The Computational Universe

…..was the reaction I received when I was debating the subject of this blog with Lily Cowles. You can label it a reactionary formation to my liberal arts upbringing, or perhaps a consequence of some religious one, but there is something innate in me that will refuse to agree completely with Brooks. Emotion and creativity are the foundations of my argument.

Don’t get me wrong, I completely believe in the possibility of AI. However, the “artificial” part is what, I suppose, separates me from the ones in the “know.” After our class, Searle’s conclusions were much more evident to me. I originally picked statement number four for his main thesis, but now it is obvious that it is number two. He believes that computers can pass the Turing test but that it is not a valid one to see if a computer can think. I believe that one day all computers will eventually be able to pass the Turing Test but that it does not really reflect anything about consciousness and thinking at all. Thinking, to Searle, is not the mere manipulation of symbols that he describes in the “Chinese room” example. He talks about the importance of the meaning and emphasis that we place on things. But why is Brooks referring to Searle as confused?

Searle and Brooks obviously disagree on the value placed on humanity. Searle ascribes so much more meaning to synapse, neurons, and other impossible to duplicate processes of which Brooks completely disregards. Brooks sees the body as a machine that follows a set of standardized rules and procedure. Agreed. But I believe that there is something in our combination of rules and procedure that allows us at times to go against those same laws (self-preservation vs. suicide).

Brooks also attests to Searle a subconscious fear of alluding to computers as conscious. Searle concludes that “the way that human brains actually produce mental phenomena cannot be solely by virtue of running a computer program” (29). In conclusion, I guess I would never completely cancel out the possibility of creating a “human-like” computer with our technology in the future but at the same time, it will never be an emotive human-being.

About an hour before the lecture I decided to read up on the presentation and about Sir Tim Burners Lee. I was surprised I had never heard of him before this class. Not only is he referred to as the inventor of the World Wide Web but he is also the president of the World Wide Web Consortium, which is in charge of overseeing the “continued development of the web”.

My first reaction was disbelief. How can anyone invent that? Today, that would be like inventing “books” or “language”. After the lecture, and some quick research, I learned that the web is really a sub-network within the huge network of cables and computers called the Internet.

After taking my seat in the packed auditorium, TBL (as he is referred to as online) began to speak about the history of the Web and where he sees it going in the future. Though, like many others have already mentioned, most of the information was out of my league of comprehension, I still had an inspiring time at the lecture. I understood around half of the material but left wanting to understand it all.

The biggest concept that I took with me from the lecture was the responsibility of web users. I was surprised at how much the web was left up to the kindness of strangers and how much I took the stockpile of available information for granted before. TBL placed enormous emphasis on the social costs of the Internet as a public forum and how one post could be turned into something completely different by another user. He also expanded upon syntax, URIs, and (the obviously obscure) semantic web. In the end, I was happy I was able to experience such enlightening comments from a piece of history.

For the past several weeks, the class has been centered around the exploration of computer language through a small blue robot called a scribbler. It seemed like a toy at first. The box even reads “For Ages 8 and Up!” But the lesson behind this “toy” has led to a plethora of technological knowledge of which we have just begun to scratch the surface.

The field in which we HAVE delved somewhat into however, is computer language. The scribbler no longer needs a petty toy name. To me, it has now become an instrument for learning. In our reading of Dr. Brooks’ Flesh and Machines, the most scintillating moment for me occurred during the conception of ant evolution. The author witnessed an ant and couldn’t figure out why something a fraction of the size of a robot could perform tasks that would take warehouses of information to process. The answer came soon enough.

Evolution was it. By starting with small steps and leading up to more complex ones, the robots of today are more able to simulate life. In lab, we began by seeing the robot performing a series of pre-established programs. In the second lab, it was our turn to do the programming. And this “theory of evolution” helped me greatly. I was able to think like Brooks in the context of “smaller is better.” By assuming that the robot knows nothing, can’t react, and follows instruction to the last word, this lab was like teaching a baby to run before it could walk. In spite of all this, I was able to learn a vast amount about computers in general. Not so much on the logistics of complex programming, but rather more on the basis of why it is necessary. Before the scribbler, I couldn’t understand why robots just couldn’t take over and kill us all. Now I do.

But besides the sci-fi thriller of the week motif, the Scribbler has installed within me a more complex understanding of programming. I realize now that I can’t tie weapons onto the scribbler and have it battle. There’s no simple programming for that. Even having it clean my room would not be a simple task. Everything I have taken for granted before is really just a series of algorithms and programs that someone has created. Just making a square with the robot took a long time! To sum it up, I have learned to teach (in pseudocode). “Do this,” “Don’t do that,” “only if this,” “but if not then that,” are now part of a different vocabulary.

So I thought I knew about computer science until I started this course. It opened up a whole new science that I wasn’t aware of before. I thought robotics was just some nerdy science-fiction movie. Apparently not so. Oddly enough, the closest thing to blogging I have encountered is Facebook. And it’s quite addicting, but you all knew that (I’m also addicted to my iPod and iBook G4). Anyway, I hope this class will bring me up to date with the tremendous progress that computers have made in recent years.

As an introduction, I was born in Rome and went to English school until I was twelve years old. After that, I attended junior high and high school in New York. My immediate family is spread all over the world including my father and my sister in Rome, my mother in New York, one set of grandparents in Cannes, the other in London, an aunt in Sao Paolo, an aunt in Washington D.C., and an uncle in Paris.

I am currently a freshman here and am planning to major in Economics like my Father and Grandfather. As for certificates, I am not quite sure, perhaps one in a language (French and Italian/Chinese), Math, or Finance. After college, I plan to work in either New York or London in investments. Princeton has been amazing so far. I’m busy every minute of the day with academic and social requirements. So in conclusion, I hope to become fluent not only in a language at Princeton, but at computing as well. If everything goes well in this course, I plan to take COS 126 next semester… See you all on Tuesday.

Update 2:30pm on 2/11/06: i changed the post so as to include the computer I use.