阿法狗(AlphaGo)敲響棋壇喪鐘?(邱慕天)

https://www.anntw.com/articles/20160320-iI5d

alphago-lee-sedol-game-3-game-over

在3月上半月,谷歌Deep Mind帶來的人機大戰,掀起討論與轉播熱潮。許多只有小眾知名度的圍棋選手,也突然被廣大世人賦予「全人類希望」的深重期待。不少人以為,這項冷門技藝要復甦了。作為圍棋圈外人,我卻認為阿法狗(AlphaGo)帶來的是短多長空。甚至可以說,人工智慧敲響了棋壇喪鐘。

經驗不敵思路敏捷

首先,我們不得不承認,圍棋向來是一門拳怕少壯的競技,「老道的經驗」不比「新鮮的大腦」。它所仰仗的關鍵能力有十分嚴重的年齡歧視。人類腦力運算力18歲到達顛峰、記憶力過25歲不再發展、35歲後退化。圍棋選手的平均顛峰在24歲,比籃球員的27-28歲還更早要面臨殞落。

有「少年姜太公」美譽的李昌鎬(1975年生)稱霸1995年-2005年的圍棋界,但在30歲時就技藝下滑,取而代之的是22歲的李世乭(1983年生)。2014年後,17歲的柯潔(1997年生)竄出,年過30的李世乭與之對戰已經力不從心,10戰吃下8敗,拱手將世界第一的排名讓給後起之秀。

這些好手在弱冠之齡就站上此項技藝的世界之顛,贏下棋聖、名人、十段等一項項頭銜。他們傲得不可一世,然而那些自以黑白子可參透宇宙陰陽運行之理者,除道德譴責此等狂生、說他們下臭棋外,在棋盤上又能有何更高明的指教?

電腦勝在反覆對戰

幾天下來,人機大戰的五場比賽,我看了很多假裝高深卻胡謅的文章,什麼「阿法狗是古典的勝利」,什麼它反映了博大精深的「神傳文化」;但事實上,阿法狗認的只有預載的邏輯以及根據資料下達的指令,19 x 19 的方陣上,唯一有用的指標就是對空間規則與概率的演算。

過去在自動化趨勢中,學者不斷指出:最先被機器人取代的工作,就是那些規則清楚、重複性高、可以被計算解決的事物。

圍棋在很長久以來都讓人誤以為是人工智慧鞭長莫及的「藝術」;這是因為儘管它有許多「定式」可以依循,但光是白棋頭兩手的落子組合就有129240種之多。361格的棋盤若要用滿格下法的窮舉法(brute force)來破解所有佈局,那更必須演過過769位數的盤面可能性(以平均150手結束,每一手有250種選擇,棋局總數則是360位數),而這還不包括圍棋本身有打劫/提子,真眼裡不能投子、形成劫之後不能立刻反提等等其他規則。大家因此公認,圍棋盤面的豐富性,不僅遠非人腦所能窮舉,還超越了當今最強的超級電腦的運算力

然而,人類不會被12萬種走法迷惑而走不出前兩手,這是因為我們曉得剔除那些沒意義的佈局。阿法狗同樣透過數百萬次的對戰學習,在設定預判未來20步的合理運算耗能下,就曉得去蕪存菁解析出一套極為有效的對弈方程式。終究,以目數論高下的圍棋競技仍是一個量化的、有客觀輸贏的遊戲。在這個領域,人腦不會再是電腦的對手。

棋壇眾星光輝不再

我們必須承認,過去對棋盤中有乾坤的那種一廂情願,是因為我們給各種圍棋手法和佈局強加了情緒和人文意義;立、沖、跳、虎、飛、夾、刺、托、對、長、碰、壓、關、扳,彷彿能各自代表著保守、或進取的攻防策略,折射或比擬了人的心態。人機大戰第三盤後,人們形容李世乭在第三盤後段的表現「很悲壯」,但如果這盤棋譜,是由兩臺阿法狗下的,人們會說悲壯嗎?

