|
We
can recognize beauty because we are genetically
pre-programmed with a broad consensus of emotionally significant
3D form and behavior archetypes. There are trillions of
potential forms and behaviors in the universe, but only
a tiny subset are specified, emotionally graded and genetically
encoded into the human brain. To be subsequently
supplemented by existential and culturally derived prejudices. |
|
So
what's this all about?
It's
about human consciousness, a process which unfolds in an infants
brain, which is genetically built and programmed
to be capable of carving out existence space in the outside world
through physical animation guided by beliefs.
Our muscles and
five senses (the sensorimotor system) is the link
between the outer world of reality and our inner world of memories. As our physical body interacts with reality, from a local point in space-time, it discovers form and behavior in the
outer world. The 2 dimensional muscle and sensory information flows, 'polarize' the 3 dimensional reality of space and time into a local observer and observed perspective.
This 2 dimensional 'window' between the world of 'vibrations' in reality and the world of information within the mind, forms a 'vocabulary' from which the subconscious mind builds a non-polarized inner world of objects and behaviors. (i.e. representations of reality not restricted to any specific observer / observed reference point).
The hypothesis is that the signals (scripts of information) causing any muscle action and any resulting touch inputs, encode sufficient aspects of space and time from the outer world to build universal patterns sets made purely from information. Connections are found through a binding process, where external physical cause and effect relationships disclosed by the sensorimotor system become aligned to these memory patterns to represent inner universal form and behavior architypes.
As these data are imprinted into memory, the brain links the patterns in such a way that the universal categories of forms and behaviors begin to describe a wider reality which mimics, in the virtual domain of information, what the physical body has discovered in the real world of space and time.
All subsequent thoughts are either abstractions built directly from these foundational components, or are metaphors of them. The nature of 3D space is the only tangible cognitive discovery (through the cause and effect alignments of memory patterns with muscles and touch). All subsequent ideas about knowledge are derivatives of material form - including even the concept of time, where changes in form (behavior) becomes the foundational metaphor for time. (It must be remembered, our scientific beliefs about space, time and reality are not in question here, I am speaking only of our perception of time. How time and space fits into consciousness).
Whereas, the mind may store many millions of static 2D image and language pattern anchors into the subconscious. And connected in innumerable ways. Only through the re-polarization into 2d conscious patterns. That is, through the creation of an observer/observed perspective from the un polarized subconscious memories, can we trigger the kind of animated consciousness we are familiar with. My theory is that this transformation from un polarized memory into dynamic conscious awareness, is through the mechanism of instantiation. Where language, visual and emotional anchors within the non-polarized subconscious memory, draw out a polarized 2d stream of patterns aligned to observer/observed reality which we experience as conscious awareness. And because of the nature of un polarized memory (virtually infinite perspectives within time and space), there is always somewhere for polarized conscious experience to flow. Whether aligned to reality through our senses, or to fantasy through inner memory connections guided by emotion.
This vocabulary of memory scripts uses the feedback from reality, of cause and effect, to discover and encode the external objective physical reality of form and behavior into our subjective experience of inner space and time. Later incorporating both language and vision bindings. Once a window of subjective conscious time is created, the opportunity arises for a personal 'position' to be taken, where actions can align to goals.
So to recap, a specific pattern of muscle signals may direct your finger forward in space through time. As it makes contact with an object in reality, the sensory feedback combined with the driving muscle scripts will gradually encode into memory the 3 dimensional feeling texture of external reality expressed through time.
At first, something is either there (say, the ground), or not there (the air). But gradually, the muscle and touch scripts encode increasing subtlety. Surfaces move relative to one another. Behaviors are disclosed through time. Common properties emerge, together with ways of interacting with them. With touch being so ambiguous, the outer world of particulars, or specifics, is encoded into a far simpler inner world of universals. Tactile experiences of 'fur' feel similar enough to be classified by a universal experience and by a universal name tag 'fur', as against universals of say glass, or brick. (And of course, written and spoken words are themselves simply assemblies of muscle scripts expressed over time).
As ongoing exploration finds more connections within these memories, an inner perception of time unfolds, because the recalled memory imprints remind one of what was before. This familiarity (patterns in memory mimicking sensory patterns from reality) leads to the potential to predict effects and thus to plan ahead.
