Robot Rock

Free Will

Wed, 17 Jun 2009 16:07:58 GMT

I have only heard a single plausible defense of (non-deterministic) free will, and it went something like this:

We cannot say in certainty whether the causes of our thoughts/our "will" fully determine what we choose to do

I would normally assume that free will is something along the lines of "our choices cannot be explained [via causal reasoning] by deterministic causes." However, the above framing of "free will" does not make or entail this claim. Now, as tempting as it it to argue with my framing of the stance for free will, it is important to realize that doing so would be a fallacy -- I'd be arguing against a straw man.

In other words, regardless of how I frame the free will perspective, the question still remains: "is there anything metaphysically special about choices made by humans?"

If I am to address the above stance on free will with this in mind, my next question is: does this mean that determinism is false? In other words, if we cannot say for sure whether our choices are determined does that in any way imply that they do not have natural causes? Indeed, because the stance differentiated between causation and determination, it is entirely consistent with the particular framing of determinism that is something like: All events have one or more natural causes. This may be called "weak determinism" -- and, I would say, is an axiom of all experience, really, not something that is even questionable.

However, harking back to the issue of straw men, it is important to note that framing determinism like this doesn't prove anything. Therefore, I will note that "strong" determinism states: All events (including human cognition) are inevitable occurrences of and causally determined by one or more (antecedent) natural causes. Combining this with the argument at the start of this post, it seems to me that the primary question then becomes:

are there any examples of human choices/intentions that cannot be fully explained (i.e., determined) by natural causes?

If this is the primary question, then it seems evident that it is an empirical (in particular, psychological) question, and one that cannot be answered for certain without finding such an example. If one considers the area of psychology, and, in particular, statistical analysis, human actions can certainly be (and are) attributed to natural causes. However, assuming the proponent of free will finds this insufficient for "strong" determinism (i.e., because you cannot find all causes of every human action and have them hold true 100% of the time), then their theory becomes an unfalsifiable and, thus, practically useless empirical theory, kind of like Freudian psychology.

In conclusion: Is it true? I have no idea. Does it matter? Not in the least bit.

This is a really cool intelligent interface

Fri, 17 Apr 2009 15:40:03 GMT

The Future of Technology: Multimodal Input?

Fri, 17 Apr 2009 15:36:43 GMT

If the mobile phone is the future of computing and information access, that isn't very exciting. It's so difficult to find what you want on a mobile phone, right away when you want it. It isn't even very convenient to twitter on your phone, given how small the keys are (or non-tactile if you have an iPhone).

Multimodal input is one way to address this problem for a variety of devices, not just mobile. This includes, but may not be limited to, input via: speech, hand gestures, touch screens, internal accelerometers (for moving the device itself), eye tracking, sketching with a digital pen, face recognition, tangible interfaces, haptic feedback, and camera/computer vision-based input.

The interesting issue with multimodal input is how to fuse these types of input. Pointing with your finger can provide context for speech recognized as "put that there"; lip-reading can increase efficiency of speech recognition; voice and face recognition can both be used for identity confirmation; eye gaze can center a field-of-view for easier mouse clicking.

Multimodal input fits into a larger movement in both AI and HCI called "intelligent interfaces." What are intelligent interfaces? Well, there seems to be some disagreement. Some consider any interface for an "intelligent" system to be an intelligent interface. Others think that the interface has to behave in a manner that we normally assign to intelligent behavior, such as personalization. Of course, it's not clear whether or not these are the same thing (consider, e.g., Google's personalized search -- it's personalization, but is it really a part of the internal system or just the interface?). Then there are multimodal interfaces. They require "intelligence" in that there is a significant amount of pattern recognition and processing necessary to recognize, e.g., the user's speech.

"The Chip" is manifested as mobile phones

Fri, 27 Feb 2009 16:05:40 GMT

The future is here. But where is my damn jet pack? my flying car? virtual reality?

Where is the The Chip?

A story featured in Wired outlines how the Wii, the iPhone and Guitar Hero exemplify "a blend of the digital and physical [reality]." In other words, for quite a while, society has considered what it would be like to live in a "virtual reality" -- the Matrix, the Wired (in the anime "Lain"), etc. -- but our virtual reality is actually melding with our "actual" reality. Technology that we foresee is manifested in a way that we did not expect, but it's still there. In the words of author Williams Gibson, author of Neuromancer, "The future is here. It's just not widely distributed yet."

In much the same way, though in 2003 I fantasized about the concept of a microchip inside ones brain that hooks up the Internet and so on, I think it is prudent to point out that what I was talking about (though I did not know it) is today's (and tomorrow's) mobile phone.

