Asger Gitz-Johansen
c25a925a5e
All checks were successful
Release CI action / build-and-push-container (push) Successful in 2m48s
Also add anotehr disclaimer. This was not very well written.
91 lines
7.0 KiB
Markdown
91 lines
7.0 KiB
Markdown
+++
|
||
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. I also apologize if the
|
||
wording is off - this was written in an afternoon as a rush-job. I still think it's an interesting read though.
|
||
|
||
# Computation in Nature
|
||
|
||
> "If you ever think your code is bad, just remember that CPUs are just rocks that we tricked into thinking"
|
||
|
||
**Does nature compute, or is computation something that only 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 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 gets 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), which remembers experiences throughout it's life 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, but pretty much any animal applies here.
|
||
|
||
In Rationalism, we see a similar pattern that mimics memory - using the method of deduction to find conclusions and
|
||
deduct new conclusions. 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" >}}
|