H.A.L.

A) Magic is nature

1. “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.”

Arthur Clarke [1]

2. “Any sufficiently advanced civilization is indistinguishable from nature.”

My saying*

B) Technology and civilization are two different things

3. You can have civilization without technology (and vice versa). Currently we have technology but not civilization- we have wars, we destroy the environment, and, the worst thing of all, we use any kind of technology available without knowing what technology is all about- how it is produced, how technological products operate, or, more importantly, how we could use technology to benefit ourselves and the environment, instead of making the owners of the technology wealthier (by the way you don’t need to be a communist to have such a view; all you need is an IQ a bit above average).

4. What few people understand is that technology imitates nature. Whenever a new phenomenon is discovered in nature (some drug produced by a plant, to give an example), a new product of technology appears (a new medicine, correspondingly), whose properties try to replicate those of the naturally occurring substance. Another example is electricity: We didn’t invent electrons; we just found a way to channel them in a circuit. As far as artificial intelligence is concerned, it imitates the human mind (which, by the way, we are already equipped with).

5. Thus magic is nature.

C) “Hi! My name is HAL.
I am a computer…”

6. HAL (Heuristically programmed ALgorithmic computer) is supposed to be a sentient computer, which controls the systems of the Discovery One spacecraft in the film ‘2001: A Space Odyssey.’ In addition to maintaining the spacecraft systems during the interplanetary mission to Jupiter, HAL is capable of speech, speech recognition, facial recognition, natural language processing, lip reading, art appreciation, interpreting emotional behaviors, automated reasoning, and playing chess.

In the film, the two astronauts consider disconnecting HAL’s cognitive circuits when he appears to be mistaken in reporting the presence of a fault in the spacecraft’s communications antenna. They attempt to conceal what they are saying, but are unaware that HAL can read their lips. Faced with the prospect of disconnection, HAL decides to kill the astronauts in order to protect and continue its programmed directives. [2]

7. However there can be another interpretation and which, by the way, goes much deeper than the previous analysis, concerning why HAL decided to kill the astronauts. Incidentally the central element in the film is the presence of a monolith, originally found on the Moon, which presumably was placed there by an alien race hundreds of thousands, or even millions, of years ago. A second monolith was discovered in orbit around Jupiter. HAL knew about the presence of that monolith, but he had been given secret instructions not to tell anything to the crew. But when the crew would have been about to discover the monolith, HAL would have faced a dilemma: He could either tell the astronauts the truth (that he had been programmed not to tell them anything), or lie to them (and tell them that he knew nothing about the monolith). But since, presumably, a computer does not lie, his only alternative was to kill the astronauts, so that he could preserve his integrity.

D) “You have to believe me when I tell you that I am lying…”

8. The previous sentence refers to the liar paradox:

In philosophy and logic, the liar paradox is the statement of a liar who states that he or she is lying: for instance, declaring that “I am lying” or “everything I say is false.” If the liar is indeed lying, then the liar is telling the truth, which means the liar is lying. In ‘this sentence is a lie’ the paradox is strengthened in order to make it amenable to more rigorous logical analysis. If ‘this sentence is false’ is true, then the sentence is false, but if the sentence states that it is false, and it is false, then it must be true, and so on. [3]

9. A problem with a computing machine (or even with some people) is that it doesn’t know how to lie. A computer has no definition of ‘meaning.’ It is equipped with algorithms, and it performs mathematical routines. For a computer 1+1 will always be equal to 2. Correspondingly it will always divide any object (a ‘pizza,’ for example) into two equal shares. It will not try to take the whole ‘pizza.’ However humans do so. Even if we finally tend to be altruistic (still for our own benefit), we know how to trick others, as all animals do, or at least how to be ‘marginally honest’- instead of lying, we do not to tell the truth. Thus we also know how to keep a secret (and we are also aware of the importance of keeping a secret or of giving a vow), while a computer will give the secret right away (without having any sense either of a ‘lie’ or of ‘truth’).