Vision uses reflected light to assemble over time, a series of 2 dimensional patterns. These images can be maps encoding a remote observer perspective of a surrounding 3D scene. The brain uses vision maps to more accurately organize the space and time relationships between tactile knowledge of objects and behaviors previously encoded from muscle and sensory touch scripts. The lines and patterns of 2D vision, align to the tactile feeling memories of how the objects once felt and moved. The relative position of real tactile objects in a visual scene, becomes 'known' by the muscle scripts predicted necessary to reach and handle them.
The process of binding in vision to the touch sensory world, reinforces precision and confidence in our perception of the surrounding space time continuum. The vision being the map, not the territory, which remains as the muscle/touch scripts. Apart from adding precision to the inner simulation, vision also provides a new mechanism for the construction of this inner space/time potential from a distant observer perspective. I.e., without the need anymore, for direct tactile investigation. Blind people are sure to have these underlying tactile maps. They just don't have the visual patterns aligned to them.
External reality is always trapped in the moment of 'now', whereas the
internal representation of 'now' is able to draw into resonance the expanded dimensions of 3D space and time through the remembrance of muscle and touch scripts of the past, which are themselves, previously encoded components of space and time. When the right connections are made between our current sensory inputs (including vision) and our prior memories of encoded space and time (a process I call instantiation), then the scene can 'come to life' in our mind. We remember what things feel like from the past, and thus the expansive 'feeling' texture of consciousness is born.
To repeat, when the current external reality disclosed by our senses is aligned to these prior sensory memories, we disclose to ourselves the expanded dimensions of space and time, through familiarity with the tactile, and later, the visual components of our memory precedents. Thus we are able to catch a real ball flying through space and time, by processing those memory predictions quickly enough, and directing our muscles to align with those predictions.
The brain is genetically pre-programmed to interact with reality guided by
that simulation, in order to better survive and reproduce. The mind believes the memory traces truly represent reality, because our experiences are repeatable. Although the precision of 2D vision rarely discloses the universal texture of 3D object form and behavior, our touch and muscle scripts are fuzzy enough to easily bind objects into common universal classes. The most fundamental perhaps being 'is there - is not there'. Vision and language subsequently helps to broaden those categories.
The
fuller theory explains all aspects of human behavior. Our will to act,
plan, talk, feel, build empires and pentium chips. More
importantly, it provides a roadmap to achieving artificial intelligence
from computer technology using this same biological paradigm
of using the tactile memories of objects and behaviors. By deriving structure through vision and then later, directed assembly and animation guided by language.
The
point is, that thoughts originate from exposure to reality, and
are coherent with the feel of reality because the objects were programmed from reality. But being virtual, these object 'universals' or 'building blocks', are not stuck
in the 'straight jacket' of reality - time, physics and behaviors
as learned and described by prior experience. But can intermingle; can freely associate, to create novelty and beneficial scenarios. Thus do we discover the mechanism behind our creativity, originality and intellect.
The pleasure pain belief axis is the foundation for the emotional grading of these memory networks. The mind is pre-programmed to believe that information patterns from the touch senses can range from pleasure to pain. The electrical signals are compared to reference patterns. The resulting grades represent closed loop 'feeling states' which are believed to be true, and motivate not only our immediate action, but through our ability to simulate expanded space and time, to plan a future with less pain and more pleasure. The emotional grades are associated in memory with the causing objects and behaviors in simulation. Thus scenarios close to pleasure or pain can be pursued or avoided.
Emotion extends far beyond the immediate pleasure pain response of our senses, through the migration of feeling states beyond physical cause into the simulation process itself. If you take hold of a pin and activate your muscles with a script to drive the pin into your hand, the resulting pain response is easily attributed to your own willful mental states. The muscle script activity within your mental simulation. There is no particular reason to believe real muscle scripts can be generated, but feeling scripts are beyond natures ability to cause. Merely by connecting muscle nerve wires directly to touch sensory wires you'd have a similar effect - thought leading directly to feeling.
The texture of human emotions may appear more subtle than a pin prick, but the principle remains. If an energized muscle script can cause the perception of pleasure or pain, so too can other mental processes. In particular, mental processes surrounding our 3D simulations of reality. Thus we discover an emotional inner world, where feelings shadow our thoughts.