Consider the features I predicted: input with your brain, the ability to connect with other devices like an entertainment system, communicating and file sharing with other humans directly, accessing news and other information sources seamlessly, ubiquitous Internet access, having ones own personal web site. Almost all of these are available in one form or another on modern mobile phones:

Input with your brain -- Though this is not (yet?) available on today's mobile devices, many of them do have novel input. Consider: the multitouch technology on the iPhone that allows you to zoom in on maps by separating two fingers touching the device, the accelerometer on the HTC Touch Pro that will allow you to play racing games by moving the phone, and speech recognition on many modern phones, e.g., to dial your mother by saying her name
The ability to connect to other devices -- Many phones have an infrared port that allows you to control external devices with a special application, though this feature does not seem to be widely used (given television watching has largely moved to YouTube
Communicating and file sharing with other humans directly -- Though not as direct as sending something to someone's brain, mobile SMS, email and even telephony (voice over IP/VoIP) is widely used on today's phones
Accessing news and other information sources seamlessly -- The killer feature of any "smart phone" or modern mobile phone is the ability to browse the Internet and, thus, to search for something in Google, look up a movie on IMDB, read stories on the Boston Globe, etc., all at the leisure of inputting such commands into your mobile phone (which, to be fair, is still somewhat poor usability, especially compared to using your brain)
Uniquitous Internet access -- The ability to do just about any of the other things on mobile phones requires them to be connected to the Interent and, luckily, they are (and those that aren't are making progress toward that end). Sadly, the Internet access it not through hotspots or satellite as I predicted, but merely through the cellular networks themselves.
Having ones own personal web site -- I think most will agree that this vision of mine ended up being manifested in the form of social networking web sites, such as Twitter and Facebook. So while each person does not have a web site on their phone, many do have access to these social networking sites on their phone and also have profiles (which are kind of like web sites) thereon.

Using the paper I wrote as a freshman in college as a guide, it seems clear that the single feature that The Chip had that modern mobile phones do not is a natural and intuitive interface. It is not obvious that mobile phones will ever (any time soon, at least) get the ability to read your thoughts, but that does not mean that they need to be painful to use (and that they need to be traffic hazards for people on them)!

Memory-prediction framework for the win!

Fri, 09 Nov 2007 03:39:46 GMT

For anyone who is curious about the model of the brain as a memory machine:

Approximations in AI

Sat, 18 Nov 2006 07:51:20 GMT

The Potential Uses of False Theories by Both Humans and Computers

Introduction

Humans throughout history, especially in fairly recent history have done their best to describe reality by any means available to them. We pay particular attention to getting close to the “truth” of matters, which is manifested by the fact that disciplines such as science and philosophy continuously go through paradigm revolutions and shifts on large and small scales, as new theories are devised.

Along this path, many theories have come and gone. A good theory has influence for a few years and then essentially disappears from discussion because it was found to be false or incomplete. Sometimes in truth-seeking disciplines a theory is built upon and expanded, emphasizing the inherent value in the original theory, but just as often, if not more so, a theory is forgotten and entirely abandoned.

A question not asked often enough is whether these aged theories could be used to approximate what they originally intended to exactly describe. Perhaps a theory is not actually correct, or is not “the whole story,” but can it be used to guide judgments or actions in real life? Sometimes approximations or general rules are all that are needed, in fact.

This is already the case in artificial intelligence. When exactly quantifying aspects of human cognition or rational thought and decision-making, the use of approximations and heuristics means the world for a system implementation, while the fact that they are not exact or entirely consistent means little if not nothing. Also in machine learning it is the case that a model that does not correctly classify 100% of the data is always the case and that higher efficiency is all that is desired, while perfection is never obtained.

In this paper, I propose that philosophical and scientific theories be utilized in a manner similar to that of heuristics and approximations in artificial intelligence and machine learning, in both human endeavors and artificial intelligence itself.

Philosophy

Philosophy is a field that investigates a diverse range of questions and problems that are typically out of the range of other, more empirical, disciplines. Embracing the measures of logical soundness, consistency, elegance and simplicity, philosophers constantly succeed in disproving and discrediting competing theories in various domains. There is much value to this pursuit, there can be no doubt. If philosophy is to be anything but intellectual masturbation for those with too much time on their hands, however, it seems that temporary results should be exploited for the betterment of humankind in the present. Presently accepted and discredited theories alike may very well be useful general guidelines in a myriad of cases.

One example of these cases is in the philosophy of science. In the early 20th century, Karl Popper proposed his falsification demarcation theory to distinguish between science and what he called pseudo-science based on whether the field in question made falsifiable predictions. As history progressed, however, it was decided that falsificationism was not a good model for the nature of science in general. What was not agreed upon, however, was that falsification was a useless test for discrediting pseudo-sciences. I believe that, though it should not be considered the authoritative test for such purposes, it is very useful for ruling out many of the easy cases. For example, a modern debate has taken place between so-called Intelligent Design and the theory of biological evolution via natural selection and other forces. Though a Kuhnian exposition on the structure of scientific paradigms and revolutions may more accurately describe the relationship between the two competing biological ideologies, the theory of falsification is much more useful in aiding one in realizing that Intelligent Design is not in fact a science—or, to put in normative terms, should not be considered a science (and taught in public schools as such)—since it by its very nature not falsifiable in the least bit.

Another theory arose during the same time period regarding how to distinguish between meaningful philosophical and scientific statements from nonsensical ones—or, rather, ones that should be disregarded in rational discussion. It was coined Verificationism and held influence over the philosophical and scientific community for a good many years. Eventually, however, it was proved to be somewhat self-contradictory and, at the very least, incomplete and therefore untenable as a general philosophy. I and others still strongly believe, however, that asking the question whether a claim is verifiable with the senses can be a very useful tool in detecting irrationality or other forms of absurdity. General claims of unobservable entities (be they gods or metaphysics) are therefore able to be scrutinized by such a simple question in a convenient manner, though cannot be conclusively decided based solely on it.

