Fluid Mechanics

John Searle's Chinese Room argument has been criticised as an "absurd thought experiment that panders to false intuitions, and has done nothing but sidetrack philosophers for decades".

He asserted that computers may very well be able to emulate human thought in such a way that people will not be able to distinguish the two; but they will never be anything more than a counterfeit in this respect as it is beyond the talents of a human creator to invest a machine with semantic intelligence.

Over the last couple of days, the blogosphere has been buzzing with tales of 'wet computing', whereby researchers will aim to develop "information processing technology inspired by chemical processes in living systems".

On the face of it, this is really exciting news. It conjures up images of complex fluid neorological interplay and massive machine speed and efficiency working in perfect harmony.

Dr Maurits de Planque, a biochemist and spokesman for the project had said "Our system will copy some key features of neuronal pathways in the brain and will be capable of excitation, self-repair and self-assembly."

So far a very tantalising proposition. But it still doesn't give us any scope to belive that machine intelligence will transcend the Chinese Room... yet. In fact it seems to echo some of the oldest science fiction, namely Frankenstein, where a human's attempts to create life end up flawed... producing only a sum of many parts, composite as opposed to complete.

There may of course be problems associated with trying to build a new and improved model when the spec is based on an imperfect and very breakable, albeit wonderfully elaborate, source design.

It's likely that we will see this story repeat itself in different forms over the next years as we enter the age of replication, where syntax doggedly gains on semantics but does not yet have the capacity to make the next leap forward. There may indeed be many convincing replications in the near future and you may find yourself quick to declare that we are at the tipping point. Given our present position though, it might be wiser to accept this stage as intemediary... but very possibly antecedent to the escape from the Chinese Room.

Digital Evolution

In the future, the success of life within a programmed reality will rely on coherent and flexible streams of code duplicating and mutating in much the same way that our DNA does now. Whether the mechanics of these mutations are driven by our own consciousness or by the will of machines that we will have given prior instruction remains to be seen...





The evolution of our genetic code depends on a series of motivating factors that guide each new mutation, steering the development of our bodies to ensure that they are best suited to our physical environment at any given time. An example of this is the theory that ice age conditions prompted Homo sapiens to develop the guts needed to digest meat because plant life was so scarce.

The challenges presented by our environment (adverse weather, difficult terrain, scarcity of food) have governed the process by which evolution has found its solutions. Living with cold temperatures and rain in some climates has forced us to develop the skills needed to identify or construct suitable shelter. So we have the mouse (evolution) and we have the maze (physical environment). But the mouse won’t even attempt to try and run through the arduous process of trial and error needed to solve the maze unless there’s cheese at the end of it. The cheese is the motivation.

The need to eat, the need to find shelter and the cohesion of a group or herd might be motivating factors that have shaped our evolution over the course of several millennia but they themselves are only in place to facilitate the possibility of reproduction. Evolution in living things is absolutely and entirely powered by reproduction. In this reality, reproduction is the Ultimate Motivating Factor (UMF).

So, how does this apply to the programmed reality? Surely we will have broken through the constraints of sex for procreation, family and herd behaviour that have governed the progress of life up to this point. If reproduction is the UMF behind the replication and mutation of DNA against the backdrop of challenges presented by physical environment, resulting in the beauty and horror of life in its present form, then what’s the equivalent that will apply to our steps beyond transcendence?

When the digital environment becomes conscious, it is going to need a reason to develop, to mutate. Call it God or Mother Nature or Gaia or whatever, but there is a programmer behind our progress. Who’s to say it’s not us in a higher form engineering realities through which we can experience subjective existence? Who’s to say this reality, the ‘Sex Programme’ if you will, isn’t one of many occurring simultaneously across inter-dimensional lines; each driven by different UMF’s?

The point is that if we are to truly step through into the age of intelligent technology and become the programmers, become Gods, then we are going to need to take responsibility for our programming and make sure that we are all clear on what we’re going to say when the machine asks ‘What’s my motivation?’

Back To Basics On AI

From the BBC:

The Massachusetts Institute of Technology has begun a project to re-think artificial intelligence research. The Mind Machine Project will return to the basics of AI research to re-examine what lies behind human intelligence....

The ultimate aim for the five-year project is not to produce an artificial human but to create a physical system that is smart enough to read a child's story book, understand the context surrounding that narrative and explain what happened. This could lead, said MIT, to the creation of a "brain co-processor" initially intended for those with Alzheimer's to give them a better quality of life. Such mental prostheses could also be used by anyone needing help to co-ordinate their lives.

Link