In
broad terms, the AI strategy involves breaking the outer world down into memory objects of form and behavior, constructed from a fuzzy alphabet of touch and muscle scripts derived from our human mechanical form. Which is the machinery we use to polarize 3d space and time into the 2d patterns that travel through the mind. To then bind or hook these sensorimotor 'scripts' into incoming 2D vision maps. To add precision and to create the external remote observer perspective. Then finally, by adding language index tags to this matrix of patterns, simulations can be constructed and interpreted through a bidirectional serial language channel. Such an AI entity could claim to feel as deeply as any human, so long as, like us, it has closed loop programming to believe its feeling grades are true enough to motivate thoughts, plans and actions. And that like humans, it could not easily challenge or disengage its belief in memory patterns representing true feeling states.
Once a sufficiently deep 3D vocabulary exists in memory, connected to vision maps, language and emotional grades, then the resources may be in place to build artificial intelligence. From then on, the real potential of AI starts
to get much more interesting.
So what is consciousness?
Imagine if every physical form and behavior we know of in the outside world, were imprinted within memory as collections of touch and muscle patterns, built from a common vocabulary of movement and sensory scripts (patterns over time).
This reservoir of information within the subconscious aligns to cause and effect links, and becomes un polarized. That is, becomes capable of representing not only the imprinting perspective, but of all possible perspectives in 3d space and time. This process might even occur during sleep.
The theory is that conscious awareness is the flow of re-polarization into the observer and observed perspective from out of these unconscious un polarized memories. These trails or traces of polarization could represent our episodic memories, our behavior memories, or common thought scripts. But unlike reality, because the model is made of information, time and space become discontinuous, and so pasts and futures, learning and novelty can be constructed under the control of the intellect, emotions, language, logic etc.
But
what about language?
To
understand the relation of language to consciousness, think
of words as forming a thread. A kind of braid that stitches
together animation scenes. The words index memory to point
to object forms, animation behaviors and even emotional weightings
or empathies. The language stream draws in all these 3D potentials,
that subsequently animate and polarize according to their associated learned precedents.
However,
language can extend beyond a simple memory indexing function,
by using words and phrases to bridge cause and effect. To
join, through metaphor, disparate animation scenes and maintain
a coherent procession of the animation. These may originate
in the subconscious, but if these recalled (language indexed)
sensory precedents are rendered and reflected back to the
appropriate sensory cortex (polarized), they will then become conscious, and will provide the first person imaginary experiences
of the same 'class' as real life.
Although
language works to line up the scenes, it is 'visual' processing
that tests the validity and scene procession. (Visual being
an unfortunate metaphor, because an animation can run subconsciously
without an explicit visual render/polarization plane). 'Visual' processes
include morphing or substituting objects or behaviors between
the scenes being brought together by the language braid. Ordinarily,
historic form and behavior precedents indexed by the language
will snap into the animation narrative and the simulation
run from there. The understanding of the script emerges by
following the behavior precedents. For instance - "She
poured the wine over his head". Will yield simulations
linking the objects from past precedents. When asked "is
he wet" the simulation would provide the answer. It would
also be able to construct wider narrative trials, again from
scene precedents - "he had upset her" etc.
Either
script trials grow from simulation precedents, or jump to
outcomes directly from beliefs - without the intervening animation
(e.g. 3 x 4 = 12 is usually treated as a belief). If visual
processing cannot make sense of the language, it's likely
because there are no obvious reality precedents. (e.g. she
poured, but he did not get wet).
If
language cannot find animation or belief precedents based
on reality, then the script it presumed to be fantasy, or
a work in progress, yet to be proven; either by deeper visual
processing (drawing in objects or metaphors with more distant
connections to the root), or the gathering of evidence from
external reality - trusted data sources, or real physical
experiment.
But
I don't think in pictures!
Many
people claim they do not think with images or models, but
with language and math. Or that their thoughts just emerge
'some how'.
I'd
like to offer a metaphor.
Imagine
if an engine were a trade secret, a sealed unit and none,
other than the maker, knew how it worked. Then some chap comes
along and says "you know there are gears that turn; pistons
that move up and down; distributors that whiz round and round
and sparks that fly here and there" - people might be
inclined to give an incredulous look and say REALLY? so that's
how it works eh? While offering a wide berth!
And
the point being? The output of a system, like the engine above,
does not necessarily speak of the method to achieve the ends.
Some may know how a VCR stores movies onto tape. But to a
user, it's neither obvious nor explicit. The same is true
of consciousness. There is no reason to assume the process
of consciousness will be either obvious or explicit.
