The Computational Universe

I have no trouble in thinking that there is nothing special about the matter or material that we are made of. Searle thinks that the properties of the material that enacts the computation. He believes that anything that can compute in the same manner as the brain, and thereby simulate consciousness, but never actually be conscious. With that being the case, he would argue that even if a computer could pass the Turing test, it would still not indicate that it has consciousness. I really have difficulty digesting this. I agree that it is wonderful to think that there is something special about our humanity and consciousness that cannot be touched by science. But what truly is so special about a glob of sugars, and polypeptides or other proteins? Didn’t these come together through computation in DNA also? Aren’t they all reducible to the elementary atoms? Surely the glory of the human machine lies within the computational powers of the arrangement of these elements. I’m sure that Searle would still have a problem if scientists were able to construct a computer processor made of the same materials that make up the human brain.

Brookes would argue that consciousness is an emergent property of computations, independent of the materials used to carry out the computation. He believes that Searle is confused and circular in his arguments. I found Seale’s argument confusing, and overly self-confident in his own reasoning. Both Brookes and I noticed how Searle asserted the inherent value of the material of the brain in which consciousness arose and how no other medium can recreate this, yet he fails to argue what makes the material of the brain so special. Whatever phenomena arises from a neuron an electrical signal transmitting a signal to another, that same phenomena should arise when one AND/OR gate transfers a signal from one gate to another. By extension, a whole network of neurons can be remade in a circuit, and the same phenomena should occur. Perhaps there are holes in this line of logic. But there is no reason to think so highly of an organic blob.

As for passing the Turing test, there are humans that cannot pass it. So that can’t really measure consciousness. There is no way to know if someone is actually conscious. We can only take their word for it. Argh!…now I’m confused. Suppose I program my computer to say, “I am conscious” after anything said to it. No matter what I would say, it would proclaim its consciousness. Do I then believe it? Searle may have a point in this respect. Certainly I can’t take my computer at its word. Perhaps both a Turing test, and then faith in the AI’s word. Honestly, I have no clue. I thought I understood this, but even now as I type this, I have no clue.

When I first heard of the Princeton Laptop Orchestra, I struggled to conceptualize the mechanics of such a thing. How do you conduct an orchestra of laptops? I thought that students synthesized their own instruments to sound like instruments closely resembling acoustic ones, or at least vaguely. I somewhat had the idea that they would be playing cups as trumpets or maracas, like our guest lecturer did one day. I expected something tonal, and pleasing to the ear. What I got, however, was oddness. It did not meet my expectations, but completely went beyond what I could have imagined, and not necessarily in a good way. Instead, I see sketchpads that make weird sounds, and people moving their hands through the air using some weird sounds. Nothing was really tonal, except for the sampling. But what prevailed was modulations, often not in pitch, but in volume and timbre. It wasn’t to pleasing to me ear. It piqued curiosity and some wonder, but that’s it. What I heard didn’t sound like music (at least that which I am accustomed to and prefer). I would hesitate to call it an orchestra, but a clash of sounds that was not in any clear organization (that I could tell; I am sure that there was some organization because that had to operate in synchrony in some parts). Their acting in concert is the only qualification, in mind, that made them an orchestra. I’m glad I didn’t take that course.

What amazes me about the Turing Post program is its simplicity and yet its power. According to what I have learned in class, the Turing Post program can represent any other computational program through the use of just 6 operations and two settings, 0 and 1. In essence, all computational languages are reducible to Turing Post. Yet such simplicity leads to such complex “behaviors” or actions. Likewise, life on the planet is based on simple operations and settings. There are only two settings in our DNA as well: A-T and G-C. 0s and 1s can be combined in 4 ways: 00, 01, 10, and 11. Likewise, when DNA is transcribed, it can be done so in 4 ways. A-T or T-A and G-C or C-G combinations. Could I argue that our DNA is digital?! Eh…but still, the Turing Post is as natural and reasonable as nature/biology itself.

However, our biology is far more sophisticated. DNA is the data that creates things such as the neurons that send signals throughout the body, much like wires in hardware. Though neurons in our brain fire much slower than wired circuits, the brain has the capacity to parallel process on given inputs resulting a greater processing power. Turing Post programs operate in a 1 dimensional fashion, a major limitation.