阿法狗橫空出世後,為這個小眾市場帶來了許多新棋迷,很多更是西方人。然而不論從垂直或平行來看未來趨勢,這款人工智慧的發展都不啻在宣告棋壇的喪鐘。(正如1997年深藍擊敗人類西洋棋冠軍後,這20年來軟體不斷繼續發展西洋棋現況。)

「垂直」係指自身的演進:隨著數據庫的累積、運算力的倍增,現已排名「世界第二」的阿法狗將一往無悔地,狠狠超車人類棋王,使這項競技再無驚奇。

「平行」係指線上對弈的普及:阿法狗僅僅下過這5場,就已經給各方棋界好手帶來許多新定式的革命性啟發。阿法狗線上普及的棋界未來,可說是人人都是它的學生。這些人除了犯錯率會比阿法狗高之外,我們還能期待他們為這項技藝注入不同風格的演繹、散射蕩氣回腸的人性光輝嗎?

找回對弈之道

在那個由道家與陰陽家宣揚的神話世界中,我們的確曾經想著擺著黑白子的棋盤,就像黑白鍵的鋼琴,能替代赤裸裸的語言,為我們傳遞那妙不可言的道。

唐人樂道著大隱隱於世的聖賢王者,在茗茶與棋局間,不發一語便以手談論盡了風雲政局;漢人幻想深山有位不世出的神仙大師,不論登門擺盤者心境如何風格如何,總能棋高一著──就以僅僅一著,點撥凡夫俗子自我突破與提升的法門。

作為一項競技,勝負總會分曉,但作為一門語言,符號的意義無窮。

我想像自己若下一盤棋諷刺川普,那盤棋可能不是贏面上最大的,反而有很多搞鬼的下法。只是今日誰能以黑白子手談出他對蕭邦及莫札特樂風不同的領受,留下傳世棋譜與其樂譜輝映?誰能展修養、抒格局,論政治、弘天道,以行棋為世間指點明路?

現代圍棋真正可惜的,是它的規則漸漸只允許兩種人:一群小學學歷、只懂下棋、18歲腦力登峰的狂少年;以及另外一群認為這些年輕後輩心性不好,但打不過他們於是也無可奈何的老人們。這就像一個只存在少年楊過和老岳不群的武俠世界,鬼打牆也無趣得很,最後通通被一隻沒有喜怒哀樂的機器人在結尾收拾。

相對實況畫面更刺激、周邊產業鏈更有發展性的電子競技,正因為現在中日韓新一代年輕人紛紛投身而從「愛好」轉向「職業」,被電腦一往無悔追過的人類圍棋,將漸顯從「職業」回歸「業餘愛好」的大勢所趨。

離開圍棋的二維宇宙,世上還有很多是更為變幻複雜、更需要深厚的人格積累與調和,方能幫助文明前進的事物。在那裡,人工智能還只是個嬰兒。19歲人類棋王也不過是個未冠未立的青少年。那個世界會一直呼喚著「屬人」的語言,呼喚著圍棋回歸一門捨去勝負執念、以承載符號為主的溝通藝術;而百年內人類天才殫精竭慮在盤上迸射的鋒芒,也終將作為經典的一刻,在世界文明的長河中被追憶及懷念。

playing_weiqi_in_shanghai

Publicités

On the two strands of theology’s utility: Happiness and Holiness

Happiness
Happiness

There are two strands of theology’s utility.
First of all, theology is like all pursuits. It is a means through which you are going to find happiness (eudaimonia/summum bonum).

Money and power make most people happy, as money stands for physical comfort, and power is linked with the sense of achievement and the mark of one’s existential/relational status.
Game and competition make people happy, as they build up what is consisting of humanity from the natural perspective.
Leisure and arts make people happy.
So should theology (or Christianity).

If theology/Christianity is not bringing people happiness, we must ask why.
If our theological education is not something to enjoy for students and hence is not equipping students to be the catalyst for the happiness in this world, we must ask why.

