On Sunday, December 13th, the Black Holes, Beakers, and Books: Popular Science Book Club will conclude its Fall 2009 Mortals & Machines series with the book The Emotion Machine by Marvin Minsky. The Emotion Machine is a call for a “back to basics” approach to using the human mind as a model for artificial intelligence. Marvin Minsky finds his academic home at MIT, where he is a scholar of cognitive psychology, robotics and artificial intelligence, among many other things. He is tentatively scheduled to speak to the book club in a teleconference on the day of our meeting.

Our meetings are always free and open to the public, so feel free to stop by!

–Wes

Porque investir em sistemas inteligentes?

Porque financiar um projeto de desenvolvimento de um sistemas contendo inteligência artificial?

Escutar pelo menos uma dessas perguntas de um responsável por uma empresa significa que ele não só sabe o que significa inteligência artificial, mas também o quanto é necessário para o crescimento da empresa.

Por outro lado, ver grandes empresários falando que inteligência artificial é coisa do futuro só demonstra a grande ignorância sobre o assunto. O medo de coisas desconhecidas é altamente tolerável, mas tomar uma decisão com base no que não conhece, extrapola os limites da ignorância (completem a frase com o adjetivo que lhe vier na mente).

Grandes gurus da administração recomendam abrir os olhos, mas galera, só abrir os olhos não adianta muito, temos que levantar a cabeça e olhar para frente com os pés no chão.

Inteligência artificial não é o bicho papão que assombrou sua infância, inteligência artificial faz parte do seus dia a dia, só você que não viu. Pode acreditar em mim.

A grande maioria das pessoas que não são da área de computação ao conversar comigo associam a inteligência artificial a sistemas altamente complexos que simulam o incompreensível sistema cognitivo humano. Alguns ainda gostam de acoplar um robô com habilidades superiores a dos seres humanos de brinde. Só nessa brincadeira descrita nós temos duas área de pesquisa bem profunda que são a robótica e a inteligência artificial forte.

Pessoal, eu falei inteligência artificial forte que corresponde a investigação em sistemas que consiga raciocinar e resolver problemas, basicamente esses sistemas podem ser classificados como auto-conscientes. Marvin Minsky define muito bem o pensamento dos seguidores da IA  forte com a frase: “Cérebros são Computadores Formados de Carne”.

Qual empresa utiliza sistemas inteligentes nesse porte? Pessoalmente eu não conheço nenhuma e acredito que não vou conhecer por um bom tempo. É bem essa visão que tomadores de decisão tem sobre sistemas inteligentes. Oh, Pobres mortais!

Comercialmente são utilizados sistemas inteligentes baseados na IA fraca, que é bem mais simples do que o nosso cérebro. A IA fraca resolve problemas menores sem ter em seu interior um sistemas auto-consciente.

Quando falei que vocês estão rodeados de sistemas inteligentes eu não tava brincando. Vou ajudar a perceber isso.

Já usou o site de busca do Google? Pois é, ele provavelmente já deve ter corrigido você e para piorar ainda mais ele bateu em você com a frase “Você quis dizer: …”. Já jogou futebol no video-game? O juiz ladrão do jogo é a personificação da inteligência do juiz (ladrão ou não), Yahoo, Mercado Livre, sistema bancário, Last FM, Orkut, tudo isso tem IA.

Suponha por absurdo que você ainda não acredita que IA pode ser simples. Nesse caso eu vou te mostrar um sistema onde a inteligência artificial pode ser observável com mais clareza. Só que eu não posso garantir que você vai conseguir extrair algo de útil dessa demonstração. Existe um sistema chamado Akinator que é o gênio da internet, ele “magicamente” adivinha (deduz) o que você está pensando. Sente o drama: http://pt.akinator.com/.

Bem, a idéia desse post é que com poucas palavras eu consiga guiar você pela estrada de tijolos amarelos para o fim do desconhecido e o fim do mito da inteligência artificia como o ser devorador de dinheiro. A IA é sim possível, é sim uma boa idéia para investimento e é sim o futuro de hoje. Grandes empresas estão sentadas em grandes fortunas por ter inovado e apostado na IA. Agora só falta você.

Indique esse post para mais 5 chefes e milagrosamente você receberá um aumento de salário. Caso você quebre a corrente, o aumento será de trabalho.

Para finalizar, gostaria de repassar uma frase que li no livro Gerenciando com a Máfia onde o autor cita a seguinte frase:

“Ganhar não é a melhor coisa, é a única”.

Pense nisso!

I was directed by a fellow Tweeter (Twitterer? Tweet-smith?) to this article from The Spearhead, an online blog addressing “men’s issues.”  I think the name of the article’s author (“Pro-Male/Anti-Feminist Tech”) succinctly illustrates the point of view of the piece.