The beauty of Turing Post program is also limited by the halting problem. Since the data on a string of data can go on for infinity, it is impossible to tell if the program will ever halt, or in other words, fail to continue operating on the data given. We discussed that not even simulations of programs can determine whether a program will halt. This is so obvious because a simulation itself is a program, and therefore susceptible to the halting problem.

With the various computer programming languages available, it would seem that communication between them would be just as impossible as communication was for the people of Babel. In this Old Testament story, mankind was building a tower towards the heavens in exultation of what they perceived to be their omnipotent abilities. God saw it as pride and an insult against him. In response, he confused their languages so that humanity could not continue their project.

Computer programming has seemingly opened up enumerable possibilities in our lives, and many feel that the computer is capable of anything our minds can conceive. However, it seems like the various programming, languages delay progress. However, computer science has overcome the language barrier through pseudocode. Every programming language, that I am aware of, follows basic logic though the syntax differs. Pseudocode allows one to express the basic logic of a program without conforming to a particular language, and thus avoiding the intricacies of syntax that can distract, confuse, and cause errors in true computer programming. It is mainly about getting the algorithms correct. There are no set protocols for pseudocode; it is only required that it is sequential and very basic. It is written in the simplest of English (or whatever native language a programmer speaks). Once an algorithm in pseudocode is created, the programmer will then translate it into the target programming language, modifying and making it obey that languages protocols and conventions.

Personally, I found it a bit difficult to understand what psuedocode meant. I thought that it was an established language until I did a wikipedia search and saw that it is basically speaking simple English. It’s as easy as writing instructions for a completely dumb and will-less creature. It doesn’t interpret a thing. It’s almost like a soldier. Thinking and writing in pseudocode helps me appreciate how much work the mind does when obeying ambiguous commands. Truly amazing.

Hello hello hello.

My name is Cordaro (pronounced Cordero ((no jokes please)), not Cordahro) Rodriguez. I’m from Charlotte, NC. My father is from El Salvador, hence the name, and my mother is from Charlotte. I’m Halfrican American, and hispanic. I’m a sophomore.
I plan to major in psychology, and after reading a bit of “Flesh and Mechanics”, I am considering branching into neuroscience since so much of it seems to be similar to computer circuits. Of course, I really wouldn’t know, since I know hardly a thing about the secret inner workings of computers.

I REALLY REALLY want to know how this stuff works. I’ve always been taken back by the genius of computers and electronics. Heck, I’ve even go crazy over simply mechanisms that have nothing to do with computers. Like wind up toys! HOW DO THEY WORK!!! How can some one be so clever as to think of it? Or even that little sound sensitive robot that we passed around in class…how do engineers come up with so clever a device as to make the legs move? Or in the book we’re reading, how did tortoise “know” what to do simply based on gears and very basic electronics and junk. I’ve visited HowStuffWorks countless times. ARGH! I’m so frustrated!

Basically, I wish I was a computer programmer and engineer. I envy engineers (not their course load though), but their knowledge. Guys my age building friggin vehicles that can drive themselves across deserts! I want to do that.

However, I am so bad at math…or at least it takes me such a long time. God did not bless me with the cognitive power to be an engineer, especially at Princeton.

I really hope this class lets me know how stuff works. I regret not being able to program. But at least the pseudoprogramming program (haha…programming program) will stretch my mind to some extent. I’ve had introductory experience to Microsoft Visual Basics in 10th grade and got to play with a bread board. I loved it, but my group did most of the programmin, while I nodded and said, “yeah, I think that’s right, good job.” As a kid, I often took apart toys to see how they work, and rebuild them, though they never worked again. I also tried to design things…like one time, I drew up plans to build and airplane, in 4th grade…(I had watched RadioFlyer)…I also tried to make a Pokeball that would light up and stuff. I was partially successful.
I love gadgets…even the simple ones.

Hmm…am I over 300 words? Sorry if I am. In case you can’t tell, I am an addicted blogger. Probably because I am such a hermit.

—–edit—-

~12:35am Update, 2/12/2006

I find it scary that the instructors can see all and know all on this thing. Anyway, I use my Dell Lattitude D600 (fun to say aloud) for all my electronic needs. Its high performance is sure to make life much easier for you. Need to take notes for class? Dell has you covered. Long night ahead and need to type a paper? We got it. Each Dell comes standard with Microsoft Windows XP. And thats not all…blah blah blah.

I think I am actually in love with Macs. Yes I admit it. They’re beautiful. And at work, I use that stupid Unix or something or other. I hate it.

Hmmm…okey doke. peace