Alt-BEAM Archive
Message #02283
To: beam@corp.sgi.com
From: Terry Newton wtnewton@nc5.infi.net
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 16:15:10
Subject: [alt-beam] Re: CPU again? (was Beam genome)
At 09:48 PM 4/13/99 +0200, Steven Bolt wrote:
>On Tue, 13 Apr 1999, Terry Newton wrote:
>
>---8<---
>> Actually computers are too sequential and deterministic to achieve
>> the necessary decoupling from reality to become "alive" in any normal
>> sense of the word.
>---8<---
>
>*De*coupling from reality? It's coupling you want. The difference
>between life and machine is the level, the bandwith, the tightness
>of the link between anything alive and its world. A living entity
>smells, breathes, tastes, eats and shits its environment, feels it
>with its entire body. Compare that to the pitiful tactile switches,
>photodiodes or even videocamera's of our robots. Their brains'
>determinism isn't in the way. Most `lower' life forms are pretty
>deterministic, adapting only or mostly when the genetic algorithm
>steps in from one generation to the next. What machines need to
>reach alivehood is being *much* tighter coupled with reality...
Everything you say is true, we do need *much* better sense of and
influence over the environment. I might have mis-spoke when I said
"alive", I was thinking "conscious life". Many seemingly deterministic
things are considered alive but are not conscious. Also, you can have
tight sensor coupling to the robot and still decouple the thought
process so that it isn't so deterministic. Sorry, I probably got
carried away, I'll try to explain further...
In order to be conscious, something must be able to "think" and
be able to "decide" on its own, not as a result of networks code
or anything so closely coupled to reality that no other option
is possible. That's what I mean by "de-coupling". A body of thought
independent of the electronics that surround it. A speculation that
isn't forced by some counter or something. In other words, it's
got to have soul to think, and I'm afraid that won't happen using
existing sequential computers. Best one can do is simulate it well
enough to fake it. But it isn't *really* thinking. Chaotic networks
of analog neurons influencing each other probably has more potential
to become "conscious" than cold rigid code. Although I'm working
on a solution that will result in more potential for code life...
the idea of unknown value registers. Don't look at them directly
or all the magic goes away. Still looking for a good low power
noise source, I'll never get there trying to use a counter for
"random" numbers, no matter how much shifting I do there is
still only one possible answer at any given moment.
It's something besides whether it's cpu or analog that will determine
if something electronic is "alive" (there's that word again!), who's
to say our little four neuron walkers are not alive? Can we tell?
Would we recognise that kind of life? I'm working on something I
can't even verify. I can only go by intuition which says chaos needs
to be involved if true multiple-choice responses are to be achieved.
A phase space where many things can happen, so sometimes they do.
With a cpu, generally it works as well as programmed, current
programming methods prevent just anything from happening for
with any set of inputs and starting conditions only one thing
can happen. Unless I find that noise source... really it comes
down to what is used for the random number generator. Is it really?
A cpu is still just a part with advantages and drawbacks.
One can explore deep intellectual challenges like thought with
analog or cpu with a roughly equal chance of success - true
because there is no definition of what thought even is. Whatever
level it has, if it supports the robot, then it is a success.
A cpu-controlled robot would probably have more recognisable
thoughts, certainly capable of more advanced processing, and
a network-based solution might have a more advanced thought
process but it occurs in a world we do not easily perceive
or understand. The "Living Machines" paper helps. De-coupling
can be seen here... even though the environment is coupled
to the neurons they do not force them. Rather it is a rhythmic
heartbeat that mostly determines behavior, the sensors only
influence it. The environment needs to be tightly coupled to the
robot, it is the thought process that should be one step removed
to open up the possibility of conscious decision. Maybe?
Terry Newton
------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/list/alt-beam
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com
Home