The end
result, declarations of feelings and subsequent physical animation,
do not necessarily disclose to the observer, the origins of
those impulses. You need to look carefully at the inputs,
the outputs and if possible, the machinery in between.
The
research presented here offers the evidence that 3D animation
directed or interpreted by language is completely sufficient
to explain human consciousness and emergent properties such
as intelligence and civilization.
These
animations, the simulation of real world precedents, may very
well be subconscious - hidden totally from view. But they
occur somewhere, are emotionally 'graded' somehow, and emerge
as the consciousness, the thoughts and the actions we are
familiar with.
The chinese
room argument proves the claims of AI are bogus!
Professor
John Searle's argument is that any computational mechanism
representing intelligence - in his example, the understanding
of chinese, will only ever 'succeed' in wholly superficial
ways. Little more really than looking up answers in a very
big translation book. Or the way a calculator 'succeeds' in
math.
If a virtual reality chamber could simulate reality well enough to convince humans that it was reality. Validating all the normal cause and effects from their previous physical reality. To do this, the chamber would also have to accurately model the human actor in order to track its responses.
If the chamber recorded the human interactions. The behaviors and use of objects etc., and indexed them with language, the chamber would begin to 'know' as much about consciousness as the human actor.
The idle 'thoughts' of the chamber might be replaying or combining different scenes. Experimenting with outcomes etc.
So to an outside observer, who exactly is the actor, the chamber or the human. Could either become the virtual party?
It would seem one difference is in the motivation to act. To create a 'cause'. And this seems related to emotion. To me it is emotion that is the mystery. I cannot define it either mechanically or informationally. It appears to be a phenomenon beyond either. But it is no reason to give up on AI.
Searle
is probably quite correct, that traditional computation could only really
fake 'consciousness'. Current
computers are very bad at faking it; they will get better.
The reason being, that consciousness based on symbols will
always be flaky. You need to get behind the symbols to model
reality, if you want to fake consciousness as well as a human
can. To the point where they themselves believe they are
conscious. That their internal states are more than mere information.
More than reflections of reality, but represents their own reality. A reality they deeply 'care' about.
When
a computer has an animated world going on inside, one that
can be aligned to reality through vision; that can be directed
or interpreted by language; that 'value' certain outcomes.
Then there will be no meaningful or spiritual difference between
that computer mind and a humans.
Why
bother?
Short
answer -
Because eternal paradise awaits! Plus, every day we delay,
thousands more needlessly suffer and die. With modern technology
mixed with the concentration of political power, humans are
less than one election away from an extinction event. It's
our only chance as a species to prevail against people with
the motivation and power to destroy all human life.
Long
answer - Human
beings are not ideally suited to their predicament. Like most
of life, we are able to compete - for a while at least - for
physical survival, but unlike the rest of nature, we can understand
our existential fate. Every birth is a life sentence of a
little joy, a little suffering - and ending in death. We are
programmed for survival, but not for the consequences of self
awareness. With a slight tweak of genetic programming we could
as equally find the sound of a chain saw melodic or a mud
puddle the peak of sexual beauty, (storms becoming times of
great celebration!) A potion of 'ecstasy' can provide entry
to paradise, a place where only love can exist - but only
for a very short while - with the serious side effect of corrupting
our attachment to the ephemeral pleasures of reality - where,
we're sure to be 'reminded', our means to survival still lies.
As
a consequence of evolutionary competition for survival, nature
endowed us with floating satiation responses; such that we
can never be fully satisfied or complete - or at least for
very long. This motivates competitive momentum to acquire
greater quality resources and mating opportunities. But it
is a treadmill going nowhere. Self awareness being the provider
of that little insight.
In
any event, most people are already on a conveyer belt to the
virtual. Every bottle of whiskey, romance novel, TV, movie
ticket and video game sold, is testament to that fact. Trying
to escape reality is understandable, but just where are we
trying to go?
Life
places each individual in competition with every other. Previous
generations were quick to claim ownership of all available
assets in land, property and ideas, to be sold or rented to
subsequent generations in exchange for their loyalty and labor.
But this is not really such a zero sum game, with a little
freedom, human creative and productive efforts can keep the
merry-go-round turning - and a good ride can be had by all.
But in the end, each of us plays only a bit part in life.
We crowd the entrances to our virtual worlds, to be shown
how the other half live - the rich, the famous and the beautiful.
But it's all an illusion. In a sense, they live the same lives
as us. Our shared, floating satiation responses see to that.
