agj/blog
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

feat: add computation-in-nature
All checks were successful
Release CI action / build-and-push-container (push) Successful in 2m52s
Details

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
Asger Gitz-Johansen 2025-04-13 20:29:54 +02:00
parent da0e95a44b
commit 8ba1d45ccc
1 changed files with 90 additions and 0 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

90
content/posts/computation-in-nature.md Normal file
View File

@ -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" >}}