I figure one of our major challenge now is that we ministers are not acting like messengers of joyfulness, lest we should bring this joy to fellow believers,  comforts to this troubled world like comforters, and true wisdom to this perplexed generation like counselors.

You get this? Where is your power of joy oh those of you who bury your heads in the desks of the theological academy?

And second, theology is not like all other worldly pursuits. it’s going to bring glory to God. We must preach God’s holiness. Give Him everything we owe Him.

 Malachi 1:6  A son honoureth his father, and a servant his master; if then I be a father, where is My honour? and if I be a master, where is My fear? saith the LORD of hosts unto you, O priests, that despise My name. And ye say: ‘Wherein have we despised Thy name?’

Malachi 1:8 aWhen you offer blind animals in sacrifice, is that not evil? And when you offer those that are lame or sick, is that not evil? Present that to your governor; will he accept you or show you favor? says the LORD of hosts.

Malachi 1:9 And now, I pray you, entreat the favour of God that He may be gracious unto us! – This hath been of your doing. – Will He accept any of your persons? saith the LORD of hosts.

Malachi 1:10 Oh that there were even one among you that would shut the doors, that ye might not kindle fire on Mine altar in vain! I have no pleasure in you, saith the LORD of hosts, neither will I accept an offering at your hand.

Malachi 1:11 For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same My name is great among the nations; and in every place offerings are presented unto My name, even pure oblations; for My name is great among the nations, saith the LORD of hosts.

And convict people of their waywardness; turn them from their old ways to God’s presence!
We must reflect God’s image as angels/messengers that sing ‘holy, holy, holy!’

With boldness and courage. Without shame and irresolution.

Phi 3:13,14 Brothers and sisters, I do not consider myself to have attained this. Instead I am single-minded: Forgetting the things that are behind and reaching out for the things that are ahead,  with this goal in mind, I strive toward the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus.

Joh 17:24 « Father, I want those you have given me to be with me where I am, so that they can see my glory that you gave me because you loved me before the creation of the world.

2Ti 1:12 Because of this, in fact, I suffer as I do. But I am not ashamed, because I know the one in whom my faith is set and I am convinced that he is able to protect what has been entrusted to me until that day.

1Co 9:24,25 Do you not know that all the runners in a stadium compete, but only one receives the prize? So run to win. Each competitor must exercise self-control in everything. They do it to receive a perishable crown, but we an imperishable one.

Heb 12:1,2 Therefore, since we are surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses, we must get rid of every weight and the sin that clings so closely, and run with endurance the race set out for us,  keeping our eyes fixed on Jesus, the pioneer and perfecter of our faith. For the joy set out for him he endured the cross, disregarding its shame, and has taken his seat at the right hand of the throne of God.

Smith's later theology described Jesus and God...
Holiness

That being said, the theological pursuit of happiness and holiness is not going to be my new year resolution. That sounds too ‘manly’ and not ‘godly’. For me, there  is only a humble prayer in my heart: God, be with me, and work this out in me, who is willing to sacrifice and burn for you.

三位神學家的師生戀(邱慕天)

Source Link: 本文原刊載於 臺灣醒報民意論壇 2011.11.02

作者:邱慕天(美國芝加哥三一神學院道碩研究生)

Forewords: 傳稱臺灣教育部近期一紙公文禁止各級學校師生戀,引發各界討論,故在此列舉一些軼事分享觀點。圖為海德格和鄂蘭

20世紀上半我最欣賞的三位德語系神哲學家:海德格(Martin Heidegger)、巴特(Karl Barth)、潘霍華(Dietrich Bonhoeffer),都有一段令人津津樂道的師生戀。對象都是小他們十幾二十歲,對大師們思想才華無比仰慕、自身也聰明伶俐的小粉絲。

然而這幾段戀情的下場,恰恰是隨著三人對神學倫理的委身程度而展現的。

海德格與鄂蘭

海德格對鄂蘭(Hannah Arendt)的始亂終棄,只能以渾球來形容。然而棄神學而轉哲學的海德格只有一個虛化的上帝概念,並沒有所謂的神學倫理。他是一個體制內的學術哲學家,這部份使體制亦可侵吞他的哲學思想與生命並用以支持納粹。

