My answer to this year’s Edge Question, “What Do You Think About Machines That Think?”
Julien de La Mettrie would be classified as a quintessential New Atheist, except for the fact that there’s not much New about him by now. Writing in eighteenth-century France, La Mettrie was brash in his pronouncements, openly disparaging of his opponents, and boisterously assured in his anti-spiritualist convictions. His most influential work, L’homme machine (Man a Machine), derided the idea of a Cartesian non-material soul. A physician by trade, he argued that the workings and diseases of the mind were best understood as features of the body and brain.
As we all know, even today La Mettrie’s ideas aren’t universally accepted, but he was largely on the right track. Modern physics has achieved a complete list of the particles and forces that make up all the matter we directly see around us, both living and non-living, with no room left for extra-physical life forces. Neuroscience, a much more challenging field and correspondingly not nearly as far along as physics, has nevertheless made enormous strides in connecting human thoughts and behaviors with specific actions in our brains. When asked for my thoughts about machines that think, I can’t help but reply: Hey, those are my friends you’re talking about. We are all machines that think, and the distinction between different types of machines is eroding.
We pay a lot of attention these days, with good reason, to “artificial” machines and intelligences — ones constructed by human ingenuity. But the “natural” ones that have evolved through natural selection, like you and me, are still around. And one of the most exciting frontiers in technology and cognition is the increasingly permeable boundary between the two categories.
Artificial intelligence, unsurprisingly in retrospect, is a much more challenging field than many of its pioneers originally supposed. Human programmers naturally think in terms of a conceptual separation between hardware and software, and imagine that conjuring intelligent behavior is a matter of writing the right code. But evolution makes no such distinction. The neurons in our brains, as well as the bodies through which they interact with the world, function as both hardware and software. Roboticists have found that human-seeming behavior is much easier to model in machines when cognition is embodied. Give that computer some arms, legs, and a face, and it starts acting much more like a person.
From the other side, neuroscientists and engineers are getting much better at augmenting human cognition, breaking down the barrier between mind and (artificial) machine. We have primitive brain/computer interfaces, offering the hope that paralyzed patients will be able to speak through computers and operate prosthetic limbs directly.
What’s harder to predict is how connecting human brains with machines and computers will ultimately change the way we actually think. DARPA-sponsored researchers have discovered that the human brain is better than any current computer at quickly analyzing certain kinds of visual data, and developed techniques for extracting the relevant subconscious signals directly from the brain, unmediated by pesky human awareness. Ultimately we’ll want to reverse the process, feeding data (and thoughts) directly to the brain. People, properly augmented, will be able sift through enormous amounts of information, perform mathematical calculations at supercomputer speeds, and visualize virtual directions well beyond our ordinary three dimensions of space.
Where will the breakdown of the human/machine barrier lead us? Julien de La Mettrie, we are told, died at the young age of 41, after attempting to show off his rigorous constitution by eating an enormous quantity of pheasant pâte with truffles. Even leading intellects of the Enlightenment sometimes behaved irrationally. The way we think and act in the world is changing in profound ways, with the help of computers and the way we connect with them. It will be up to us to use our new capabilities wisely.
Marcus
It occurred to me that you may not believe me and I don’t know how to contact the moderator. I also do not see why my comment needed moderation. If it is because the physics is iffy then I’m all ears.
My post was immediately after your question:
“How do you freeze frame motion & direction at one position and instant? Would that not be a violation of the definitions of motion & direction, which move BETWEEN postions & instants, and angle a direction BETWEEN them?”
Hopefully my post will appear some time soon.
The essence of my answer is that I think you are trying to transfer wholesale between QM and Newtonian conceptualizations and this cannot be done with present understanding, because of the statistical nature of the wave function collapse.
The real issue is that QM is an abstract mathematical construct with a proven validity for real world prediction. As it stands, the math(s) (I’m english) throws out a smear in p,x which seems to be an underlying non-determinism in reality itself. The wavefunction itself evolves in continuous Euclidean space; the wavefunction collapse is smeared in that space with regard to p (momentum) and or x.
