From 8ba1d45ccc216ca08dd98b713711deafd42c32ac Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Asger Gitz-Johansen Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2025 20:29:54 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] feat: add computation-in-nature --- content/posts/computation-in-nature.md | 90 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 90 insertions(+) create mode 100644 content/posts/computation-in-nature.md diff --git a/content/posts/computation-in-nature.md b/content/posts/computation-in-nature.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..2358f39 --- /dev/null +++ b/content/posts/computation-in-nature.md @@ -0,0 +1,90 @@ ++++ +date = '2018-05-10' +draft = false +title = 'Computation in Nature' +tags = ['philosophy', 'old'] +categories = ['opinion'] ++++ + +## Disclaimer + +This was written as a student project as part of our ethics course, where we had to write an opinion piece on anything +we wanted in the field of computer science. Note that this was before *LLM*'s was a thing. + +# Computation in Nature + +> "If you ever think your code is bad, just remember that CPUs are just rocks that we tricked into thinking" + +**Does the nature compute, or the computation is something that only the humans are +doing? If so, what is it about?** + +To answer this question, we would need to define what the terms used in it even means. If you look up the definition +of the word ’compute’ on Merriam Websters dictionary, you will find that it primarily means _"to determine +especially by mathematical means"_. This definition mentions a usage of mathematics, which suggests a close bond +between these concepts. What would it mean to determine something? I would argue that it means to make a decision +based on either prior experience, data or calculations. This implies that computation have a focus on deciding +and _"finishing a thought"_. It has an end goal. You can even use conclusions made by previous computations to +compute more advanced problems. + +In other words, computation is about answering queries about data and the process of doing so. We see +mathematics emerge in nature aswell. In +[The Chemical Basis of Morphogenesis](https://www.dna.caltech.edu/courses/cs191/paperscs191/turing.pdf), Alan M. Turing +mentions that flower petals rarely exceeds a quantity of five. We even see the fibonacci sequence in [sunflower +seeds](http://popmath.org.uk/rpamaths/rpampages/sunflower.html). + +An example of computation in nature is actually very easy to find. Take a rabbit, or any other smaller prey. A rabbit +is constantly observing and reacting to the sorrounding environment, otherwise it will get eaten by predators or fall +into a lake and drown or any other scenario involving death. You could argue that the rabbit is constantly asking +questions about what to: _"Should I run away?"_, _"Should I keep eating?"_, _"Should I be eating this?"_ etc. The +rabbit may not be consciously aware of these queries, but nevertheless, it is answering to them through actions. + +In Empiricism, the concept of a mind being a blank slate (in this case we are talking about a human mind, not +a rabbit’s) and experiences gets remembered is very much applicable here. This trait means that a human mind +has a memory, i.e. It can remember old conclusions and recall them when desired. We can actually prove that this +trait is not exclusive to humans, since we can observe other mammals (and even fish and reptiles) demonstrating +the usage of memory. A prime example is the elephant. + +In Rationalism, we see a similar pattern of using the method of deduction to find conclusions and deduct new +conclusions (memory). However, if you were to believe the Rationalists, getting the data needed for computation +in nature, may be a tricky task. We previously had an assumption, that we could trust our senses and that other +creatures also had senses. In Rationalism the only thing we can trust is the fact that we are doubting. Since we +can’t say anything about if the rabbit is doubting everything. This is where the rabbit example breaks down a +little, but we are not completely stuck here. Humans are mammals and mammals are a type of animal. Animals are +part of nature, therefore humans must be part of nature. You and I are humans (I assume) and this logic enables us +to make deductive arguments based on subjective thoughts. The first part of the Cartesian circle, _"Dubito ergo +cogito"_ (_"I doubt, therefore I think"_) made by René Descartes, is actually very applicable to computation in +nature. Thinking is a form of computation and since _I_ am part of nature. Computation rationally happens in nature. + +But what about non-natural computation? Artificial computation machines such as modern digital computers or even +old mechanical adding-machines are definitely things that compute data. There is a diconnect from artificial +computers to natural computers (brains) though. Currently humans have not been able to produce a machine with natural +intuition as we observe it in nature. We have come close to something that looks like it with simulated organisms, +but we are not even close to the complexeties of an intuitive brain such as the human one (or even other clever +mammals, such as the dolphin or chimp). I personally believe that the reason for this disconnect is because of +the intention of the computational device at the point of origin. The intent that biology had when brains were +invented was certainly not to fix mathematical problems. It was primarily for the organism to survive and have a +better chance for survival. But fixing mathematical problems is the exact intent humans had when we created our +artificial computers. This **intent** changes the very nature of the system, and because of this, even though brains +and computers might be similar in some ways they are and always will be fundamentally different things. + +A. M. Turing presents (and disagrees with) various arguments, in his article +[Computing Machinery and Intelligence](https://archive.org/details/MIND--COMPUTING-MACHINERY-AND-INTELLIGENCE), +that a computer will not be able to be conscious. I tend to follow Turings idea that most of the arguments he +presents are either made out of a tendency towards thinking that humans have to be superior to machines, either +intellectually or that we can *feel* things. I do disagree with one point that he makes in the article: Turing +argues that a computer/program will never be able to change it’s behavior based off of prior experiences, which +sounds ludicrous if you’ve taken any modern Machine Intelligence class. This was probably a conclusion he came +to because of the time era he was in and that AI as a field was not as big (if at all existent) at the time. + +Turing finishes the article with the notion that there is still a lot of work to be done in the field of AI and it +is a fun contrast to see what arguments and thoughts a mind like his had back in the fifties, compared to modern +AI can offer. Will humans ever be able to create a truly conscious artificial mind? And will we ever be able to +test it properly? + +If you believe the Mathematical Realists, mathematics is a thing that exists independently of humans, and can be +found/discovered by any being clever enough to deduct these laws. This point of view can be very reassuring, if +you believe that real artificial intelligence can be made. Since mathematics is an inherit trait of the universe, +and that computers are machines that can (essentially) execute math, and that humans are part of nature. It might +be possible to make an AI that is (atleast) as clever as humans, maybe it is innevitable. + +{{< centered image="/6616144.png" >}}