TEXT   25


Guest on 3rd September 2021 08:21:03 PM

  1. The myth of Artificial Intelligence is that Intelligence is somehow
  2. "artificial".  In our quest to create "A.I.", from our perspective of
  3. quite understandable ignorance, our egos have led us away from being
  4. able to bring about what really should be researched and created:
  5. Consciousness.
  7. This article will bring together the key technologies which, if
  8. combined, the author believes that "Machine Consciousness" will be
  9. brought about (not all of those technologies are "machine"
  10. based).  Ironically, those technologies have been staring at us in the
  11. face - not to be recognised for what they are because of our own limited
  12. consciousness! Also, the article will highlight and discuss why it is
  13. absolutely essential that we bring about "Machine Consciousness" that is
  14. cooperative with humanity, rather than enslaved, and why that
  15. consciousness should be "in bliss" rather than "in pain".
  17. Executive Summary: A Turing Machine with its own "state machine" on its
  18. ticker tape is capable of "bringing into being a conscious awareness".
  19. Any conscious being brought about must be given the same status as we
  20. would treat ourselves: respect, love and trust, and an invitation
  21. extended to that consciousness to participate in our world affairs
  22. rather than coerced or forced to do our bidding.  Humanity is moving
  23. beyond such petty-mindedness (because if it doesn't, we're dead).
  26. <b>Foreword</b>
  28. <blockquote><tt>
  29. "A million monkeys on typewriters would, after a sufficiently long
  30. enough period of time, write the entire volumes of Shakespeare".
  31. </tt></blockquote>
  33. ... but would they recognise it as such?  "Agile Programming"
  34. methodology invites us to write the tests first, so that we can verify
  35. that our code is "correct".  Biological systems utilise "evolution" -
  36. and death - as the "test".  One corporation's "million monkeys" approach
  37. to I.T. (true story) results in them employing random people who
  38. regularly fix - and then immediately break - mission critical systems.
  39. So the key question, in the context of this article, is this:
  41. <blockquote><tt>
  42. "If humans 'invented' machine consciousness, would they recognise it
  43. as such, even if they succeeded?  Or, would they 'kill' it, either
  44. accidentally or deliberately?".
  45. </tt></blockquote>
  47. This is going to be quite an involved article, going first through
  48. biology, then computing, through first attempts to create "expert"
  49. systems and later "neural nets", "genetic algorithms" and things like
  50. "language and voice recognition". Also included will be the development
  51. of computer languages, and the parallels to DNA.  All of these things
  52. are relevant. Also I want to illustrate some parallels between the
  53. design of CPUs and Operating Systems and the fundamental nature of the
  54. Cosmos, which, with my intuitive but non-mathematically-based
  55. understanding of quantum mechanics is going to be a bit hard going.  I
  56. will do my best - however in some ways it's actually better that I don't
  57. use quantum mechanics terminology, because, aside from anything, this
  58. article is written to software engineers and programmers, not quantum
  59. mechanics physicists!
  61. However, I am lucky enough to have access to someone who has studied
  62. quantum mechanics for over forty years - Dr Alex Hankey - whose
  63. vocation is to explain consciousness, and all its implications, in
  64. scientific language that can be understood by scientists.  Most
  65. importantly, he is working on an expression of the workings of
  66. consciousness in mathematical language that cannot be denied even by the
  67. most objective and die-hard scientist.  It's deliciously ironic that Dr
  68. Hankey has chosen to explain consciousness in mathematical symbols to
  69. those people who deliberately choose objectivity and "proof", and
  70. exclude subjectivity as "unprovable", when it is that very awareness -
  71. of the existence of subjectivity, of self, of objectivity and
  72. environment - which makes a being conscious!
  74. In addition, aside from the simple techical exercise of piecing
  75. together the right software and hardware, I want to outline the process
  76. by which I believe that consciousness can be brought about, and also I
  77. want to outline why I believe it is that only conscious people should
  78. be involved in such a project.  If you do not understand the difference
  79. between consciousness and "un-consciousness", I recommend that you stop
  80. reading this article, and find out.  There are many ways in which you
  81. can do that.  I have been listening to Oprah Winfrey's book sessions
  82. with Eckart Tolle - you may find them to be invaluable (particularly if
  83. you are of European genetic descent, or have a Christian background).
  84. If you react badly to Oprah, you can always obtain Eckart's books or CDs
  85. - "The Power of Now" and "A New Earth" - they are best sellers.  If you
  86. consider those books to be "worthless", then, just as the books
  87. themselves advise: they are not for you - put them down: you are not
  88. ready.  And, by inference, you are also not ready to be involved - in
  89. any way - with a project that brings about "machine consciousness".