Sean, you wrote: “Modern physics has achieved a complete list of the particles and forces that make up all the matter we directly see around us, both living and non-living, with no room left for extra-physical life forces.” Why do so-called “supernatural” phenomena assumed to be due to “extra-physical” properties? Why couldn’t they eventually be explained with new, as yet-undiscovered physics? Your statement that the list of particles and forces is “complete” sounds awfully like the lamentations of physicists at the end of the 19th century that physics was complete and there were no further major discoveries or insights to be found. Will you at least concede that the “island of knowledge” still contains much physical knowledge to be discovered, including properties of a multiverse that are today totally unfathomable to us?
Simon Packer “The essence of my answer is that I think you are trying to transfer wholesale between QM and Newtonian conceptualizations and this cannot be done with present understanding, because of the statistical nature of the wave function collapse.
The real issue is that QM is an abstract mathematical construct with a proven validity for real world prediction. As it stands, the math(s) (I’m english) throws out a smear in p,x which seems to be an underlying non-determinism in reality itself. The wavefunction itself evolves in continuous Euclidean space; the wavefunction collapse is smeared in that space with regard to p (momentum) and or x.”
First off, I wouldn’t worry about Richard’s troll jibe, but you are getting closer to the point of my question. My question really concerned secure definitions. Motion BETWEEN poisitions, and direction BETWEEN positions are the correct and only definitions. But you are broadening it to an explanation based on supposedly different definitions spanning Q.M. and classical. Well, I still reckon that’s a tangent to my direct question, but we can leave it at that.
For example, you dont explain simply how it is that QM can have a different definition of motion and direction than the definiton everyone logically applies to everything. You really are creating an intact inaccessible world if you just change definitions like that. Definitons bridge – you cannot compare to things unless they share a defintional framework of some kind. So, its a dodge, not a real answer.
Backing up your dodge is the (correct) view of unreliable measurement and gaps in knowledge (knowing momentum at one positon in one instant, for example, inevitably a problem by defintion – my point!). So we agree that there are inevitable gaps, we need to know what that unobeserved wave-function “is” in the gap of measurement, and all we can know is an angled particulate impact when that wave “collapses”. That’s all fine, but its a consequence of the complete impossibility BY DEFINITION, of measuring motion or direction at one psoition in one instant – not because QM is relying on a different set of definitions from classical. You are just completely wrong, and you are still at a tangent, but anyway, forget about it.
Marcus
I agree that current orthodox QM is a little as you say; detached from Newtonian in a somewhat inaccessible world of its own. It is inaccessible because it is not directly observable and it is inaccessible because it is counter-intuitive conceptually. The uncertainty principle seems to say that it is inaccessible in the sense of absolute spatial precision just because nature seems to say so, at least within the QM paradigm. But that may not be so….it could be the maths currently assocaited with QM, which whilst effective for many purposes, may remain a simplification of reality. It just gives extremely good answers to things like electron orbitals, spectra, band gaps etc. The issue of what is really going on in the very small scale is up for grabs and very hard to decide by observation. The traditional view is summarised in the Copenhagen interpretation.
You yourself seem to me to be starting by conceptualising from within a particular framework, in your case, Newtonian, with Euclidean space. This is because it equates with our day to day experience, and is therefore the most intuitive. But there is no absolute rational reason to assume it is valid make everything submit to this paradigm in all situations. Newtonian is widely held to be a ‘parochial’ simplification.
The Newtonian world is utterly deterministic, and if physical reality is truly and uniformly deterministic, then consciousness is just an outcome of previous states of matter, as is evolution if true, and energy and our curiosity and our discussion are illusions along with our consciousness. Our freewill would not then exist.
Penrose seems to think that we need to bridge QM and classical in a more rigorous way, and science that succeeds here may help us to understand consciousness. I personally share his regard for the mysteries of consciousness, and the remaining uncertainties in physics, rather than aligning with technology triumphalists who confidently expect the essence of their personhood to be migrated onto silicon or similar technology fairly soon. He recognises his own gift, mathematical intuition, as an attribute some people have in strong measure, and realises that no computer algorithmic system is anywhere near emulating that attribute. Another great mathmetician/physicist, Paul Dirac, was famously incapable of explaining how his own sometimes spectacular mathematical insights came about.
So, as far a consciousness emulation goes, I am on the side of humanity being not even close at present. There is no meaningful lead.
All of which is, agreed, a way to say that I don’t know the answer to your question.
