Rethinking Intelligence: Isn’t All Intelligence Artificial Anyway?

Breaking Down the Redundancy in ‘Artificial Intelligence’ for Understanding the Constructed Nature of Intelligence

The concept of ‘Artificial Intelligence’ often evokes a mix of unease and excitement. Much of this unease stems from misconceptions about the distinction between 'natural' and 'artificial' intelligence. However, breaking down the term reveals that this distinction is redundant—a tautology. Any kind of intelligence is necessarily artificial, including human intelligence.

The Construction of Intelligence

Intelligence, whether human or machine, is not an innate attribute but a construct developed through interaction, experience, and adaptation. The term “artificial,” often applied exclusively to phenomena created by human ingenuity, actually describes all forms of intelligence. No human is born fully equipped with cognitive capabilities; these capabilities are developed and shaped by environmental factors and learning processes. Therefore, by definition, intelligence is constructed—artificially so.

The Redundancy in “Artificial Intelligence”

This perspective aligns more with a logical than philosophical approach. It is a simple challenge to the traditional dichotomy between “natural” and “artificial” intelligence, advocating for a view that recognizes the constructed nature of all cognitive processes. The term “artificial intelligence,” then, might be seen as redundant—a pleonasm that underscores the artificiality inherent in all forms of intelligence.

Again, this is not a philosophical musing but a straightforward logical statement. In a recent episode of “A Grande Fúria do Mundo,” a podcast hosted by Brazilian philosopher Mario Sergio Cortella and his son, this concept was briefly discussed, prompting me to reflect on the broader implications of our definitions and classifications in technology and cognitive science.

Adding Perspective: Brains in Vats and Intelligence

This constructed nature of intelligence connects well with the famous “brain in a vat” thought experiment. The thought experiment challenges us to consider whether intelligence and conscious experience are reducible to neural circuitry alone and whether intelligence can exist independently of the body and environment.

In a recent article, ”The Key Problem with the ‘Brain in a Vat’ Thought Experiment,” Adam Frank challenges this notion. He discusses a paper by Evan Thompson and Diego Cosmelli titled ”Brain in a Vat or Body in a World? Brainbound versus Enactive Views of Experience,” which critiques the famous “brain in a vat” thought experiment.

The idea of a brain in a vat suggests that our conscious experience can be fully replicated by isolating and simulating the brain’s neural circuitry. However, Thompson and Cosmelli argue that the brain is so dynamically intertwined with the body and its environment that conscious experience cannot exist in isolation from this holistic system.

”Instead of one-way control, there’s a continuous sensorimotor loop: endogenously controlled movement changes how the senses are stimulated, which gives rise to new movement.”

Thompson and Cosmelli demonstrate that to fully replicate the brain’s conscious experience, a brain in a vat would require an artificial substitute body with all the dynamic interactivity and embodiment that a real body provides. In essence, the BIV idea undermines itself, highlighting that neural circuitry is not the sole or minimal condition for experience. The brain is necessary for experience, but it is not sufficient.

The Role of Human Experience in Technological Advancement

In addition to challenging the distinction between ‘natural’ and ‘artificial’ intelligence, it’s crucial to emphasize the importance of the human experience, bias and predispositions in any technological development, including machine intelligence. All intelligence, whether human or machine, is deeply intertwined with the environment and society in which it is developed. Thus, every development in AI must account for the interconnectedness of nature, human society, and the laws that govern our world, both natural and human. By recognizing this, we can ensure that AI aligns with human needs, values, and experiences. This perspective encourages us to approach AI development holistically, prioritizing ethical considerations and responsible use to create technology that enhances, rather than disrupts, the human experience.

Why This Matters

Recognizing the constructed nature of intelligence underscores the importance of understanding the holistic interplay between brain, body, and environment. While some might find this perspective provocative, it is not intended to diminish the remarkable advancements in AI but to foster a more precise and unified understanding of intelligence in all its forms.

By embracing this logical framework, we can enhance our discussions about cognitive capabilities and the ethical considerations of AI development. This view may not revolutionize AI research or cognitive science methodologies, but it offers a clear and logical lens through which we can re-examine the foundations of what we call “intelligence.” How does understanding intelligence as inherently artificial shape your view of AI development? Let’s discuss.

Citations

• Mario S. Cortella & Pedro S. Cortella, A Grande Fúria do Mundo. Spotify
• Frank, Adam. “The Key Problem with the ‘Brain in a Vat’ Thought Experiment.” Big Think