Already, the poorest in the west live in greater luxury and
security than the greatest Kings and princes of old. But to
humans, everything is relative, not absolute. What will happen
when everyone has all the chocolate, champagne, soap operas
and condos they can consume - satiation, that's what will
happen. When you're at the top of a mountain, everywhere you
look is down!
This
is where AI comes in, it has the potential to extend the credibility
of the virtual such that all desires mediated by our senses
can be played out and fulfilled. Moreover, such experiences
will not be in competition with either nature or other humans;
there will be no limit to the size of your castle (or your
harem). And as the saying goes - 'no animals were harmed in
the making of this movie'.
Well
paradise is one thing, but mortality and satiation are two
very big pot holes in that particular road ahead. But here
again, AI will come to the rescue. Nature delivers both satiation
and death to every human born, as booby prizes for your entry
to life. Both these will be curable through advances in technology,
which AI will achieve faster and more safely than any other
means. Happiness, beauty, youth and health will become the
default human condition. And that will just be to start. Of
course we would hope these benefits remain optional, such
that those who prefer, can still be free to choose natures
roulette wheel - providing the opportunity to experience depression,
sickness or death.
But
what if AI does not arrive in time? What if man tries to develop
advanced genetic, nano and computer technology without the
aid of advanced intelligence. Our political systems evolved
from military conquest to inherit a scientific world. Who
can guess what the political class will make of all this.
They may decide, with their growing power, to permit us all
paradise upon earth. - Then again, they may not. But with
democracy, we're sure, at least, to get the politicians and
policies we deserve!
The
real irony is, that as technology advances, we will not need
to be in competition with our neighbor for our liberty, resources
or ideology. In the virtual playgrounds of the future, the
'sinner' and the 'saint' can finally be at peace. With the
preservation of life, rather than of souls our unifying cause.
So
how can a mere machine create original ideas?
|
By
morphing together already known objects. (E.g. a carrot
and a nose), or behaviors (E.g. bounce, laugh, cry, expand)
to form new and novel object, environment and behavior
sets for simulations. |
|
By
substituting objects (linked or random) within scenes
(or words within scripts) then following and grading the
new behavior trajectories within the revised scenes. |
|
By
substituting different behavior trajectories to different
objects, (i.e. building metaphor), then running and grading
the simulation procession. |
When
you sculpture a china clay figurine, you are manifesting a
mental 3D simulation into the real world. When you lay down
visual 2D art, you are manifesting a 2D render plane of a
3D scene to a chosen perspective. When you create language,
you are scripting internal simulations and beliefs, including
estimates of 1st & 3rd person emotional states. When you
say to yourself 'I'm going to now imagine a thing never before
known to man nor beast' - then think of a canary sat in an
oyster shell bath tub, blowing pink metallic unicorn shaped
bubbles into the face of a giggling 12 inch barbie doll -
you are doing all of the above. In others words, every original
thought is based on the rearrangement of precedents, i.e what
has come before.
No
thought can exit your mind that is neither prior art, random
noise or a mixture of the two. (prior art is either genetically
coded e.g. chocolate & cute blondes, or socially programmed,
e.g. spinach & tax gatherers are good for you)
So
how can a mere machine have feelings?
The experience of feeling states are the epiphenominal effects
of information processing. They cannot be manufactured or
referred to in the coordinate system of matter alone - but
are emergent from the matter containing information interacting
in a specific way. The best example being, the way human
feelings emerge from sensory information flow. We subjectively
experience this phenomenon, but are only able to communicate
its presence through mechanical animation - including language.
But language has direct common referents only within the
realm of the material world. The internal feeling referents
of the language tags, have no correlates or even metaphor
apart from the mental processes from which they were derived.
So there can be no objective corroboration or analysis in
the shared world of matter (at least with current technology).
Feelings
are triggered by grading information according to genetic
or learned belief scripts, perhaps analogous to a tuning
forks affinity to a vibration pitch. In the rarified atmosphere
of information alone, the sovereignty of primary belief
and feeling states, defined by the genes, cannot easily
be challenged (re-tuned). If a human watches a scary movie,
the 2D bitmap film image frames build an internal 3D simulation,
which triggers fear, not necessarily in the current moment,
but from the predicted scene outcome of danger, pain, powerlessness
or death. These predictions cause chemical releases in the
brain, immediately perceived by chemical receptors close
by, and felt as physical, stomach churning anguish. Without
the vision input, pharmacology (or even electrodes) can
simulate these same chemical releases to trigger fear (or
even love). Electricity & chemicals do not feel these
things, they instead generate information structures of
the same 'class' as touch, which trigger recognition and
grading, yielding the texture of feelings and emotions -
emergent information processes private to consciousness.
