:42 one's brain it doesn't now follow that
1:08:43 you know exactly what it's like for them
1:08:45 to be in a particular conscious state
1:08:46 even if that map that neurochemical the
1:08:49 electrochemical map is similar to mine
1:08:51 having the same type of experience say
1:08:53 eating a banana
1:08:55 right
1:08:55 and i'm using certain descriptions
1:08:58 it doesn't mean now they're having and
1:09:00 they use the same descriptions too it
1:09:02 doesn't mean they're having the same
1:09:03 experience so the first question is the
1:09:05 answer of the hard problem
1:09:06 noise the second question answered which
1:09:08 is what the ontological question how do
1:09:11 neurochemicals firing or how do inner
1:09:13 subjective conscious experiences arise
1:09:16 from physical processes that are
1:09:17 seemingly blind and cold they have
1:09:22 they they have no intentional force
1:09:24 directing them anywhere and they're not
1:09:25 aware of themselves or aware of anything
1:09:27 outside of themselves how does that
1:09:28 happen
1:09:29 because remember you cannot
1:09:31 give rise to something
1:09:33 if
1:09:35 something cannot give rise to another
1:09:37 thing if that thing or if where it came
1:09:40 from doesn't it's not contained within
1:09:42 it or has the potential to give rise to
1:09:44 it having something something
1:09:46 non-conscious and cold and blind plus
1:09:48 something non-conscious called and blind
1:09:50 cozy connected in complex ways it's
1:09:52 still going to give you something that's
1:09:53 non-conscious cold and blind unless you
1:09:55 want to believe in magic right
1:09:57 so it doesn't answer those two questions
1:09:58 so the weak form of emergent materialism
1:10:01 actually just just assumes reductive
1:10:02 materialism or a form of physicalism and
1:10:05 it doesn't answer the two problems of
1:10:07 the heart problem of consciousness the
1:10:08 two questions of the heart problem of
1:10:10 consciousness the epistemic one and
1:10:12 ontological one
1:10:14 now the strong form
1:10:16 is quite interesting and actually let me
1:10:18 read the strong form for you because the
1:10:20 strong form
1:10:22 is um doesn't give an answer at all it
1:10:25 doesn't even doesn't even answer the
1:10:28 questions of the hard problem of
1:10:30 consciousness
1:10:31 and the strong form basically says that
1:10:34 it's too complicated
1:10:36 we're never gonna know
1:10:37 we're just never gonna know
1:10:40 it's uh so let me just read it from my
1:10:43 book so the strong form of emerging
1:10:44 materialism argues that subjective
1:10:45 consciousness is a natural phenomenon
1:10:47 phenomenon however any physicalist
1:10:50 theory that attempts to address its
1:10:51 reality is beyond the capacity of the
1:10:53 human intellect
1:10:54 this form of emergence argues that we
1:10:56 can get a new phenomenon x from y
1:10:58 without knowing how x emerges from y
1:11:02 strong emergent materialism maintains
1:11:03 that we can get something new from a
1:11:05 complex from the complex physical
1:11:07 processes but the gap in understanding
1:11:09 of how this thing emerges will never be
1:11:12 closed
1:11:13 now this approach doesn't explain the
1:11:15 hard problem of consciousness it doesn't
1:11:16 answer the two questions
1:11:18 and you know in my view it's no
1:11:20 different to saying it just happens it's
1:11:22 so complex that no one knows which
1:11:24 really is similar to what they accuse a
1:11:27 theist of doing ah god did it we don't
1:11:29 know how about god did it right
1:11:31 and ravencio argues anthony romancio the
1:11:34 philosopher of the mind he argues that
1:11:36 strong emerging matters will never be
1:11:38 able to address subjective consciousness
1:11:40 and even if we were to be given the
1:11:42 correct theory
1:11:44 and i quote
1:11:45 it would be equal what hamsters could
1:11:48 make of charles darwin's origins of
1:11:50 species if a copy was placed in their
1:11:53 cage and then i continue to say since
1:11:55 we're trying to explain the hard problem
1:11:57 of consciousness or answer the two
1:11:58 questions dismissing subjective
1:12:01 consciousness as a mystery does nothing
1:12:03 to prevent a rational person from
1:12:04 accepting an approach that actually does
1:12:06 clearly explain it i would argue that
1:12:08 theism currently explains it but that's
1:12:11 for another seminar brothers and sisters
1:12:15 and friends
1:12:18 and to that point brothers and sisters i
1:12:20 pray you're all well and may allah bless
1:12:23 every single one of you
1:12:24 and grant you all the best in this life
1:12:27 and the life to come i've just seen a
1:12:29 question here by rihanna khan does islam
1:12:31 have a jewish perspective we're going to
1:12:33 address that in another and another
1:12:34 seminar brothers and sisters
1:12:37 here for give me the opportunity to
1:12:38 share this information with you if you
1:12:40 found it useful please share it with
1:12:42 other people
1:12:43 anything good has come
1:12:45 from
1:12:47 allah
1:13:00 foreign