From Drama ‘Hannah and Martin’

鄂蘭(Hannah Arendt;1906-1975)與大他17歲的海德格相遇時只有18歲。但後來,鄂蘭的堅強獨立使她在離開海德格後找到屬於自己的愛情,並成為了不起的政治哲學家,上帝幽默地,讓一場二戰顛倒兩人的地位,而出身猶太家庭的鄂蘭選擇優雅地向終戰後狼狽的海德格施以恩澤和援手,助他延續岌岌可危的學術生涯。

巴特與可茲包慕

巴特和他的學生、私人秘書兼助理可茲包慕(Charlotte von Kirschbaum)長年曖昧的師徒關係幾乎導致他的元配躁鬱成疾-奈莉(Nelly Barth)夫人寬容成全的偉大是被後人所低估的。幾十年同屋而居的三人行,讓人不知道這對他的三一行動倫理算是什麼交代
比巴特年幼13歲的可茲包慕 不論是學術或感情生命都未曾走出巴特,然而她也一直是外界獲致巴特一手思想最重要的文獻渠道。

潘霍華與魏德邁

唯有潘霍華和瑪利亞. 魏德邁(Maria von Wedemeyer)是由女方的祖母所牽線(雖曾遭女方母親反對)。相差18歲的二人正式的師生關係僅限於教會信仰課程的傳遞,私下更多地是導師(mentor)與門徒的關係。潘霍華的神學倫理體系和他全人的生命歷程是聯繫在一起的。 在潘霍華受納粹監禁以致殉道的那段時間中,瑪利亞一直是這位神學家在上帝以外最重要的精神支持。他們對上帝、對家國、對彼此的赤忱,譜成了一封封動人的《獄中書簡》。

 

聖經上說,愛是不做害羞的事(見哥林多前書十三:5),愛是忠貞(steadfast love;見出埃及記 卅四:6)。

基督徒對愛情的標準,必然高過法律的規範。從聖經的角度,不是所有你情我願的關係都是上帝喜悅的真愛。

儘管我們相信,受上帝祝福的戀情,大可不必受限於年紀、身份的藩籬,然而我們看到連委身闡揚真理、為億萬歷代世人作為大師跟隨與景仰的神哲學家們,都不免在涉及個人情感的私德上意亂情迷、走得跌跌撞撞,可見師生戀不單是對一個人神學倫理體系的挑戰,還是靈命的試探。為人師表者,其言教與身教必須一致。師生戀最大的難題,將是如何在感情上也活出生命教育的見證。

參考書目:

  1. 伊絲貝塔‧愛婷爵(Elzbieta Ettinger)著,蘇友貞譯,《女哲學家與她的情人:漢娜・鄂蘭和馬丁・海德格》(Hannah Arendt/Martin Heidegger)。台北:麥田出版,1997
  2. Suzanne Selinger, Charlotte von Kirschbaum and Karl Barth: A Study in Biography and the History of Theology. State College, PA:Penn State Press, 1998
  3. Eric Metaxas, Bonhoeffer: Pastor, Martyr, Prophet, Spy. NY: Thomas Nelson Inc., 2010
Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Maria von Wedemeyer

[書摘] Argue Theologically with One Another: Karl Barth’s Argument with Emil Brunner

Source:

Gerhard Sauter “Argue Theologically with One Another: Karl Barth‘s Argument with Emil Brunner” in Theology as Conversation: The Significance Of Dialogue In Historical And Contemporary Theology: A Festschrift For Daniel L. Migliore, Bruce McCormack and Kimlym J. Bender eds., Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2009, pp. 30-47

Emil Brunner’s desire was to recover a proper understanding of natural theology, which in modern liberal theology has been derailed into “an unnatural appeal to human nearness to God”.