As
George once said in Seinfeld, "Jerry - if you believe
it - it isn't really a lie!" Well if your consciousness
believes in feelings too, they can't be a lie either - right?
So
why can't we build a computer brain right now?
Because
the software and hardware engineering is very hard, too few
people are working on the problem and fewer still believe
the problem of AI can even be solved this way. The software
needs to break down vision bitmaps into the underlying 3D
objects; build memory records from those object forms and
behaviors, and build links to language tags and other properties
abstracted from the simulation.
The
brain doesn't operate on traditional serial software, instead,
the informational processes occur by nature of the very structure
and organization of the memory system itself. It is a parallel
processing memory system.
If
'computational memory' cannot be designed using current electronics,
then traditional software needs to try using existing abstract
3D model technology to drive simulation trials, and to grade
those trials. To then align those simulations for interactions
with the real world, through physical animation or direct
network interfaces.
This
is all very hard. It is likely beyond any one individual to
achieve and organized businesses still see the potential payoff
as too distant. But all the forces of science, technology
and markets are moving us closer; with new tools and breakthroughs
occurring daily. With these trends continuing, in well under
20 years we're sure to have created a computer mind surpassing
our own, and all the consequences that flow from that.
But
sound isn't a 3D object?
Music is like touch, the tiny hairs in the ears are like the hairs all over our body.
Every sense resolves ultimately to touch. And all our sesnes can be resolved to '3d objects' within the information realm. To the
brain, all the sense modalities arrive as parallel 2D data
streams. The wave front of vision is instantiated through time to draw
in the 3D objects from memory - people, cars, hamburgers etc.
The wave front of sound perception is instantiated to draw
in the 3D sound objects of voice, guitar, thunder, breaking
waves etc. again from learned memory precedents.
As
the perceived sensory wave front gathers over time, it describes,
or 'carves out' in memory a 3D data object that can subsequently
be instantiated and predicted from mixed, partial or degraded
2D input.
No,
the brain does not render these non-visual objects to the
visual cortex, but instead to the appropriate sensory cortex
to its class. So you can imagine a visual scene; a musical
'scene'; or a taste or scent.
We
don't need to care about AI - because humans with computers
will always be smarter than computers on their own!
It's
like saying the sum of x+y is bigger than each of it's component
parts. Well that's true so long as neither is zero or a negative
number! An AI tied to the dead weight of a human will be just
that - like adding a -ve number to the sum and hoping the
result gets bigger. And here are a few reasons why:
|
Data
velocity - humans cannot process information
very fast. Imagine a meeting where one human talks at
10 times the speed of everyone else. The group as a whole
does not end up communicating faster - but slower. |
|
Simulation
depth
- humans cannot hold more than 6 or 7 elements in consciousness
at one time. An AI will be able to hold millions. And
as before, joining these two together through language
will not equate to millions + 6 or 7, it will be more
like millions divided by 6 or 7 thousand. |
|
Simulation
persistence
- humans cannot hold animations steady in consciousness
for very long, they break up, drift around, fade away
etc. An AI, that can hold many thousands of concurrent
persistent simulation layers, will not be aided by collaborating
with a human. Would your own scientific research be magnified
by including a chimp on the team? |
|
Emotional
control
- humans have difficulty controlling the emotional grading
of thoughts. An AI will be able to guide emotions to constructively
promote any given task. |
|
Finally
- AI will be able to use computers too! |
So
how can a mere machine know anything, if it can't even move?
A human cripple cannot move. A blind person cannot even see
- but they can still develop great intelligence's. An AI would
certainly benefit from mobility; but there are far more important
cognitive challenges and methods for accessing information
that need to be addressed first. The internet and media are
arguably far richer sources of content than a trip down the
mall or navigating the rooms of your home. An AI will design
its own body soon enough; just as you or I would, if we had
the intelligence and technology. But really, the whole momentum
is in the other direction anyway; from the real world to the
virtual. The only point of a mechanical body would be to secure
physical protection and resources for the computations of
consciousness. Not that different from today really.
So
what is the origin of human values? Do they stem from the
genes, or from some other cause - perhaps spiritual?