The final example I will examine is the age-old philosophical question of the nature of knowledge—known as the field of epistemology. Historically, the most widely accepted rule for what constituted knowledge was “justified true belief”, or JTB for short. Eventually this notion was disproved by the introduction of what are known as the “Gettier cases,” which showed that justification is not a sufficient distinction for what constitutes knowledge over other accidentally-true beliefs. However, it cannot be denied that JTB is still widely used in at least casual philosophical discussions relating to epistemology, since a decisive answer to the Gettier cases does not yet exist. In this sense, then, JTB is a useful approximation and, I believe, should be viewed as such, regardless of whether a more accurate model for knowledge comes about in the near-future.

Science

Like in philosophy, theories come and go in the sciences, too. However, be that as it may, there is very significant disagreement over even what the purpose of science is in the general sense. Is science a tool that is we should use to help us describe the fundamental nature of reality, or is it just useful for making predictions about phenomena? While relativity may offer a more correct theory of physics and thus satisfies the first proposed purpose of science (one that Einstein personally subscribed to), Newtonian mechanics is still taught at the college level for the purposes of engineering and everyday uses, especially here on earth.

Artificial Intelligence

Many scientific and philosophical theories that have been abandoned are definitely useful to us humans in our everyday lives. However, as AI is a field that builds on what we find useful to ourselves when solving problems, these theories may be used as heuristics in computers, too.

The bridge between these issues in philosophy and computer science is perhaps not as general as one would like it to be; namely, these issues that interest human philosophers are very often only applicable to humanoid applications of AI in very limited circumstances. As true as that may be, though, the expansion of these instances is not very far-off in the future and that means that the use of these approximations will see greater applications. The closest thing in the present to such applications may be machine learning, as this subfield of AI works on arbitrary data sets and therefore, unlike the problem-solving nature of AI in general, relates very well to just about any other field and the tools that it offers.

Conclusion

I think that I have made it clear that theoretical approximations as useful tools abound in both science and philosophy. I believe I have also succeeded in describing how they can be applied to a large majority of cases in everyday life and can be harnessed for artificial intelligence as well. Both uses are very important and I feel deserve similar attention in, if not the philosophical community, the sciences of computing and of the natural world.

Philosophy and AI

Wed, 28 Jun 2006 22:48:47 GMT

I have been reading some book about Kant lately and I have recently finished the chapter on his theory of cognition: that is, how we use past experiences and knowledge, our power to reason, and present experiences to think (although "think" really doesn't do it justice, hence why they decided on "cognition").

In the past, I have strayed away from philosophy because it all seemed so pointless and useless (the pragmatist in me). Who cares how exactly humans are able to "know" anything? We do! Get over it!

Alas, this book is refueling an interest in philosophy for me.

Kant's theory of cognition hits on a few topics:

The problem of mind-independent reality: is the outside world real (realism) or is it in our minds (idealism) or other?
The problem of the origin of knowledge: does it ultimately come from experience (empiricism) or within us (rationalism) or other?
The process of cognition: what goes into the cognitive process: memory, reasoning, perceptual sensations and application of abstract concepts to particular instances
The process of concept forming: how are we able to understand ideal or abstract ideas while only experiencing particulars (e.g., the concept of triangularity when all we experience are things like triangles). In other words, how are we able to understand universals?

Basically, Kant hinges on the claim that our mind does a lot of the work that we often assign to the external world.

Why is this interesting to me? Artificial intelligence, of course. Anything that is about how humans do their thinking, their acting, deciding, and so on, can be useful to know for someone like myself interested in AI.

As a side note, anyone interested in transhumanism might also benefit from understanding of human cognition, if we are to improve it some day. Cool!

Jeff Hawkins and the HTM: he beat me to it!

Fri, 02 Jun 2006 20:37:38 GMT

In this article, Jeff Hawkins, the CTO of Palm Inc., discusses his model of the mammalian neocortex: the Hierarchical Temporal Memory (HTM), developed in his book On Intelligence

The HTM model is along the lines of what I have thought about when it comes to memory algorithmic formation, which could help to describe the dynamics of Quine's "web of belief" and the foundation of concepts in Kant's transcendental theory of cognition.

The difference between ideas I have previously posted about and his HTM is that the HTM is abstract enough that it can describe the formation of not only beliefs, but also concepts (including transcendental conditions for sensibility) and even ethical values and duties (as I previously posted about here).

The fact that so much philosophy and science can be put together to form such a cohesive picture of human cognition exemplifies the potential synergy between these fields.

To read about the details of the HTM, the primary white paper is located here.

Toward an ethical optimization learning algorithm

Mon, 01 May 2006 04:15:33 GMT

Contents

* Introduction to naturalized philosophy
* The components of a complete ethical theory
* Meta-ethical proposal
* Ethical application proposal
* Possible criticisms

Setup: Scientific/"Naturalized" Philosophy
John Rawls mentions that any theory of justice must explain judgments on justice after careful consideration. This is to be contrasted with other meta-ethical theories that focus on naturalism, subjectivism, intuitional realism and so on - all of them "ideal" and simplified definitions for what is good/just/etc.

Quine says that beliefs can be modeled by a "web", with the more central ones having the most connections and the ones we're willing to give up more easily having less connections. This is to be contrasted with foundationalism (of knowledge), which says that there are some immutable foundational axioms that, unlike those in the web, are never reconsidered.