“Modern physics has achieved a complete list of the particles and forces that make up all the matter we directly see around us, both living and non-living, with no room left for extra-physical life forces”
Sorry but I don’t agree. Science will never rule out any extra-mechanism or particles. Absence of scientifical evidence is not evidence of absence.
Simon Packer “The uncertainty principle seems to say that it is inaccessible in the sense of absolute spatial precision just because nature seems to say so, at least within the QM paradigm. But that may not be so….it could be the maths currently assocaited with QM, which whilst effective for many purposes, may remain a simplification of reality. ”
You are almost there, but no. You still do not respect the definitions of motion & direction, as between positions, not at positions. Too bad, its easy to understand. No need to invent an isolated relativistic world to excuse that mess. Motion & direction are defined in the same way in both worlds! Didn’t you know that?
Simon Packer “You yourself seem to me to be starting by conceptualising from within a particular framework, in your case, Newtonian, with Euclidean space. This is because it equates with our day to day experience, and is therefore the most intuitive. But there is no absolute rational reason to assume it is valid make everything submit to this paradigm in all situations. Newtonian is widely held to be a ‘parochial’ simplification.”
No. I am applying the same defintions of motion & direction as apply in classical or Newtonian phsyics – there is only one defintion! Didn’t you know that? You are saying physics is relying on a different definition of motion & direction to make the U.P. “appear” special? That would be ridiculous. The U.P. relies on the same definitions of momentum as classical physics, and inflates the “gap” into a joke. You are just plain wrong if you think different defintions apply.
I obviously cannot get you to focus on the issue – what an amzingly dumb exchange this has been. So, to tie you down to direct answers, here are three simple questions, take as much time as you need, I will check back next week.
1. Do you realize momentum is comprised of motion & direction?
2. If yes, What is your defintion of “motion”?
and 3. What is your definition of “direction?
Marcus
The following definitions apply in classical mechanics.
Momentum is mass times velocity. Velocity is vector. Velocity may be measured by observation in Euclidean space/time. This would entail, for something moving at constant velocity in 3 dimensions, a pair of coordinates (x,y,z,t) (x’,y’,z’,t’) and some simple maths. For non-uniform velocity, the derivative of the trajectory is needed. Mass is usually constant.
Motion is change in position with respect to time in a fixed spatial frame of reference.
Direction in Newtonian/Euclidean is the non-scalar part of a vector. It can be defined in three dimensions by three angles referenced to the three axes in the chosen frame of spatial reference.
In QM momentum is different, being a scalar for a wave equation, and particle position is not precisely defined, though space itself is.
Marcus
In all honesty, reading a bit on wiki, my understanding of the standard model is pretty low, I studied QM 30 years ago and didn’t understand it that well then. My understanding of the meaning of the wavefunction is probably wrong. So I suggest you take your points to a competent, up to date particle physicist. I have decided that I am not one!
You have sex with a machine, people make love.
Tony
A good example. Relentless reductionism squashes the song from our existence somewhat. All those pesky facets of the richness of consciousness to explain away!
There is a bit of wonder in the conviction that everything is an outcome of a very small set of logical physical precepts, but I don’t think it goes very far. I would call it emotionally and relationally impoverished.
Personally I think God seems to have left a bit of interpersonal richness in the works even for atheists. So they have something to work on…
I agree Simon.
Pingback: Brain-to-Brain interface :Direct Transfer of Thoughts - Brave News World
Pingback: The Yogic View of Consciousness – Part 3 | PlaneTalk
Hey noobs, forget AI…
you should be working on artificial stupidity systems (ASS).
Didn’t Turing do the seminal work on ASS?
Big Jim
Stupidity systems is about as far as humanity has got I think. Or intelligent, helpful but essentially largely inconsequential compared to humanity.
We are stupid at times but sometimes wonderful. I wonder how you write an algorithm that manifests the wonderful? I suppose C3PO managed ‘pleasantly eccentric’. Perhaps you can do it in Android Studio; it’s very clever. But then people wrote that. But (sort of) seriously:
I wonder if a bunch of semiconductor algorithmic AI based pseudo-organisms or some such similar creations, if cleansed of all relevant give-away memory clues, and abandoned in deep space, to reproduce and colonize, would manage to work out who made them, how and why?