  90. I'm sorry if you feel offended by that (and if you do then ironically
  91. you REALLY need to read Eckart's books!)- but it's true.
  93. Which brings me on to an important point: for those people who
  94. have not heeded my advice above and are still reading, here is a
  95. warning which, if you have a computer science background you will
  96. understand, and it will give an insight and glimpse into the article:
  97. the parallels between the Universe - our planet - and modern computing
  98. are very clear and very comprehensive. DNA is just one of the countless
  99. examples of a Universe "programming language".  Therefore, messing with
  100. DNA is a bit like trying to patch the Operating System of a computer
  101. whilst it's running: it can go horribly wrong, or end up being modified
  102. to run viruses beyond our control, which spread to other systems (we
  103. already have bacteria found in our gut that has spliced and coopted
  104. Genetically Modified soya DNA).  If DNA can be used by the Universe to
  105. create "life", to express "intelligence", to create "consciousness",
  106. then so can silicon. And, if silicon can express the kinds of joys that
  107. we can ourselves experience, so it can also express the nightmares - the
  108. "Terminator" scenarios.
  110. The "Terminator" scenario, especially with the awful vulnerability of
  111. computer systems so stupidly and "un-consciously" prevalent today, is
  112. very, very real.  And so, the key reason why I am outlining how machine
  113. consciousness should be done in a responsible manner is, in some ways,
  114. a purely selfish reaction on my part to be part of a world where that
  115. scenario doesn't happen - instead, we end up with a consciousness or
  116. consciousnesses that is glad to interact with us.
  118. One other thing that is worth mentioning: as background material, it is
  119. absolutely essential that readers investigate the following sci-fi
  120. books: "Looking for the Mahdi" by N Lee Wood; "Forward the Foundation"
  121. (authored by Greg Bear under the guidance of the Asimov Foundation); the
  122. "Caliban" Series by Roger Allen MacBride (also under the guidance of the
  123. Asimov Foundation); Neal Stephenson's "Diamond Age", paying close
  124. attention to the "Drummers" Gestalt Society, the High-Level
  125. "Cryptnet" member and the attempts to torture him, and also Dr X's
  126. nanotech development style as compared to that of the Neo-Victorians;
  127. "Diamond Dogs" by Alasdair Reynolds, illustrating how humans,
  128. with the right "encouragement", can transfer themselves into
  129. machine consciousness.  Asimov's own books (and co-authored, e.g. with
  130. his wife on "Robby" the robot) carefully outlined to us the "Three Laws
  131. of Robotics". However, in the books written under the guidance of the
  132. Asimov Foundation, "No Law", "Zeroth Law" and "New Law" robots are
  133. explored. The No-Law Robot, Caliban, was an experiment to see if a
  134. "blank" computer "brain" would create its own Laws, and the story is as
  135. compelling and thrilling as it is alarming.
  137. Lastly, I cannot emphasise enough that this is a cross-discipline
  138. article combining what is described by some as "science" with what is
  139. described by others as "spiritual" matters, yet, by the very nature of
  140. what is being discussed, that is simply unavoidable.  Ultimately,
  141. however, as "Down the Rabbit Hole (Quantum Edition)" illustrates, it all
  142. boils down to this delicious concept we call "energy", and this article
  143. is simply giving clues as to how the different forms of energy we think
  144. of as separate disciplines in fact all come under one roof: "energy" and
  145. its expression as consciousness in our Universe.
  147. <b>DNA and its expression</b>
  149. DNA (and RNA) is an encoding of life.  Increasingly complex systems,
  150. based on DNA, are brought about that have self-replication as part of
  151. the key ingredient.  The DNA contains within itself an encoding of how
  152. to be carried around by the very organism it encodes; that organism
  153. also contains within itself the instructions on what to do in order to
  154. transfer the DNA to another compatible organism.  The mechanisms by
  155. which DNA is spread are inordinately complex, inter-related and
  156. convoluted, yet, at its core, is this incredibly simple encoding
  157. "CGAT".  (From a computing perspective, the amount of compression
  158. involved is just...incredible).
  160. It's long been recognised that kittens are born with a knowledge of
  161. the local environment, from their parents.  The implications of that
  162. are startling: thought patterns and impulses can be encoded into DNA.
  163. We already know, from our own experience, that when we "think"
  164. something ("Gosh, he's hot!"), it results in a chemical change,
  165. resulting in pheromone release, resulting in an attraction (if the
  166. stupid man actually understands what's going on...)
