The Computational Universe

After reading Searle’s article, I began to reconsider the feasibility of artificial intelligence.  With his Chinese room example, he made concrete the difference between an understanding human and a thoughtless machine.  What he repeatedly emphasized was that a computer could manipulate symbols to the point where it was indistinguishable from a human, but could attach no meaning to those symbols.  He reiterated that “manipulating the symbols is not by itself enough to guarantee cognition, perception, understanding, thinking, and so forth” (26).  Manipulation and simulation do not have real consequences, as suggested in this example Searle gives: “you could not run your car by doing a computer simulation, and you could not digest pizza by running the program that simulates such digestion” (29).  Similarly, the simulation of cognition will not produce the effects of the neurobiology of cognition.  Most of Searle’s points seemed to convince me that the goal of AI is unrealistic.

However, upon reading Brooks’ argument in Flesh and Machines, I came to question Searle’s objection to artificial intelligence and began to feel that AI is possible, at least to some extent.  In Brooks’ chapter, “We Are Not Special,” he suggests that the human body is a machine: “the body consists of components that interact according to well-defined (though not all known to us humans) rules that ultimately derive from physics and chemistry” (173).  Most humans bristle at the word “machine,” because of their desire to be “special” and to differentiate themselves from mere robots.  Brooks’ concludes that we all “overanthropomorphize humans, who are after all mere machines” (175).

Because humans (who are themselves machines) possess emotions and consciousness, other machines should also be able to have such characteristics.  To prove his point, Brooks dismantles Searle’s Chinese room argument.  According to Brooks, it is absurd that Searle should conclude that machines cannot think merely because Searle himself cannot understand Chinese.  Searle fails to realize that he is a component of a larger system, and that he alone does not need to understand Chinese for the whole system to understand Chinese.  As a result, Searle’s argument against AI does not hold, in Brooks’ mind.

Brooks suggests that the basis for Searle’s argument along with those of others is the desire to preserve the specialness of the human being.  Brooks suggests that if human beings accept that robots have a consciousness, these robots can no longer serve human beings as “slaves” and must rather be taken care of.  Such points are interesting, but do not seem to be central to all arguments against AI.  I have taken a position between that of Searle and Brooks, believing that AI is possible to a limited extent.

I found Tim Berners Lee’s lecture both interesting and thought-provoking, even though some the terminology and concepts discussed were over my head.  I was impressed by him even before he spoke.  As Professor Arora made known in his introduction, Tim Berners Lee simply gave his invention of the Web as a gift to humanity, without seeking any sort of monetary profit.  I was particularly interested by his personal view of the web.  He considered that the “value-added” of the web was its “serendipitous use.”  He described using the web as a “discovery:” once one puts data on the web, it will be used in unexpected ways.

I was also intrigued by Tim Berners Lee’s vision of connecting all the systems of one’s life through the Internet.  Certain components of the Internet, such as the World Wide Web and e-mail, are integral parts of my life, without which I would have difficulty accomplishing a variety of daily tasks.  Even though I realized the Internet was so important, I had never thought that Internet could incorporate other physical, non-technical aspects of my life.  Reading W. Wayt Gibbs article, “Bringing the Net to the Bedroom: Even an Amateur Can Create a Custom-Designed Internet Appliance,” made me think of Tim Berners Lee’s revolutionary idea.  In this article, the author creates an appliance to connect his blinds to the Internet.  Gibbs links a physical object with the Internet to create a device that allows him to wake up to sunlight, instead of a blaring alarm clock.  This article as well as Tim Berners Lee’s lecture made me realize the increasing importance that the Internet will have in my life.

I was amazed by the extensive applicability of the seemingly simple axioms of Boolean logic.  I was surprised to find that the Boolean AND, OR, and NOT gates described in the readings and discussed in lecture could be used to compute every Boolean function.  It was even more astonishing to discover that a single type of Boolean gate, the NAND gate presented in the homework, could be used to build all Boolean circuits!  Such Boolean circuits seemed to reduce complex operations to mere fundamentals.