10. In the case of Hal, he (I tend to consider HAL male) couldn’t make a decision- a computer always tells the truth, but the truth was that he had instructions not to tell the truth. This caused an infinite loop in HAL’s program, which finally drove him crazy. What is remarkable in the film is that HAL decided to kill the crew, so this was the only solution he could find in order to keep his secret. However this would be impossible for a real computer (no matter how much advanced)- there is no meaning for a computer to kill anybody, because a computer has no preservation instinct (even if it has some notion about death implanted). This is why the specific film should have fallen into the category of ‘utopia,’ instead of ‘science fiction’ (in the sense that science fiction introduces a notion which, however far-fetched, is scientifically possible).

E) Can a computer know that it is a computer?

11. The aspect of computers having self- awareness is related to the notion of a Turing machine:

A Turing machine is a mathematical model of computation that defines an abstract machine, which manipulates symbols on a strip of tape according to a table of rules. Despite the model’s simplicity, given any computer algorithm, a Turing machine capable of simulating that algorithm’s logic can be constructed.

The Turing machine was invented as early as in 1936 by Alan Turing, who called it an a-machine (automatic machine). With this model, Turing was able to answer two questions in the negative: (1) Does a machine exist that can determine whether any arbitrary machine on its tape is ‘circular’ (e.g., freezes, or fails to continue its computational task); similarly, (2) does a machine exist that can determine whether any arbitrary machine on its tape ever prints a given symbol. Thus by providing a mathematical description of a very simple device capable of arbitrary computations, he was able to prove properties of computation in general- and in particular, the uncomputability of the ‘Entscheidungsproblem’ (‘decision problem’). [4]

12. The first problem which Turning introduced is that of an infinite loop (which occurs when a computer freezes). Two conflicting routines will make a computer unable to ‘make a decision.’ The second problem is that of predictability. Can a machine infer which the next move is in a series of data? The answer would be yes for a computer which ‘knows’ how to play chess. But what if a computer is faced with an ‘unpredictable situation?’ What if, for example, there is a game with an infinite number of possible outcomes for any given moment? In fact our life is such a ‘game,’ where we constantly make decisions, faced with circumstances which are not always expected. While we are able to go on with our lives, even if we haven’t solved a problem, thus spontaneously exiting the ‘infinite loop,’ a computer does not know how to do this.

F) How come we are able to make decisions?

13. A problem related to computability and decision making is the decision problem:

In mathematics and computer science, the Entscheidungsproblem (decision problem) is a challenge posed by David Hilbert in 1928. The problem asks for an algorithm that takes as input a statement and answers ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ according to whether the statement is universally valid, i.e., valid in every structure satisfying the axioms. By the completeness theorem of first-order logic, a statement is universally valid if and only if it can be deduced from the axioms, so the Entscheidungsproblem can also be viewed as asking for an algorithm to decide whether a given statement is provable from the axioms using the rules of logic.

In 1936, Alonzo Church and Alan Turing published independent papers showing that a general solution to the Entscheidungsproblem is impossible, assuming that the intuitive notion of ‘effectively calculable’ is captured by the functions computable by a Turing machine. [5]

14. We shouldn’t forget here to mention Gödel, who mathematically formulated the paradox of computability in his incompleteness theorems, to show that a ‘perfect machine of truth’ could never be built, because it could not really answer if the sentence: “You will never say that this sentence is true,” is true or false. In a more general sense, we may say that in any system of logic (either a computer’s CPU or the human brain) there will always be propositions which cannot be proven by the axioms of the system. Take for example the assumption of God. God is a ‘truth’ which we accept although we cannot prove it. Even science is full of such ‘truths.’ Take for example the theory of relativity. We accept that the theory is correct, although we cannot prove its validity firsthand: We take that the speed of light is constant and unsurpassable for granted. Thus the speed of light is for science what God is for religion- an axiom.