I hesitate commenting on the piece as my linking to it may actually give it mileage.  However, as a fan of sci-fi and fantasy and a nascent creator in those forms, I need to rebut this wrong-headed foolishness in my own special way.  Besides, I have faith in my fellow readers and think that it would be far better to shed light on this wrong-headedness than to try and hide it.  Besides, it’s my blog and I’ll rant if I want to…

The overall theme of “The War on Science Fiction and Marvin Minsky” is that television and movies have overly feminized science fiction, diluting it into something other than what it has been or was ever intended to be.  The primary fear of the author is that, as a result of this dilution, boys will no longer be inspired by science fiction to pursue scientific or technological careers.

The opening premise of the piece serves as the foundation of a flawed argument:

Science fiction is a very male form of fiction.  Considerably more men than women are interested in reading and watching science fiction.  This is no surprise.  Science fiction traditionally is about men doing things, inventing new technologies, exploring new worlds, making new scientific discoveries, terraforming planets, etc.  Many men working in the fields of science, engineering, and technology have cited science fiction (such as the original Star Trek) for inspiring them when they were boys to establish careers in these fields.

There are so many assumptions and generalizations in this opening salvo.  I’d love to see some demographic data on the gender breakdown of sci-fi fandom; but, I can concede that conventional wisdom says that most fans are guys.  We’ll set that aside for now.  However, the crux of this assumption of sci-fi being a “very male form” is his assertion of what sci-fi really is: “men doing things.”

According to The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Literary Terms (1990), science fiction is a “popular branch of prose   that explores the probable consequences of some improbable or impossible transformation of the basic conditions of human (or intelligent non-human) existence.”  Not necessarily male or even male-dominant.  Looking at A Handbook to Literature (2000), it is a “form of fantasy in which scientific facts, assumptions, or hypotheses form the basis, by logical extrapolation, of adventures in the future, on other planets, in other dimensions in time or space, or under new variants of scientific law.”  So far not only is science fiction not necessarily about men…but it’s not even about “doing things”.  It’s about the premise and it’s about the consequences of that premise.  And, so as not to be accused of only using modern “politically correct” sources, let’s look at Benet’s The Reader’s Encyclopedia (1965), where we are discussing “a genre of fantasy.  It has its basis either in scientific fact or in a plausible kind of pseudo-science.”  Nobody necessarily doing anything. 

So much for a priori definitions.  One need only to look at the entire scope of science fiction since the 1930s when Gernsback first coined the term is to see that, while clearly male dominated (especially in the early years), it has since blossomed into a far-reaching genre encompassing fantasy, folklore, horror, mystery, and traditional “hard” sci-fi.  Much like the Prometheus of Mary Shelley’s seminal work, science fiction has become unbound.  The stretch of the horizon and the possibilities inherent in “what if” are what give science fiction its strength as a genre.  Presenting alternate lifestyles, women in strong roles, and exploring human relationships does not weaken the genre but broadens and strengthens it.  To bind it to such a narrow scope is what can ultimately dilute it, weaken it, and finally kill it.  In fact, such an assertion is antithetical to what science fiction is.

Women have been part of the science fiction fan-base from its inception (see this interesting article on female sci-fi authors of the 40s and 50s).  I do not think that it has occurred to the author that the reason much “traditional” sci-fi is male-oriented is that it began in a time when everything was male-oriented.  The “golden age” of the pulps sprang from a male-dominated audience.  But as the culture evolved so did the genre.  And this is a good thing.  We have moved far beyond Flash Gordon and Buck Rogers, as much fun as they were. 

The author goes on to rail against the Sci-Fi channel’s admittedly misguided move to “SyFy” and the re-imagining of Battlestar Galactica…especially the shift of the character of Starbuck from male to female.  The move to “SyFy” was primarily about copyrights (as the author acknowledges) and is highly face-palm-worthy…as acknowledged by sci-fi fans of both genders across the Internet.  And, I’ll admit, I was taken aback when I heard about the impending sex-change of my favorite Viper pilot.  But, having watched 2 ½ seasons of the series (I stopped buying DVDs for awhile), I assert that good writing always wins out.  They created a compelling and very watchable character in the new Starbuck, regardless (or maybe even in spite of) her origins. 

Homosexuality is another problem for the author as he explains in his paragraph describing the “omnisexual” character of Captain Jack in the new Doctor Who franchise.  I can’t speak much to the author’s statements here as I’ve only seen the first season of the new Who (and thoroughly enjoyed it).  However, it serves as another example of the way in which the author is threatened by any non-traditional male encroachment on the genre.  To this I can only say that many would consider Captain Kirk omnisexual in his other-than-strictly-human sexual exploits. 