For Brunner, our [formal] image of God persists even after the fall (though the material image of God has to be restored through union in Christ alone). Therefore, responsible proclamation of the free grace of God must encounter creaturely existence and stand in a critical dialectical relationship with the [relative] ordered-ness of created life. Comprehending this relationship is another important task of theology and must be pursued as complementary to its primary commission.

Barth thought the distinction between the formal and the material image is completely wrong-headed, worrying if the neo-Protestantism polluted by the Enlightenment agenda and the ghost of Thomism is haunting the hall of theology again. Already in CD I/1, Barth issues extremely hard words concerning Brunner’s effort lavished in opinions related to “areas of culture”, which is, deviating from “the area of the church” (CD I/1, p.26).

Additionally, it has to be pointed out that Barth defines his view of natural theology in an ad hoc manner: natural theology is every [positive or negative] formulation of a system that claims to be theological, that seeks to interpret divine revelation whose subject is NOT Jesus Christ and whose method differs equally from the exposition of the Bible.

He believes the task of natural theology is “to bolster the divine revelation anthropologically or by cultural history”, which is categorically wrong and impossible.

Along with this line of debate, there are two issues to be traced in the following:

1)      Barth didn’t get Aquinas right. Eugene Roger in Thomas Aquinas and Karl Barth: Sacred doctrine and the natural knowledge of God (1995) has argued this.

First Rogers is showing that Thomas is concerned actually with God’s faithfulness and grace for our theological enterprise: since all true knowledge of God can only be obtained from God, will not God change and transform what we have incorrectly begun (namely, the human quest for God from below)? Thomas is convinced to say yes to this question by proposing the concept of judgment and purification (of our knowledge and intention). God’s grace guides incorrect will of humans, but does not destroy their autonomous will where he desires that the humans should concur with God’s saving grace (Rom 8:28). He is really dealing with the question of the direction of will (intentionality) rather than the question of knowledge.

Thomas was not interested in a generally valid [anthropological] foundation for the knowledge of God outside of Revelation. For Brunner, in the same vein, the human reason needs grace in order to be liberated from sin. Incorrect human reason receives back a sense of direction which God had intended for it when he had created human beings in his image— a precondition by which human beings are able to look responsibly toward God, at the world, and at themselves. (This ideal had been carried out by students of Brunner who formed the conference centers of the Swiss Reformed Church until some deviations in recent years.)

No doubt that early Barth rejected the validity of such inquiry.

 

2)    However, in the English-speaking world, and particularly Anglicanism, Brunner had been received in a much warmer manner than Barth had, understandably. (The support from the Americas makes Barth’s accusation of Brunner’s ideological bent toward of German nationalism a weaker one.) Carrying on the frontline battle today, Stanley Hauerwas in 2001, at the Gifford Lectures— which were established for the promotion of a natural theology of English origin— regarded Barth’s [Christological] sublimation of natural theology as the decisive theological turn of 20th century (cf. Stanley Hauerwas [2002], With the Grain of the Universe: The Church’s Witness and Natural Theology).

Cover of
Cover via Amazon

According to Hauerwas, later Barth is willing to reserve the phrase “real human” for an anthropology grounded on Christology (cf. also CD III/2 §44.1-3).

Therefore, to deal with the conflict between theology and anthropology, we had only have to confess how a theological anthropology is possible to us. Not only do we have to resist making theology possible by means of an antecedent anthropology, but also have to demonstrate how and to what extent one can speak about the human [existential] standing before God, being derived from God and pointing to God.

For Hauerwas, this Christologically-grounded in natural theology needs not prove itself to be universally susceptible. God himself accomplishes his truth. This does not exclude “naturally”, but it demands that we speak intelligibly for those who disagree with our testifying to the truth.