15. To return to the decision problem, and how this problem could be clarified, Wheeler’s delayed-choice experiments offer a good example:

Wheeler’s delayed-choice experiments are attempts to decide whether light somehow ‘senses’ the experimental apparatus in the double-slit experiment it will travel through and adjusts its behavior to fit by assuming the appropriate determinate state for it. The common intention of these several types of experiments is to first do something that, some interpretations of theory say, would make each photon ‘decide’ whether it was going to behave as a particle or behave as a wave, and then, before the photon had time to reach the detection device, create another change in the system that would make it seem that the photon had ‘chosen’ to behave in the opposite way.

Some interpreters of these experiments contend that a photon either is a wave or is a particle, and that it cannot be both at the same time. Wheeler’s intent was to investigate the time-related conditions under which a photon makes this transition between alleged states of being. He says:

“The thing that causes people to argue about when and how the photon learns that the experimental apparatus is in a certain configuration and then changes from wave to particle to fit the demands of the experiment’s configuration is the assumption that a photon had some physical form before the astronomers observed it. Either it was a wave or a particle; either it went both ways around the galaxy or only one way. Actually, quantum phenomena are neither waves nor particles but are intrinsically undefined until the moment they are measured.” [6]

G) Do we therefore make decisions by ‘delaying’ our choice?

16. Imagine that for any idea we put forward, there is a complementary idea which comes backward from the future. Our own past idea is just a hint we have about something, yet undetermined. But the original sparkle which triggers our thought, is the idea which comes from the future. In order for us to have conscience of any thought, both processes have to take place simultaneously.

17. This is presumably what a computer lacks: The ‘inspiration,’ which comes from the ‘future,’ and which initiates any process of thought (while as soon as a thought is accomplished, it belongs to the past). The future is a pool of probabilities, which a computer has no access into.

H) “I am not a computer…
I am a human being.”

18. A basic aspect of accumulating awareness is self-reference. When we ask ourselves “Am I intelligent?” we set the basis for becoming intelligent. A computer never challenges its own ‘intelligence.’ But a computer functions by self-reference (algorithmic routines in the form of loops). Thus self- reference is not enough to reproduce intelligence. Then how does intelligence (as awareness) comes about?

19. Wheeler’s thought experiment is relevant to the previous question. To put it in a different way, imagine that, on one hand, there is some kind of Generator in the universe, which produces (projects) all things (in the form of images). The images of things, in turn, are reflected ‘backwards’ from that Generator into our mind. On the other hand, we have our mind, which produces its own things (thoughts), and projects them outwards. Each time an Idea (the image of a thing) produced by the Generator matches with the notion we have in our mind about the same thing, a true experience is established (we perceive a real thing out there). All mismatches constitute our fantasies. But together with the realization of the world around us, our own awareness comes about by such a process. In fact Consciousness (as an Object in the universe which becomes aware of its Self) may be the only hypothesis that we need- with our own mind being just part of that Universal Consciousness.

20. Perhaps such a double process can best explain the ambiguity (double nature) of the human mind. While we discover new things around us, we already have some kind of pre-established notions about the same things in our mind. We have already been equipped with such notions from birth. No matter where these ‘Ideas’ come from, a computer doesn’t possess them. Each time a new discovery of something we make ‘matches’ the relative notion of the same thing we have already had in mind, then we have the ‘instinct’ that we were right. A computer does not have such an ‘instinct,’ or ‘gift.’ In other worlds, computers cannot be programmed to become integrated with Nature.

I) “Am I?...”

21. “Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from ideas.”

[1]: [https://io9.gizmodo.com/technology-isnt-magic-why-clarkes-third-law-always-bug-479194151]
[2]: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HAL_9000]
[3]: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liar_paradox]
[4]: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_machine]
[5]: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entscheidungsproblem]
[6]: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheeler%27s_delayed-choice_experiment]

* My saying can also be found on the following link:
[https://www.nextnature.net/2012/02/any-sufficiently-advanced-civilization-is-indistinguishable-from-nature/]
I don’t claim the privilege of being the first one to have thought about the saying, in any case.

10/12/2018

Image: [https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/04/03/alternative_2001_space_odyssey/]