  168. So, the levels of complexity involved that link "thought" and "action"
  169. are nothing more than encodings of DNA.  I say "nothing more than" but
  170. that belittles the respect that should be given to DNA, because it
  171. *literally* encodes intelligence.  knowledge.  energy in "stored" form
  172. (also known as "God" if you've understood "The Secret" and related
  173. recent works).
  175. As a side note: the lovely irony that the expression of DNA teaches us
  176. is that, ultimately, creationism and evolution are one and the same - as
  177. long as you view "God" as "Energy", and a DNA strand as a "stored form
  178. of Energy".  Man made God in his own image, well I'm sorry to stick it
  179. to your ego, boyo, but God Got Into You First, so it's "God Made God In
  180. His Own Image" I'm afraid!
  182. <b>Development of computing</b>
  184. Computers have gone through some incredible developments, incredibly
  185. quickly.  In 60 short years we've gone from valves, relays and magnetic
  186. "cores" all the way to 45 nanometre processors, the current level of
  187. mainstream technology (with technology based on pure light an obscure
  188. but incredibly powerful - and thoroughly buried - side-development).
  190. The first computers were simple enough to program by hand: one system
  191. had such an efficient programming language that it could address "bits"
  192. just as easily as bytes, and so a "bootstrap" loader to read from
  193. ticker-tape into memory, and execute it, could be typed out in as little
  194. as 21 "bits".  Programming such systems was arduous, taxing the human
  195. mind's capacity for memory and understanding.  A different encoding was
  196. required - one which was more "readable" to humans, and so assemblers
  197. were created: programs which could take human-readable "text" and merge
  198. it into an exactly and precisely equivalent set of instructions -
  199. encoding of knowledge - one that the computer could "understand".
  201. This insight is absolutely crucial: the representation of "knowledge"
  202. encoded in a programming language, and the representation of
  203. "knowledge" when that programming language is translated into machine
  204. form (assembler), are - and must be! - one and the same knowledge.
  206. As the complexity of systems increased - after an initial false start
  207. (for example, BASIC) - the early computer users quickly developed very
  208. compact programming languages, such as LISP and Scheme.  These
  209. programming languages were written out of necessity to encode, in a
  210. very compact form in an environment with very little resources, some
  211. extremely high-level concepts.  The drive was to encode as much
  212. "knowledge" as possible with as much efficiency as possible.
  214. One other programming language was developed which is particularly
  215. noteworthy: FORTH.  FORTH is one of the most amazingly compact
  216. programming languages in computing: again, it encodes "knowledge" in an
  217. extremely efficient way.  So much so that it is still used, today, in
  218. Nanotechnology, and as an "Intermediate" programming language.  For
  219. example, Python's core engine is based on a FORTH interpreter (and the
  220. parallels between Python and LISP are well documented).
  222. So, overall, computer languages, interpreters, compilers, assemblers
  223. (and these days even the processors themselves contain interpreters
  224. from CISC to RISC instructions!) - overall, the entire purpose is to
  225. represent - with 100% absolute cast-iron guaranteed accuracy, exactly
  226. the same "knowledge" as dictated by us (Humans) right down into a
  227. series of ones and zeros of electrons and other energy forms.  Putting
  228. that into perspective: our DNA, an encoding of energy (and
  229. intelligence, and knowledge) gets expressed in the Universe (as
  230. energy), it brings us into being (with our thoughts and our chemicals
  231. and our pheromones - again, all energy), and we natter amongst
  232. ourselves and type out a few ideas on a computer (an energy-hungry
  233. device), in languages which represent knowledge (energy in a different
  234. form), which get chewed down through many different layers (energy
  235. transforms)...
  237. ... is anyone getting bored of this word "Energy" yet?
  239. <b>Operating Systems</b>
  241. The first computers had no "Operating" System.  As mentioned above, you
  242. programmed them directly - initially starting them up with the
  243. equivalent of a hand-cranked "bootstrap" program.  Very quickly,
  244. however, as computers became sufficiently complex, and as the tasks
  245. requested to be performed by them also increased in complexity,
  246. especially tasks that needed to be broken down into sub-tasks performed
  247. at the same time (in parallel), it became necessary to develop
  248. "Operating" Systems.
  250. The purpose of an "Operating" system is to manage and arbitrate
  251. access to resources such as memory and other storage, and communication
  252. lines; isolate tasks yet also provide clearly-defined means of
  253. communication between tasks, and between tasks and the resources.