These such modern theories in philosophy I find to be in tune with my way of thinking: away from the ideal and toward the realistic and algorithmic. It is, in a sense, using science to do philosophy.

The Components of a Complete Ethical Theory
Any complete ethical theory, if it is to be usable, must have:

(A) A meta-ethical answer to the question of "what is good"
(B) An applied ethical method to determine, given what is good, what is right in a situation

The method of teaching ethical philosophy in some introductory settings is to focus on the simple divide between consequentialism and deontology, as if they are answering the same questions in philosophy, and they are the only answers that exists in philosophy for these questions.

After further investigation, it is revealed that, perhaps, one of these may have a strength in some area in philosophy, while the other may have a strength in the other. This would do away with a simple labeling of a student of philosophy as "a consequentialist" and "a deontologist."

Proposal for (A)
Clearly, I have already voiced some sense of support for Rawls' method of meta-ethics, but it must be asked: is this sufficient for an application?

It seems to me that it is certainly not, for otherwise any given subject would be stuck in a circular logic of trying to explain "what is good" by referring to what he has already decided to be good. That is just ridiculous.

I will now proceed to break one of the most strict rules of any serious philosophical community: refer the discussion to Utilitarianism.

Now, before the reader gets the urge to just stop reading this entirely, I would like to note that I am referring to Utilitarianism as a meta-ethical theory, not as an ethical theory. It has been pounded into my head enough that Utilitarianism is not practical, since no one can tell the future.

However, it provides an intuitive answer to the meta-ethical question: "what is good?"

Why would Kant not want to live in a world where murder is universalized? Clearly, because there would be more pain and suffering. Therefore, we may deduce that the goal of any ethical system is to have the subject that is applying it to be a positive force in effecting a more positive world: that is, one with less suffering and pain.

Therefore, "what is good" is what would promote this kind of world - which is, of course, a Utilitarian meta-ethics.

The difference between what I would like to propose for (A) and Utilitarian meta-ethics, though, is promoting a type of world versus what is best in a given situation, which, as G. E. Moore pointed out, fails the "open question" test. That is, the defining of "good" as "producing more pleasure" means that "pleasure is good" would just mean "pleasure is pleasure," which is tautological. As a result, what one should do is still an "open question." My version, I hope, will not fail in the same respect, since it does not attempt to define "good" as "producing more pleasure and less pain," but instead uses this idea as a heuristic (which can be overridden under some circumstances; see below).

Proposal for (B)
It is assumed that the subject using this ethical system will indeed not be able to see into the future -- nor will they be able to calculate all possible outcomes of a situation. If we are to uphold a Utilitarian meta-ethic, then the best a given subject can do is a heuristic.

Before I get into that, though, I should mention that deontology, that is, ethical application from general principles, should take precedence over the Utilitarian heuristic in any situation if it happens to apply. For example, if stealing from one person and giving to another will make a lot of people happy, and would promote the type of world the subject would like to live in, then fairness would still dictate the act as unethical in this system.

This is where my introduction to scientific/"naturalized" philosophy will come into play. My proposal for the Utilitarian heuristic is an inductive one, based on my interest in artificial intelligence machine learning techniques.

First, the subject starts out with an arbitrary set of values or general principles and a general idea of what to do in most situations. The subject enters a situation where they need to make an ethical judgment. They do so, using the aforementioned starting-point framework. They are able to gather data in the results of their ethical judgment: say it was successful, Utilitarian speaking, for all or most members involved. This data will be added to their memory.

After the results of many situations of a type, T (say, those involving the judgment whether or not to steal), are collected, a general principle may be induced: stealing is bad.

So, using a Utilitarian meta-ethic, the subject slowly collects values and principles, to fuel a deontology. Any of these principles are of course always up for falsification, if a situation dictates that the subject was, in fact, wrong all along. However, the more cases that say otherwise, the harder this falsification would become.

The longer the subject goes on this way, the easier ethical judgments are to make, since the amount of principles will accumulate and a simple "estimate" or heuristic will no longer be necessary in most cases; they may be a deontologist. Furthermore, as time goes on, the principle storage will more and more accurately reflect the "correct" answer to deontological ethics. It is, after all, an evolutionary learning algorithm.

Possible Criticisms

1. The meta-ethical aspect of your theory does not answer the question of what a person means when they say that something is good

This is correct. My proposal is not one to answer the question of meaning, but to answer the question of use (then again, perhaps Wittgenstein was right: meaning is use). What I am interested in is what would be a good starting place for a person when considering "positive" outcomes of a situation.

Admittedly, this is perhaps the weakest part of my proposal.

2. Even so, Utilitarianism is not sufficient grounds for defining what is good.

I have not heard of a better, and usable, meta-ethical theory. In either case, any meta-ethical theory is compatible with the application algorithm, which is the meat of my proposal, so to speak.

3. The application aspect of your theory is an algorithm. This isn't computer science Bob, this is philosophy! Hell - I bet you could model (B) with a state machine!

This is also correct. Although this approach may rub some philosophers the wrong way, I believe that an algorithm is the most simplistic way to convey a method for ethical application. A simple rule such as "it must be universalizable", or "you must treat people as moral agents" or "just... do the best for everyone" are much simpler, this is true, but they also yield incorrect results. My system does not. It can not (given enough time).

