The Computational Universe

Having read Brooks’ argument that humans are, technically speaking, the product of many simple machines working simultaneously as a “big bag of skin full of biomolecules interacting according to describable and knowable rules”, I have become more skeptical of Searle’s argument.  At first I sided with Searle, agreeing with him that even if a computer were able to pass the Turing Test, which essentially measures the computer’s ability to trick a human into believing that it is a human, the computer still cannot be considered “conscious” because it is merely passing the test by mimicking humans.  But the more I think about Brooks’ claims, the more I can side with Brooks’ notion that it is possible to create machines that imitate humans so well that there would be no way of telling the difference between the automaton and human unless you were told that behind the facial expressions and movements lie circuits and wires. 

I find Brooks’ argument towards the end of his book fascinating because he speculates on the reasons why we are reluctant to admit that animals – and therefore machines – are capable of exercising the same level of consciousness that we are.  Brooks assumes that if we continue advancing our robot technology, we will ultimately succeed in creating AI.  To me, though, the true debate is whether or not Artificial Intelligence should really be labeled as “intelligence”.  Searle’s contends that a machine will never really become “intelligent” because the man in the room never truly understands Chinese – he merely follows a set of rules that makes it appear as though he understands Chinese to the people outside of the room.  Brooks makes an important refutation that this statement is ridiculous because each individual neuron inside someone who speaks fluent English does not even understand English. 

Thus, we consider humans intelligent because they are able to produce thoughts as a result of a series of chemical reactions in the brain.  Brooks uses this statement to reason that we should also be able to create a machine whose output feigns intelligence similar to that of a human.  I concur with Brooks on this, however, I have trouble seeing how Chalmers, Penrose, and Searle were so outrageous in asserting that machines lack certain, indefinable “new stuff” that distinguish humans from other species.  Just because science has yet to dub this “new stuff” with a scientific term does not mean that it is complete ludicrous. 

Despite his major contribution to modern society and his role in influencing our current lifestyles, Sir Tim Berners-Lee does not assume any royalties for having ‘invented’ the World Wide Web.  I found this to be surprising and very respectable considering how the Web has shaped our world today.  One of the most striking themes discussed during his lecture was his emphasis on ‘citizen responsibility’ when using the World Wide Web and how sites like Wikipedia, an information resource, functions based on mutual trust between editors and contributors.  I realized the importance of regulating and establishing a code of conduct for all Web users when I think about how much I take the reliability of the information on the Web for granted. 

Although I found the lecture to be fascinating, I was unable to follow the majority of the talk because I was unfamiliar with much of the computer jargon that he used.  This was clarified by Professor Arora in class when he explained that Sir Tim Berners-Lee had never had any experience as a professor and therefore found it difficult to explain such difficult and abstract concepts.  He took for granted that we all understood the meaning of a Semantic Web, and much of his lecture was based on this assumption.  Overall, though, I’m glad I went to his lecture and it was interesting to hear what current computer scientists have in store for the future of the World Wide Web.     

     Upon been introduced to the Turing-Post program, I was impressed by both its simplicity (because it is made up of an erasable, infinite tape and only consists of the two settings “0” and “1”) and its ability to technically run any other program in existence.  Basically all other computer programs and languages can be simplified into a Turing-Post program.  Not only does the Turing-Post program astound me, but the creation of the program and the man, Alan Turing, who came up with the idea, impresses me even more.  Who would have thought that such a program consisting of a mere six simple steps would be able to provide the foundation for the computers and machines that we rely heavily on today?

     It is hard to imagine what the world would be like without the modern computer and other Turing machines, and it is mind-boggling to think that something so simple can do so much.  We soon learned, though, that the Turing-Post machine, despite its potentially endless capabilities, does have its limitations.  Firstly, it is unable to function as a human can function.  Reducing all tasks to the simplicity of the Turing-Post program would be foolish and unrealistic.  Humans are able to think flexibly unlike any Turing machine.  There is also the halting issue, in which we are unable to tell, based on the initial inputted data in the Turing-Post program, whether or not the program will ever halt.  This just goes to show that everything in our world cannot be translated into a program and predicted, and that we should be skeptical of theories that attempt to predict everything in our universe, such as the Theory of Everything.  

Before I began using the Scribbler for the first lab, I assumed it would be straightforward and easy enough to download programs into the robot and that it would act according to the inputted tasks.  What I had overlooked, however, was the Scribbler’s unreliability and unpredictability in how it would interpret these tasks.  After having used trial and error to write a program that would make the Scribbler draw a near-perfect square, I threw away the piece of paper on which I had been testing out my program, deciding to save the program and re-download it into the robot at the end.  I planned to run the perfected programs on a fresh sheet of paper so the result would be the three flawless shapes we were meant to turn in with the lab report.  When I began to do this, however, the program that had previously succeeded in making the Scribbler draw a near-perfect square resulted in the Scribbler drawing an extremely skewed square.  I re-calibrated my Scribbler’s wheels and still the same program did not yield the same results. 

Moreover, I noticed that a program which yielded a certain result on my Scribbler usually would not yield the same results on a different robot.  The same program that made Fran’s Scribbler draw a perfect star, when downloaded onto my Scribbler, resulted in a shape that looked nothing like a star.  Despite the Scribbler’s ability to emit sounds, detect objects and huge lines, and sketch shapes, its features, particularly its wheels, must be kept constant in order for it to be more dependable, useful, and effective in carrying out tasks. 

Apart from the Scribbler, many recently developed robots have useful features but are lacking in effectiveness because of certain deficiencies.  Rodney A. Brooks mentions in his book Flesh and Machines that his lawn mower robot has issues with battery life and navigation.  Today solutions to these issues are being researched and increasingly promising findings, such as remote presence, have come up. 

Remote presence allows the robot’s operator to project himself into a commercially available robot and control a robot anywhere in the world.  This would solve Brooks’ lawn mower robot’s navigation issues because it could be navigated by someone else from a different location.  Remote presence opens up many possibilities in the world of robotics, particularly in solving the more serious and immediate concern of labor shortage.

Basically I’m in this class because I’m technologically impaired and would love to learn how to get my laptop and ipod to cooperate with me.  I also have no background knowledge in computer science and would like to learn about the basics and the underlying logic behind computer programming.  I initially just needed an ST credit but the course blurb seemed interesting and I’m looking forward to having my own robot.

This is my first year living in the U.S.  My dad is Swedish and my mom is Thai, and I was born in Bangkok, where I lived until I was 8.  My family then moved to Tokyo and I have lived there for the past 10 years, attending the American School in Japan.  I consider both Bangkok and Tokyo to be my home, from Shibuya station and eccentric Harajuku to the exotic nightlife of Silom.  I love it here at Princeton but greatly miss, as Ishna mentioned earlier, the spicy food, tuk-tuks, and tropical weather of Bangkok, as well as the karaoke bars and nightlife in Tokyo.

My main interests are traveling and learning about different cultures.  I love backpacking with friends and learning new languages.  Currently, I am taking Chinese and hope to study in Beijing this summer.  I’m positive I would like to study abroad at some point, most likely in Paris, but am still not sure.  I am still undecided about my major but have considered Economics and East Asian Studies.             Š

Update 7:30 pm 2/11/06: I use my Dell laptop most often.