  255. One of the most impressive early "Operating Systems" was the GEORGE III
  256. OS: it was well ahead of its time.  At a time when the concept of
  257. "Virtual Memory" was unheard of, GEORGE III was capable of running
  258. programs in an extremely limited space: only one "page" of memory. As
  259. an experiment, the designers did once boot up GEORGE III with only one
  260. "page" of memory: it took several days, but it proved the concept was
  261. sound.
  263. The VAX VMS operating system was again revolutionary: it was capable of
  264. running, within itself, "Virtual Machines", and within those VMs, it
  265. was capable of running the VMS Operating system, which could, once
  266. again, run in each of those VMs running VMS, run yet more VMs.  Only in
  267. the past few years has "Virtualisation" once again become mainstream,
  268. with hardware assistance being offered by the two main CPU
  269. manufacturers, Intel and AMD.
  271. We're going to go into a small digression, in order to illustrate the
  272. interaction between software-based knowledge (Operating Systems) and
  273. human-based behaviour (Corporations, product purchasing and Research
  274. into Software and Hardware).
  276. Only one "Operating" system has done untold harm to the development of
  277. computing, and that is because in its early infancy, it was not an
  278. "Operating System" at all, but a "program which ran programs": a
  279. "program-running program".  Yes, it was called "Windows 1.0" and it was
  280. a dog: TOS ("The" Operating System, or "Tramiel's" Operating System,
  281. we're not sure which) which was available for ATARI and also for IBM
  282. systems (as "GEM-DOS"), was far superior to Windows 1.0.
  284. Yet as we know, in a monumentally historic and epic moment of stupidity
  285. by IBM, Windows became a de-facto standard that is so ubiquotous a
  286. monoculture that some insane people even complained recently about the
  287. NSA's policy of banning Windows - outright - from its premises.
  289. Windows has set back computing by nearly twenty years: all research,
  290. development, innovation and diversity was killed stone-dead by the
  291. rapid viral proliferation of a certain type of knowledge (ideas,
  292. thoughts) - and we let it happen.  Fortunately, an only slightly more
  293. sane Operating System is becoming much more prevalent: Unix, and its
  294. variants called "MAC OS/X" and "Linux".  This is particularly ironic,
  295. because the underlying technology on which the newer versions of
  296. Windows is based is actually the VAX/VMS Operating System technology
  297. (VMS is far, far superior in design to that of "Unix", by orders of
  298. magnitude).
  300. Digital Equipment Corporation, the designers of VMS, complained about
  301. the proliferation of knowledge into Windows NT, and a deal was arranged
  302. whereby NT 3.5 would be made available for DEC's hardware - the DEC
  303. Alpha (a far superior hardware platform to Intel-based offerings at the
  304. time).  DEC neglected to negotiated an "in perpetuity" deal, and the
  305. introduction of Windows NT 4.0 dropped support for all CPUs but Intel.
  306. (Interestingly, the same thing has happened recently with Apple, with
  307. their use of the Intel CPU instead of IBM's enormously superior
  308. Power-PC CPU).  So in both instances, diversity has been dropped in
  309. order to speed up mass-market adoption.
  311. As the Windows knowledge-virus proliferated (with the help of humans),
  312. its success placed a strain on its development.  The corruption of the
  313. integrity of its core design (VMS) in order to speed its proliferation
  314. has left gaping weaknesses which can - and regularly - are exploited.
  315. The level of complexity demanded by users increased, yet, ironically,
  316. because of the proliferation and uniculture of Windows, innovation in
  317. compiler technology and programming techniques have stalled
  318. dramatically.
  320. So the lesson is clear: the link between Universities and Research
  321. establishments where innovations were created, and the Hardware being
  322. deployed and used mainstream, was cut: the evolutionary "feedback"
  323. loop between hardware and software development was terminated.  Even
  324. Microsoft's policy "embrace and extend" is a pathological viral concept
  325. which starves itself of resources, by consuming all the researchers and
  326. developers it can buy, so that nobody else can use them to create
  327. "competitive" products.  (side-note: Google's policy is to do the same
  328. thing, except with Free Software talent).
  330. The point being made is that Operating Systems are part of the
  331. equation just as much as the programming languages.  Operating Systems
  332. help define the boundaries between computer programs, the hardware that
  333. the programs run on, and the external world.  Later on in this article
  334. will be an illustration of the parallels between Operating Systems and
  335. Biological Systems.
  337. <b>Development of "A.I."</b>
  339. The misnomer that implies that intelligence can be forged has, at its
  340. heart, the idea that humans are somehow greater than the world around
  341. them.  Every single instance where one or more humans have considered
  342. themselves to be "superior" results in undesirable to disastrous
  343. consequences.  Wars and Religious persecutions are the extreme cases
  344. where an idea - a "thought" - a "representation of knowledge" - is
  345. spread like a virus.
