feat: add computation-in-nature

content/posts/computation-in-nature.md

@@ -0,0 +1,89 @@
++++
+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"*, 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" >}}