Ameliorated Future I - Is thinking only computational?

“ In natural science, Nature has given us a world and we’re just to discover its laws. In Computers, we can stuff laws into it and create a world ”

-- Alan Kay

Is thinking only computational? Computer scientists may think that the borderline between organic and artificial intelligence is getting blurred. But it seems that they are far away from reality. It seems that intelligence is not just computational but involves levels of consciousness, which remains an enigma for science.

Can machines be really intelligent? What is the difference between artificial intelligence and biological intelligence? Can artificial intelligence rival organic intelligence? These entire sets of questions may sound hypothetical or rather philosophical, but the recent advancement in high speed computing has imparted realism to the dream of machines mimicking human intelligence.

Although significant advancements have been made in the development of artificial organs, all these major breakthroughs appear to be insufficient for synthesizing human like intelligence. Computer can be programmed to play chess, beating everyone and even create certain signs of mind [1] but does that mean that computers can be as intelligent as humans? Doesn’t human like intelligence require a degree of awareness and understanding of what one is doing? Do we really know the meaning of intelligence? Even the Deep Blue chess computer had 256 chips, which could evaluate and consider all legal moves from a certain position in one electronic flash, orchestrated by a 32-processor mini-supercomputer. It examined 200 million chess positions a second. Chess programs, on unaided general-purpose computers, average about 16,000 instructions per position examined. Deep Blue, when playing chess (and only then), was thus worth about 3 million MIPS, 1/30 of our estimate for human intelligence [1]. What if this number grows to 90 million MIPS? Could Deep Blue be as intelligent and aware of its environment situation as we are? Is it possible for an intelligent looking robot to have the awareness and understanding of what it is doing? Artificial intelligence is still not the same as organic intelligence though it may be more prolific.

Computers certainly have an advantage over human brains. Electronic circuits are about a million times faster than neurons of the brain. Moreover, their precision of timing and accuracy is un-paralleled. There is great deal of randomness in the way that neurons in our brains are interconnected, which hampers the performance of the brain as a whole. But a deliberate and precise organization of circuits in an electronic system like a computer ensures a vastly improved performance. Areas where the brain seems to have an advantage now seems to have been eclipsed by human made intelligence. In terms of the number of neurons - roughly 100 billion [1]- the brain is limited. There are on an average a good deal more connections among neurons than there are among transistors in a computer. But it is clear, taking into account the rapid increase in computer technology over the years, that these advantages of the brain may well be set off by the further advances in the years to come [1]. There are technological revolutions waiting to deliver us an enormous increase in speed, power and miniaturization [1].

But does intelligence only involve computing power, speed, memory or the way in which the things are wired up? Is it possible to describe the human brain strictly in computational terms? If yes, could it be possible for us to design self-learning minds like we do have? What will be the meaning of having a mind for future computers? Is it really possible to talk about such things in scientific terms? Or do the mysteries of mind, consciousness and intelligence lie beyond the scope of computer science?

We therefore have many important viewpoints to analyze.

At this stage, we may assume that computer thinking is only computational. But all these computations involve certain levels of awareness. This viewpoint seems to be quite true since the results of any computation would have been erroneous had it not been aware of what it is doing.
If the physics of the brain can be simulated computationally, you can simulate the parts which cause consciousness and awareness.
Even if we can not exactly simulate the physics of the brain, what would we call as nearly a simulation?
Certain brain behavior can not be explained with physical laws or any with other scientific terms and its description is simply beyond the bound of physical definitions.

The last viewpoint (4) regards the mind entirely inexpressible in scientific terms. The metaphysical dimension of the mind is beyond the reach of present day scientific understanding. But it seems to be a remote possibility that with expanded science and mathematics, it may be possible for science to breach the ultimate barrier one day.

Opposite to view point 1 is viewpoint 4 which is referred to as strong artificial intelligence or functionalism. It seems to be the only viewpoint that has an entirely scientific attitude. This will be the reflection of the world where every physical action can and will be described in computational terms. In one extreme of this view, the universe itself is seen as gigantic computer capable of performing infinite sub calculations. The view point that physical systems can only be regarded as computational entities is based on the assumptions that every object is just a pattern of information [2]

Deep Blue, IBM's chess computer

Even if it is inappropriate to regard the universe as simply being a computer, viewpoint 1 seems to be the winner. A robot, which responds to questioning like a human being, would answer as if it actually knows and possesses feelings. Why should we then want to be aware, to wonder, to be joyful or to feel pain? If all external manifestations of a conscious brain can indeed be simulated entirely computationally, then there would be a possibility of consciousness being present in such a simulation or its internal manifestations. This conclusion leaves a lot of room for false consciousness but do we really need to care about what is false and what is true when our prime goal is to evoke such things in those dead machines? The question of whether these feelings or consciousness is real or not comes at a much later stage.

Viewpoint 2 also affirms that behavior of all the physical objects in this world can be manipulated and simulated computationally. It also supports the concept of this universe as merely a gigantic computer manipulating huge chunks of bit patterns at unimaginable speed and accuracy. It also cleverly negates the view that a thing behaving externally in a certain way must be conscious of the behavior internally. This would clearly distinguish between the physical process and its simulation (A computer simulation of a black hole is certainly not a black hole). Although we are yet to see and analyze the results obtained when the process is reversed. This would open the way for realistic simulation environments where the simulated screen will be introduced right into the corresponding sensing part of the brain as depicted in The Matrix [3]. The question is how far we are from such scenario and how realistic the Matrix environment would be.

If thinking is just a computational process, we can call it mathematical thinking. But there is something in our conscious thought process that eludes computation. It seems to be a question whether we really compute or not?

Since understanding seems to be a conscious activity, conscious thinking has a non-computational character. Of course, consciousness has many other dimensions. The perception of color red, for example, is something that requires consciousness, as does the sensation of pain. Also, calculations may or may not terminate. But what is the rule that defines that calculations have ended? Why does the sum of 2 and 2 end up with just 4? Is answer to this question complete or just part of a temporary arrangement to answer this question? How will you let the machine know that the answer has really been obtained? Are there any other rules, calculations or algorithmic procedures to ascertain this? On the second note, can any biological machine including humans be ever be able to tell when did solutions starts and ends?

The answer appears to be “NO”. It seems that even we are totally unaware of the start or finish of the calculation and so this will essentially be proof for the fact that no set of rules will be sufficient to ascertain correctly, in all cases, that non-terminating calculations do not really terminate. The set of rules here means some system of formalized procedures for which it is possible to check computationally whether or not the rules have been correctly applied. But it seems that insight that is available to anyone, who can think logically with understanding and imagination, cannot be completely formalized as such a set of rules. Rules can sometimes be a partial substitute for understanding, but they can never replace it entirely. We have succeeded to some extent in understanding the starting and ending points of our thinking, but the real adventure will began once we start knowing what is going on in the middle.

Article from www.avaye.com