Also: (1) experience -> (2) test outcome -> (3) add result to data, good or bad; go back to #1

:)

4. How is your algorithm any different than what Mill may have originally meant when he proposed Utilitarianism?

I have been advised that this may be the case by a philosophy mentor of mine. He has suggested the reading "New Essays on John Stewart Mill and Utilitarianism" (Cooper, 79). I have not been able to read through this, but my intuition would tell me that he probably was not as thorough as my algorithm is.

5. Prove that your algorithm provides correct answers.

Well... this is not an easy task. I would rather defer the reader, if interested, to research regarding evolutionary learning algorithms. Suffice it to say that, if given enough time (which for a good algorithm, as I believe mine to be, should be only a few trials per situation type T), it produces correct answers to most problems (including those of this inductive type).

6. This seems very complex!

It may seem so, when formalized like this, but this is similar to how people's ethics already work.

Machine learning techniques are derived from human learning scientific findings. Our memory is an evolutionary learning algorithm (using neural nets, specifically). This means that when something is no longer "in the forefront of our mind", it goes away (not permanently); if it is found to be false, we disregard it (cognitive dissonance).

So, really, it is already intuitive for us to do this type of thing.

It goes without saying that this is an idea for artificial intelligence ethics (or perhaps other types of learning, as well).

Evolution

Sun, 23 Apr 2006 18:50:10 GMT

Controlling Evolution
Throughout history, biological evolution has produced many solutions to technical problems of survival. When the lion needed food, it was given teeth, figuratively speaking. When the bird needed to flee preditors, it had wings. When the humanoid needed to do many of these things and did not have any of these features, they had tools to manipulate their environment.

We don't need wings because we can build planes. We don't need teeth because we have guns. And so on.

The tools that most allow us this power of environment manipulation are:

1. Hands, fingers (physical manipulation)
2. Reasoning, memory (cognitive manipulation)
3. Language (cooperation)

We are really the species that controls its own evolution, in this sense. How exciting! The way this evolution occurs is, then, through technology.

Artificial Intelligence
How does AI fit into the grand scheme of evolutions?

How will it help us evolve ourselves? Well... there are nanomachines with intelligent features that could do just about anything in the future while inside our bodies, there are "agent" technologies to do tasks for us to let us focus on other things in our lives, and then there is creating robots to completely replace humans in some areas.

Insofar as this means simulating many human characteristics, this is called "strong AI" - it's what you see in the movies. This is to be constrasted with the form of AI that I'm generally interested in - something like utilitarian/weak/whatever AI - the injecting of intelligence into everyday items to complete tasks that otherwise couldn't have been done, but not creating robots to talk to or anything.

Playing gods is the next step in our evolution, in the sense that we can create things to do tasks for us (not so much in the organism-creating sense). This is AI.

Is that megalomaniacal? Maybe. So sue me.

Object Construction

Sun, 16 Apr 2006 22:19:14 GMT

At philosophy club, where many new ideas are found, Matthew and I discussed, among many other things, object construction.

What I mean by this is how we, as sensing humans, construct objects in our mind to understand the world.

In his philosophy of cognition, Immanuel Kant says that our experience of real-world objects is changed by the categories that we have inside us that we use to interpret them. In this sense, he is suggesting that we have some kind of innate categorization ability. Not only that, but the implication is that, to some extent, we have a framework already in us when we're born to use basic object skeletons in our experience.

A view similar to this is one called universal grammar, was proposed by Noam Chomsky (although the general ideas go back further). He says that all humans are born with an ability to understand language syntax (that is, the structure of human languages). That is why we can learn any human language when we're born and why we can translate among them. Things like similarities among languages (inflections, tenses, etc) are used as evidence for this theory.

What's interesting to me, though, is how these two theories are similar and address, really, the same issue - albeit from a different angle.

How are we able to categorize, abstract/generalize, and recognize patterns so well? Ignoring specific implementation details, such as neural nets, I'd like to suggest that the reason is that we have some kind of innate ability for these things.

Why this is interesting is that computers, generally, are not built with such an ability - and if my (and Kant and Chomsky's) assumption is correct, then we'll never be able to have efficient artificial intelligence without it.

Neural implants

Sun, 16 Apr 2006 06:15:59 GMT

I've been going through The Age of Spiritual Machines (recommended by a friend) lately, and some parts of it have made me think about the Chip.

First of all, Kurzweil says that neural implants are in the not-so-distant future. That is, electrical neurons (that are apparently 1 million times faster than biological neurons). These neurons use AI research knowledge known as neural nets for pattern detection and output, for each neuron, very simple results - but when put together in a extremely parallel network, produce exactly what our brain produces.

Somehow, the book says these neural implants could function in just about the same way as the Chip, but on a nano-scale. That, actually, seems like a lot better of an idea than a big old integrated circuit attached next to the brain: make it the brain itself.

Would these make a microchip in the brain obsolete?

The Chip: Remote login

Sun, 16 Apr 2006 06:14:46 GMT

I was thinking a while back about what would be fun with the Chip: remote login. You could login to another host (i.e., body) and use its resources - input and output devices.

That is, if you have the permissions, you could share the input devices: the five senses, basically. So, you could see things through another person.

Also, if you have permissions, you could use the output devices - that is, send signals to the person's arms and so on. So, with the input and output devices, you could control the person entirely - a la Ghost in the Shell, basically.

Of course, like computers nowadays, you would have to have security - both permissions and encryption on the login (e.g., ssh).