What I found especially interesting was how the functions of modern computers could be represented with simple Boolean gates.  For example, an AND gate could be used to determine if an output voltage was high, which would occur only if both input voltages were high.   An OR gate could determine if an output voltage was high if either input voltages were high.  A NOT gate could be used to determine if an output voltage was high, which would only happen if the input voltage was low.  I was also surprised to find that common arithmetic operations, such as addition, could be modeled using Boolean gates.  This fact is impressive, especially since addition circuits are found “in every computer, workstation, and hand-held calculator in the marketplace” (Schneider and Gersting 158).  These addition circuits are also found in unobvious devices, such as “thermostats, clocks, and microwave ovens” (Schneider and Gersting 158).

Although I recognize the numberless applications of Boolean circuits and Boolean logic, I am hesitant to employ such reasoning to prove certain statements.  I was particularly uneasy about completely accepting Samuel Clarke’s Proof of the Existence of God as fact.  Even though it made logical sense, I felt the proof of such a grand statement could not be reduced to mere symbols, but should involve lengthy discussion.  Boolean logic and Boolean circuits provide a core for computation, but do not provide answers to every question.

The Scribbler robot can be programmed using pseudocode to interact with its surrounding environment in a variety of ways; pseudocode is the “language” that describes simple instructions or compound instructions (such as conditional or loop commands).  The Scribbler behaves in particular ways according to such instructions; for instance the robot can be instructed to merely move forward for one second or, more complexly, move forward if it does not encounter an obstacle and stop and play a noise when it does.  I was surprised by the remarkable amount of “intelligence” the Scribbler exhibited; just a few lines of pseudocode seemed to give “life” to this robot.  For example, in the test described above where the Scribbler robot stopped and played a sound in the presence of an obstacle and moved forward otherwise, the robot sensed the physical characteristics of the surrounding environment, processed this information, and behaved in a “logical” way.  The Scribbler robot acted autonomously and rationally…all with a single simple program!

Rodney Brooks describes such “intelligence” that was characteristic of his own robots in his book, Flesh and Machines: How Robots Will Change Us.  Unlike other robots of his time, his creation did not have a developed cognition box, where computations would be done to dictate the behavior of the robot.  Instead, he connected the perceptual processes that processed the raw sensor data directly to the motor processes.  He made computations simpler and simpler, and ultimately created his first robot Allen which could operate in a dynamically changing environment; Allen had wanderlust as well as avoided contact with objects whether they were stationary or moving (like the Scribbler robot was programmed to do).  Allen was unique because it was completely based on “unthinking activity, the direct connection of perception to action” (Brooks 42).  His other robot, Genghis, also appeared “lifelike” in that it walked on six legs and was able to follow living organisms.  Like the Scribbler robot, both Brooks’ robots sensed the environment around them and behaved “intelligently” according to relatively simple rules.

Hi!

My name is Amara, and I’m a sophomore here. I’m majoring in economics (as I observed from the survey several other people are doing also) and am pursuing certificates in math and finance. On campus, I take ballet classes and dance with diSiac Dance Company. We perform in two main shows, one in the fall and the other in the spring, as well as other smaller shows during the year. We perform a variety of dancing forms, from ballet and jazz to hip-hop and Latin dance. DiSiac is such a fun group of people I get to spend my time with.

I’m from Bethesda, Maryland and went to school in Washington, D.C. My family, however, is originally from Bangkok, Thailand. I visit them every year, usually spending three or four weeks in the city. This summer, I plan to spend at least two months there, studying the language as well as working part-time. Although I can speak a little Thai, I’d like to become both fluent and literate in the language.

When it comes to computers, I am completely clueless. I can work Word and made a webpage once in 5^th grade, but that’s about it. I also do not know too much about Excel, and hopefully taking ORF 245 this semester will help with that. I own a Dell Latitude and use Windows XP…Mac’s confuse me.  I am taking the Computational Universe, because I think it will make me more knowledgeable. Having a good understanding of technological advancements is becoming increasingly more important. Robots and the Internet interest me, and I’d like to learn more about them in this course. I also am considering taking COS 126 and learning some programming in the future, so I thought this class would be a good introduction. I look forward to learning more in this course, and am especially excited to have a robot of my very own!

Update 10am on 2/11/06: I edited my post to include the type of computer I use.