[書摘] Christ and Canon, theology and history—the Barth-Harnack dialogue revisited

Ary Scheffer: The Temptation of Christ, 1854
Temptation of Christ

Source:

Kimlym J. Bender, “Christ and Canon, theology and history—the Barth-Harnack dialogue revisited” in Theology as Conversation: The Significance Of Dialogue In Historical And Contemporary Theology: A Festschrift For Daniel L. Migliore, Bruce McCormack and Kimlym J. Bender eds., Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2009, pp. 3-29

 

My summary:

Because of the diversity and heterogeneity of the books in the Bible, Harnack insisted historical knowledge and critical reflection on necessary to understand its content. Without these faith would advance an unchecked speculative fantasy at best and at worst a theological dictatorship that “seeks to culture the consciences of others with its own subjective experience”.

Barth responded to the criticism with an emphasis on unity [between Christ of faith and Jesus of history]. For Barth, the Jesus of Nazareth no much historical science fails to display Jesus true identity is abstracted from the confession of him as the risen Lord. If Christ is the Lord of history, any historical reconstructions are his earthly life that ignores his Lordship can at best be an abstraction.

Historical science alone is unable to move beyond speculative reconstruction to confession.

Indeed, the precise determination of the Christian canon’s development is in a large part lost to history. But the question of its subject matter is clearly shown to us to be the God to whom the canon witnesses and the contemporary confessions of faith profess.

It is the unity of the Lord that grounds the unity of Scripture and the makes it a unified witness. To understand Scripture rightly entails that one read it as a participant in its truth. (For Harnack, this emotional attachment risks of loss of scientific objectivity and responsibility.)

Barth’s commitment to a different kind of objectivity and the responsibility is expressed in his third edition of the Romans commentary where he insists that we must think not so much about Paul but after and with Paul towards the subject matter with which he himself was concerned. (For a discussion of what exactly Barth takes to be historical science positive and preparatory function, which Barth has only alluded to but never fully explains, see Burnett, Karl Barth‘s Theological Exegesis, pp.230-240)

However, Harnack score a point. While the exact genetic history of canonical development may ultimately be unanswerable, we are still left with the canonical question concerning its composition and the parameters, which is not solved by the ultimate definition of the canon’s theological and the Christological nature. For example, shall we be siding with Luther’s (and thus Judaism’s) version of the Hebrew OT or the Catholic Church’s (and thus the engine church’s) LXX OT? Whose canon? Whose Scripture? (the same question needs to be posed against Childs.)

Latter Barth is clearly in his mature reflections aware of the historical messiness of canonical development in the contested boundaries, is refusing all the way the [confessional] church any final authority. He deems that the revelation of God which comes through Scripture is the ultimate basis and criteria for the canon, which must overrides even historic usages and past decisions of councils. But paradoxically, if anyone today wants to challenge particular books of their canonical status or revelatory significance, Barth would give precedence to the Church’s past decisions by aligning them with the obedient hearing of God’s voice.

Barth views the Scripture through a single lens of Christology, whereas Harnack employs multiple lenses, including a Kantian universal rationalism modified in light of Schleiermacher, a modern Lutheran law and the gospel dichotomy modified by Ritschl, and his spiritual moralism alike. Though he still attempted to preserve the uniqueness of the person of Jesus against Troeltsch’s appeal for a more consistent/critical historicism, he is separating the message of Jesus from his own historical [i.e., Jewish rabbinical and first century eschatological] roots in favor of a universal moral message that it can be extracted from both Testaments. Barth on the contrary is classically orthodox—he sees Christ foreshadowed in the old and attested in the new (But still, in various fronts, he has been criticized for having not taken the Old Testament on its own terms).

In the end, if Barth really needs to be faulted in his open confessional position, it was in his ready acceptance of the findings of radical biblical criticism, telling to criticize not only its presuppositions but also its findings. This was due in no small part to Barth’s early liberal inheritance [from Hermann]: his early ambivalence toward history and a dialectic of contradiction that has only to be overcome in time with a dialectic of correspondence.

But no doubt, what intrigues many of us today in the Harnack/Barth dabate, is Barth’s  hermeneutics of trust and the canonical richness, rather than Harnack’s hermeneutics of suspicion and canonical reductionism.