The Chip: Intrusion

Sun, 16 Apr 2006 06:14:16 GMT

Since this has been brought to my attention, I would like to make a post to discuss the issue of intrusion.

Who wants an operation to put something near their spinal cord? or their optic nerve? the operation for the cpu seems like the least of our worries, given that it's not in such a deep location in the brian as these other components. If it's not, though, then it must communicate with them through the brain - and if communication is wireless, that raises some radiation concerns.

Regardless, the issue I want to address here is primarily intrusion (although the others are important, too). What can we do about this?

I was talking to Jessica and she said that security was our primary concern, since body hacking is a problem. However, I noted that although that may be true, intrusion is chronologically more immediate, since the Chip could never be launched without it being solved - whereas security is an issue once it's launched.

On "the Chip" and Human Potential

Sun, 16 Apr 2006 06:11:29 GMT

Every decade, every year, and, in fact, every single day, what it means to be human is constantly redefined. Then, with the advent of the microprocessor and consequently the personal computer (PC), this redefining process took a sudden leap forward. The possibilities seemed endless once most people became acquainted with the Internet. For those who thought this, let me introduce something completely new and revolutionary to this assumption - the Chip. One might ask, what is 'the Chip'? The Chip is, as the name implies, a microchip; this microchip, however, is implanted in the head of a human being symbiotically with the brain and functions to read the thoughts of the human and perform operations based thereon. Science fiction one will immediately assume, and rightly so. However, it will soon be clear that this will not only be possible in the near future, but that much of the needed technology already exists. With the Chip, the changes in human life are without end and extremely exciting - we even have the technology to execute much of the features of the Chip right now - and for what we cannot do right now, we will be able to do in the future. Sure, there is always opposition to some kinds of new science and technology, but the step to taking on the Chip is inevitable as the benefits are just too numerous.

A new meaning for limitless possibilities, in both computing and human existence overall, is in clear sight when the Chip is considered in the near future. Aside from giving the human complete control over their body, which could be very beneficial for paralyzed people, the most important feature of the Chip is the fact that humans would be able to network with both each other and completely computerized devices. The importance of this may not be immediately obvious. Consider this: being able to connect directly to, say, your entertainment system. One could either upload information, such as acting like a remote control, or one could download information, to store songs in their body's information storage device (discussed later). This also means that humans could quite easily share information with each other. In fact, if this is taken to the limit, this means that humans could conceivably be hooked up to the Internet themselves! Therefore, anyone could instantly download any information that they happen to need, whether it be news or an article on how to fix an engine. Simply enough, anything that can presently be done via the Internet could be done without a personal computer. To list some more, this would include, but is not limited to, human-to-human file sharing, speech-less human communication and idea sharing, a public well-informed of the current news - in short, a definitive unity of the human race.

These very exciting advancements in technology are not only possible, they exist in the current market - many of them in large popularity. Let's start out with the obvious conjecture: an implant in the human head used to take and execute commands from the brain. In November 2000, a professor from Duke University, Miguel Nicolelis, was able to get an owl monkey to control a robot arm using only its brain waves.¹ Although this landmark was largely interpreted for meaning much for paralyzed people being able to control their limbs they long ago lost the control over (as aforementioned also a feature of the Chip), it means much more than this. It means that humans could possibly use their minds not only to control movement of things, but to control any kind of process - just like a computer. In this experiment, the monkey had wires coming out its head and going to the robot arm. However, as any cell phone or notebook computer user knows, any technology that transfers information via wires can be switched to wireless technology, such as existing standards of WiFi, BlueTooth, or infrared. These standards work wonderfully for simple networking, but what about Internet access? Well, currently working on this problem are companies such as Ricochet² are making wireless Internet universally available no matter where someone wants to use it. The underlying technology that would make any of this possible, though, is most likely the least well-known: embedded, real-time operating systems. A real-time operating system (OS), such as TRON³ or embedded Linux⁴, which runs on devices such as CD/mp3 players, entertainment systems, watches, PDA's, or any other electronic device that could utilize a microprocessor, is defined as an ability of the OS "to provide a required level of service in a bounded response time."⁵ This is because certainly no one wants, for example, their CD player to crash or lag. With a real-time OS, the human brain could certainly act just like a computer and thus make even more features of the Chip possible.

Some abilities of the Chip lay in the future, in addition to those presently possible. The first of these is the operation of the Chip by the human. The example of the monkey moving the robot arm only proved that simple changes in neurology could be traced as of yet, not that a person could control an entire CPU with their conscious thought. However, as neuro-biological technology (neuroinformatics⁶, understanding how the brain works) increases, more and more, complex thoughts will be able to be detected - and be used to act as user control of a computer. Again, though, this technology is not currently available, in spite of claims of some media outlets that NASA was planning on developing mind-reading capability (rejected by NASA⁷). Until complex thoughts are able to be detected, an exterior control unit (such as a companion computer) would most likely suffice. Much of the functionality of the Chip also depends on data storage for the human, and as we cannot yet store information to the brains with technology, there would have to be an additional data storage device connected to the Chip (wirelessly or with a wire). Furthermore, the Chip would be greatly more effective if it could take advantage of advanced nanotechnology. Taking command from the Chip, nanomachines could kill cancer cells, aid the body's immune system, regulate/monitor body processes, among countless other things⁸. This kind of nanotechnology is also not science fiction - research on nanotechnology is going on, on a large scale, by governments and individuals alike - so this is in the future, but not the distant future.