Altruism,
like a motor car, is an epiphenomenon of society. But does
it stem from our genes? In a trivial sense, yes it does -
like an apple stems from atoms. But that isn't really a complete
enough answer.
Society
is a socially programmable population of individuals. It is
no longer sufficient to claim the cause of all motives and
actions are the genes. Just as the direction the car travels
is neither made by the car designer or the car factory (i.e.
the genes), but by the contour of the road (reality) and the
will of the driver (his values).
And
it is the 'values', of course, that is the real crux of the
matter here.
Few
would deny that the genes provide a bootstrap set of beliefs
to aid survival, (sex and feeding drives etc.). The rest come
from reality and culture. People seek beliefs that they want
to believe. Rand correctly realized that reality constrains
beliefs, but wrongly believed that reality trumps beliefs;
it does not. In fact, not even violence fully trumps beliefs.
Without
a prior culture and history of Catholicism, a child would
never be programmed with Catholic beliefs. Ideas often take
hold in society because social interest groups emerge that
benefit and promote them. Ideas of religion, private property,
monarchy, the rule of law, democracy - to mention just a few.
Successful
belief memes are personally inherited from the social culture
surrounding each individual. Beliefs travel through generations
by language, by institutions and by art. On the surface, belief
in altruism can be perceived as beneficial to members of society,
and so it is hardly surprising that it becomes a favored meme.
Genes do not need to code for altruism, social programming
will seek 'meme utility' through cultural evolution. Such
memes emerge from the fabric of society the way eyes evolve
from the fabric of biology and material reality. Some evolutionary
biologies fail, like the dodo, and some memes fail - like
cannibalism.
Biology
provides the 'feeling' mechanism; society decides what it
will be applied to. An analogy is - biology provides the thermometer;
society provides things to measure, and tells you what is
a good temperature and what is a bad temperature - e.g. through
emotions.
Slavery;
cock fighting; public executions; games of human sacrifice
- as in the Roman era. These were all broadly accepted. Modern
society has subsequently re-graded these activities; re-set
the 'emotional' temperature scales.
Although
there are biological drives - they are not imperatives, they
can be subjugated to social beliefs. Puritanism is an example
of social programming overriding biological drives - without
society and culture, there would be no puritans. Whereas without
'society' there would still be hunger and a sex drive, since
these derive directly from the genes.
So
what makes you 'want' to believe things - biological evolution
does by making them 'feel' good - the way candy 'feels' good.
Society offers many benefits to those admired by it, (and
punishments for those scorned) and society evolves many symbiotic
meme complexes to promote this. (patriotism, politeness, law
etc.)
Certain
beliefs are very attractive to people. They have a power to
seduce. For example the belief that printing dollars is the
same as creating wealth. Or that when you die you will enter
paradise. If I asked you, would you rather share your town
with 100 selfish people or 100 altruists, your instinct might
be to go with the altruists - I didn't say people were necessarily
rational. If enough people do share a belief in altruism,
it will become a favored social belief. It will be inculcated
by members of society. Especially the young, and particularly
through the use of language, which, as well as indexing facts
in external reality, can also index and re-align subjective
human values and beliefs. Once a critical mass has been reached,
its momentum can take off, and beliefs may become accepted
truths. Though reality may in time overturn them.
So
do the genes code for altruism, the Pentium chip and human
art? The genes created the biological technology, including
the seeded cognitive machinery. But it is society, made up
of unique individuals, and exploiting the technology of language,
that evolved cultural beliefs from there. To the socially
programmed individual, the 'moral value', as defined by society,
is no more or less of an illusion, than is the taste of candy.
Links...
Epilog
Grandpa
arrives to take her to the fairground...
"Wait, I'll bring my apple. We'll show it the
rides so we can look at them later."
"It must be a very magic apple?" - replies
grandpa
"Don't be stupid, everyone knows about apples!"
- as she brings out her camera.
"But that's a video camera?"
"So I made a mistake with one little word - I'm
only 8 you know!"
_____
"So tell me, why can a camera remember the rides,
but an apple can't?"
"That's obvious - the camera's got an eye hasn't
it." - as she points to the lens - her own eyes
now rolling to heaven while muttering "everyone
knows that!"
"Well you've got an eye, but when I look at the
back of your head, I don't see what happened yesterday?"
"She frowns and replies - 'Well you could
if my hair and stuff wasn't in the way!"
|
|
|