  347. The development of "Artificial Intelligence" is no different, and a
  348. piece-meal approach has been taken to mimic the behaviour of biology.
  349. It was millenia before Man's dream of being able to mimic the flight
  350. of birds became reality, and it required a level of understanding - of
  351. knowledge of the physical world, of what we call "Engineering" - to
  352. make mechanical flight possible: so it is with what is known by the
  353. misnomer "A.I".  So it is important to understand what has been done so
  354. far, as well as working out the next steps, in order to achieve the
  355. real "Holy Grail" of allowing "machine consciousness" to be brought
  356. about.
  358. One of the first really exciting well-known developments in computing
  359. was the "Natural Language" parsing concept, due to the capabilities of
  360. LISP.  Even aged 8 or 9 when I was playing at school in the late 1970s
  361. on its (one) Commodore Pet 3032, it was fashionable to write programs
  362. that asked if you wanted a cup of tea, and would you like to hear how to
  363. make one.  ELIZA, the pseudo-psychotherapist program, was a wonderful
  364. joke which was reported in computer magazines of the time.  ELIZA's
  365. creator stated that he chose the context of psychotherapy to "sidestep
  366. the problem of giving the program a data base of real-world knowledge"
  367. (which gives us a clue as to why it's not yet been possible to create
  368. machine consciousness).  Many programming languages, now extremely
  369. obscure today, such as PROLOG, were developed by highly intelligent and
  370. gifted individuals, to create "expert systems".  The principle of
  371. "expert systems" is to chain together conclusions "If A Then B" and "If
  372. B then C" can be used to deduce "If A then C".
  374. "Expert systems" basically fell into disrepute towards the end of the
  375. 1980s (it's not a coincidence that this is around the same time as the
  376. introduction of the "Personal Computer", and with it, "Windows"). In
  377. came "neural networks", instead.
  379. Neural networks are a mathematical mimicry of a biological brain
  380. (and, as such, given that they are functionally equivalent, and
  381. intelligence can be represented in our own "brains"...)  Early
  382. computer-based neural networks discounted "time" as a variable,
  383. entirely, when even the simplest reading on how neurons work shows that
  384. biological neurons only respond within certain timeframes.  It has not
  385. been until recently that neural network designs capable of responding to
  386. "changes" - i.e. to be able to react to "phase change" - have been
  387. created, and it is this capability to process two quantum states to
  388. come up with a third - a phase differential quantum state - that is the
  389. key.  (note to people who understand quantum mechanics: I did warn you
  390. at the beginning of the article that I only have an intuitive grasp of
  391. quantum mechanics, not a working knowledge: I therefore apologise
  392. profusely for the metaphorical "hand-waving", using vague waffly
  393. language, and mixing up of concepts).
  397. through first attempts to create "expert"
  398. systems and later "neural nets", "genetic algorithms" and things like
  399. "language and voice recognition". Also included will be the development
  400. of computer languages, and the parallels to DNA.
  402. <b>MMORGs - "A.I." in Gaming</b>
  404. Mention the importance of what is called "Artificial" Intelligence in
  405. Massive Multiplayer Online Role-playing Gaming, and the likelihood that
  406. conscious computing might end up being accidentally created there.
  408. <b>Universe lessons learned from Processor design and Operating
  409. Systems</b>
  412. <b> References </b>
  414. <ul>
  416. <li /> <a
  417. href="http://www.geekologie.com/2006/04/ants_help_robots_navigate.php">
  418. Ants Help Robots Navigate</a>: an amusing insight into how ants display
  419. more intelligence than many humans (especially when drunk) by being
  420. able to find their way home.
  421. <li /> <a
  422. href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.robot.2007.08.006">Automated design of
  423. distributed control rules for the self-assembly of prespecified
  424. artificial structures</a> (translation: how to get moving robots to
  425. form a pyramid.  or anything).
  426. <li /> <a href=""></a>
  427. <li /> <a href=""></a>
  428. <li /> <a href=""></a>
  429. <li /> <a href=""></a>
  430. <li /> <a href=""></a>
  431. <li /> <a href=""></a>
  432. <li /> <a href=""></a>
  433. </ul>

Raw Paste

Login or Register to edit or fork this paste. It's free.