There are numerous and some very important social issues that arise because of the Chip, many of which would likely make it some enemies. First of all, if humans can act like computers on the Internet, then that means humans could remotely connect to each other. Although this sounds really exciting for having ones own personal web site for their body, it also means that brain "hacking" is possible (fans of Ghost in the Shell⁹ will recognize this). This simply means that the OS that a human has running will have to be very secure, as well as their software. One would not want any other person "getting root" on them, presumably. A simple solution to this: run a stable OS (not Windows!). Next, if humans can file share, how will the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) or Record Industry Association of America (RIAA) control file swapping? The answer: they will not be able to. Large corporations will have to learn that with the new developments in technology comes changes in society and that artists can make revenue other ways than record companies over-pricing their albums and trying to disallow sharing.¹⁰ The largest opposition against the Chip is likely to come from religious organizations (mostly the fundamentalist ones) because the Chip would, like any technology does, change what it means to be human and improve our potential. There are those that would say this is immoral because we do not have a "right" to do this, only their god does. One can easily deduce, however, that this is just like saying that research on cloning human cells (without the intent to clone entire humans) is immoral, even though it could very possibly work miracles in medical science. This kind of belief then, most likely, will be eliminated in culture sooner or later, as traditionalism makes way for new technology and new out looks on life in general. On the contrasting side, there are also good social effects of the Chip, both of which have been partially mentioned already. Firstly, public information awareness would drastically affect society. One can hardly imagine a democratic society in which the public is actually well-informed! This applies not only to general intelligent information, but also different perspectives and even news. Thus, people will cease to have an excuse for ignorance - it will be too easy to be informed with the Chip. The second effect is that on the human race overall. If we are all united via the Internet and, indirectly, by thought, what does this mean for us as a group? It means we have something we can relate to each other with, it means we can more easily solve the problems that arise from differences, and it means that we can experience things from others' perspectives and gain understanding.

With the new technology deemed "the Chip," a new face will be given to the human race - that of new possibilities, new mediums for gaining knowledge, and a new definition of what it means to be part of this race. Considering all of the features and the existing technologies, as previously discussed, the Chip is a very possible and very plausible solution to many of our race's current problems, and, in spite of the projected opposition to such a technology, it is very likely the direction science will be headed. Get ready for instantaneous information download, upload, and sharing; get ready for the Chip.

- Bob Stark
- December, 2003

Endnotes

Weiss, Rick. "Monkeys’ brains move robotic arms." MSNBC: http://www.msnbc.com/news/979596.asp.
Ricochet Networks: http://www.ricochet.com.
TRON: The Real-time Operating system Nucleus. It is one of the first real-time operating systems (started in June 1984: http://tronweb.super-nova.co.jp/projecthistory.html) that ran on Japanese electronic devices and is still widely used. It's current form is the "T-Engine" - http://www.t-engine.org.
Some examples of embedded Linux devices: http://www.linuxdevices.com.
Van Beneden, B. Comp.realtime Frequently Asked Questions 3.6. http://www.faqs.org/faqs/realtime-computing/faq
Neuroinformatics: The human brain project. http://www.nimh.nih.gov/neuroinformatics/index.cfm.
Braukus, Michael. NASA rejects claims it plans mind reading capability. ftp://ftp.hq.nasa.gov/pub/pao/pressrel/2002/02-160.txt.
Hart, David. NSF Fact Sheet: Nanotechnology. http://www.nsf.gov/od/lpa/news/03/fsnano_03.htm.
Manga: Ghost in the Shell (anime movie). http://www.manga.com/ghost/ghost.html
EFF "Intellectual Property - Peer-to-Peer (P2P) File Sharing" Archive. http://www.eff.org/IP/P2P

Democratic meritocracy

Sun, 16 Apr 2006 06:09:45 GMT

We talked about Plato's Republic in intro to philosophy. I listened to the basic ideas and all, but what I mostly did was think. I do that sometimes.

The debate in the class was, basically, what's better? Democracy or Plato's rule by philosophers?

I thought... why not both?

Let's say we take our current system (or, better yet, a European system, but the differences are unimportant) and then introduce some standards. Specifically, some degree requirements for the positions.

How about we say all civil servants have to have at least a masters in something. Then, candidates must have a phd - with a thesis in an idea on how to make the government better.

So, when we vote for candidates, we'll be voting from a pool of phds.

It'll be sweet. Just think. Civil servants/interns can get their masters and then work on their phd while they're interning for an existing candidate - much like how it works today (but with the degree requirements added in, of course).

Once someone is elected into office, their decisions must be logically proven and then reviewed by a board of "senior" phds, which will also be elected from the phd pool.

The legislature could debate over the validity or soundness of arguments instead of pork barrels, interests, or any other bullshit.

Maybe some will think this would be terribly inefficient. I don't see a problem, though. Testing the validity of an argument is a rather quick process for a philosopher (especially if it's in symbolic notation!) and the time that would be saved over bullshitting would be well worth it.

Intuition?

Sun, 16 Apr 2006 06:09:10 GMT

There are some people who would prefer to shrug off logic as some elitist method used to make others feel stupid. These people would prefer to use their feelings to verify the truth of something.

What is important to note, though, is that emotion - or, philosophically speaking, intuition - has its place in the thinking that we're doing here, modeling. Let's be truthful: when we come up with an idea, the idea just comes into our heads sometimes. We don't know why, but some connection was made such that we thought of this new idea.

The ideal of always having our brains use logic to come up with new ideas is not necessarily just unrealistic, it's probably dangerous, since creativity could be easily abolished if that was the case.

So, we can assume that intuition is necessary for the creation of new concepts and models. What about verification of them? Classically, logic is the tool used for verification of models - the consistency of the model being the chief property that is tested. Another popular method of verifying a model is how well its application works, given a set of instances of this being done. This is basically "experimenting" with the model and thus uses the logic of induction.

That's all and good, but what about models that cannot be experimented on (but are nonetheless internally consistent - i.e. have no self-contradictions)? A good example of this kind of model is a theory of consequentialist ethics. Since this kind of ethical system is, actually, impossible to implement (since no one is psychic), the only way to verify its "correctness" is intuition!

That is, consequentialism, at first glance, seems like a good idea. That's intuition talking.

The question, then, is whether or not intuition is a valid method for verification of models. I suggest that it is not, since any model or theory that requires it for verification is probably flawed (such as in the case of consequentialism).

The singularity

Sun, 16 Apr 2006 06:05:11 GMT

In The Age of Spiritual Machines, author Ray Kurzweil argues that at some point in the near future (a decade or two from now, more or less, at his guess), technological advance will increase to a point at which humanity will create intelligence surpassing himself and, since it's a "singularity", events will cease to be predictable in the ways they are today (an idea originally put forth by mathematician Vernor Vinge).

What will this mean for, say, physics? Well, if technology continues to advance at an exponential rate, then why is it absurd to suggest that mankind will affect larger bodies in the solar system as astrophysics is thought to? Could we build solar systems in the future?

Our effect on biology is already rather clear - technological evolution is an extension of biological, as far as we can tell.

What other areas will the "singularity" cause to cease to be predictable in classical senses?

Context

Sun, 16 Apr 2006 06:02:51 GMT

The very thing that defines human reasoning as opposed to anything that is easy to program is context

Context is defined by three things.

1. An environment - specifically, interacting to stimuli in the environment and having it change how you reason
2. Identity - an idea of who you are (something a computer generally doesn't know - instead, they often have "purpose")
3. Communication - in other words, other agents that you can talk to (which is like environment, but more specific)

Context in intelligence is essential for any model of human intelligence as well as any artificial intelligence approach that hopes to be successful - at least in a full/strong AI sense (more than amazon knowing what kinds of things you like).

Framework of artificial intelligence

Sun, 16 Apr 2006 06:02:21 GMT

If we are to model human intelligence or reasoning in a computer, we'd want to cover the two basic areas: memory and reasoning.

What this amounts to is that an intelligent machine must:

1. Be able to both learn and use knowledge ("memory")
2. Be able to reason with logic with or witout memory ("reasoning")

But wait, there's more:

3. Be able to connect on an emotional or social level

This last one is only for "robots" that we wish to model humans as a whole - not for AI applications that are utilitarian (e.g., using AI for database knowledge discovery).

So 1 and 2 are the essential aspects of AI - and, lo and behold, that is what research in AI is focusing on: machine learning (1), and reasoning (with uncertainy, causal reasoning, etc) (2).

The foundation of human reason

Sun, 16 Apr 2006 06:01:33 GMT

I've recently been thinking about the evolution of humans and the development of our ability to reason.

Ryan and I have talked about this in the past, and, to his credit, thought of the evolution of the uses for the frontal lobe (and the cerebrum in general). The other day, in philosophy club, a fellow named Matthew and myself discussed this issue further and came to a few conclusions.

The development of memory and reasoning

What evolutionary purpose did memory serve originally? We speculated that memory allowed primitive man access to his past - at will, even. This was a huge progression from the animal brains that could only be conditioned and had very simple past-data, such as basic recognition.

Now, it is important to note that the development of memory had to precede the development of the ability to reason. This is because reason cannot function without having data to refer to in the first place.

Basically, reason affords us the power to predict the future. We can use deduction and induction (and abduction: reasoning to the best explanation) due to the very fact that we can both.

1. Remember past events
2. Discover patterns and regularities

We use the knowledge of the sun always coming up to inductively conclude that it will, in fact, come up tomorrow. We use our knowledge of taxonomy to deduce that whales and kittens are both mammals. We utilize our memory to conclude what is most likely the cause of some event.

The basic idea is, to reiterate, that memory came first, then the ability to reason.

Why did these even develop at all, though?

The evolutionary benefit of reasoning

The purpose for these developments is, naturally, hunting!

The power to remember what the elk did last time you were hunting it, coupled with the ability to assume this knowledge will apply in future cases, afforded primitive man a HUGE advantage over his prey.

The rest is history.

The application of primitive reasoning for modern humans

What do we use memory and reasoning for these days? Science, engineering, philosophy, art, etc.

Is it just a coincidence that our hunting advantage now applies to much more abstract ideas and concepts?

I think not. Perhaps our ability to predict the weather, solve differential equations and program in Java are nothing more than a figurative "hunt."

Does this mean that there must be some kind of "prey" that we're after? Or is it just that we would gain pride and superiority from a successful hunt and, therefore, we now try to get these same things from our daily "modern" hunting?