The author’s primary beef seems to be the focus on “relationship drama” rather than “space battles”.  Essentially, this is the old debate of character-driven narrative vs. plot-driven narrative…given a sexist veneer of “girls like relationships and boys want explosions”.  In fact, his assertion is that “moronic relationship drama” is written for women, therefore implying that women are, in fact, moronic.  Setting aside the blatant sexism…I think there is room for both types of writing.  One of the most compelling sci-fi series on television was the woefully short-lived Firefly.  It had action, strong male and female characters, and plenty of relationship drama.  And it drew everybody it touched into the story.  No mass-media narrative can be completely one thing and never another.  It won’t work for the market and it won’t work as art.  It’s a special alchemy that only a few very gifted and/or hard-working artists achieve.  And if they limited themselves to only male-oriented plots or female-oriented drama they would have failed.  True, Firefly only lasted 12 episodes.  But it spawned a major motion picture, games, fan-fiction, and a devoted following.  Good writing always wins out.

Our author also goes on to quote Marvin Minsky, an eminent scientist and expert in AI from MIT.  After citing two quotations from Minsky, the author asserts that what the scientist (and the author) are saying is that “its (sic) not science fiction anymore, and men are not interested in moronic relationship drama in space”.  The primary quote from Minsky reads that “aside from the science fiction, I find it tedious to read any ordinary writing at all.  It all seems so conventional and repetitive.”  This comes from a work called “The Third Culture” in a chapter entitled “Smart Machines”.  The piece is essentially an interview with Minsky in which he relates many of his ideas on thought and culture.  The full quotation from that piece is as follows:

Of course, I also read a great deal of technical literature. But aside from the science fiction, I find it tedious to read any ordinary writing at all. It all seems so conventional and repetitive. To me, the science-fiction writers are our culture’s most important original thinkers, while the mainstream writers seem “stuck” to me, rewriting the same plots and subjects, reworking ideas that appeared long ago in Sophocles or Aristophanes, recounting the same observations about human conflicts, attachments, infatuations, and betrayals. Mainstream literature replays again and again all the same old stuff, whereas the science-fiction writers try to imagine what would happen if our technologies and societies — and our minds themselves — were differently composed.

What Minsky describes is essentially my point about the strength of the genre.  Its province is the land of “what-if”.  How do these different technologies, which affect societies, which are composed of the relationships that people have with one another, change those people and the societies that reflect them?  What if people in the 51^st Century were largely omnisexual?  What would have caused that?  What are the benefits? Are there drawbacks?  What was gained and lost in the change?  These are the questions that good sci-fi can address. 

Can the author of this article not see that what he proposes is the stagnation of the genre?  What he proposes is the perpetual reworking of the same old male-dominated, plot-driven tropes of days-gone-by.  In fact, he wishes to perpetuate the “same old stuff” of mainstream sci-fi that Minsky himself is against. 

Let’s say that the assertion that most sci-fi fans are male is true.  Why does that dictate what the genre is?  Why does that have to limit what it could be?  If flies in the face of reason.  What if, heaven forfend, all this feminization tips the scales and brings 51% of the population into the fold?  More than anything else, he fears change and he fears the bringers of that change.  And I simply don’t understand the fear.  Perhaps I’ve been too feminized…

Finally, our author is afraid for the boys of tomorrow who will have no “golden age” heroes to spur them to heights of creativity and technological know-how.  He seems to forget that the men of sci-fi haven’t left…they’re still telling stories and creating compelling characters and situations.  There are now simply more stories being told, in different ways, by different people.  Science fiction has always been about exploration…that hasn’t changed.  He also seems to forget that many of our scientists and astronauts and explorers were also inspired by their mothers and their sisters and their aunts and their girlfriends and their wives to create the world in which they all want to live.  That’s what humans do and have always done.

De tempos em tempos, surgem ondas de grande pessimismo quanto ao futuro da humanidade. Previsões de apocalipses inelutáveis fazem parte da nossa consciência coletiva, como atestam crenças religiosas de vários povos e o sucesso de filmes que prevêem um amanhã dominado pelas máquinas. Embora antecipar-se a possíveis problemas seja fundamental, não é razoável simplesmente temer o futuro, pois a mudança é algo inerente à natureza humana.

Alguns dos receios associados ao porvir são justificáveis, pois são baseados em processos em curso. Por exemplo, como as sociedades modernas dependem imensamente de energia, a perspectiva de que a era do petróleo barato esteja chegando ao fim causa preocupações válidas. Embora usualmente não percebamos, o petróleo é parte inerente de nossas vidas. Ele está nas roupas, nos eletrodomésticos e no combustível usado para transporte, geração de energia elétrica, etc. Não fossem os fertilizantes e pesticidas, seria impossível alimentar a crescente população mundial (lembremo-nos das previsões de Thomas Malthus, retomadas, na década de 1970, pelo Clube de Roma). A menos que seja encontrado substituto efetivo para o petróleo, a diminuição de sua oferta pode desestabilizar significativamente a sociedade em que vivemos.

A globalização, como feita hoje, também causa receio. No campo econômico, ela premia os mais adaptados à dura competição entre os países, o que ameaça relegar ao atraso e à pobreza aqueles que não consigam encontrar lugar privilegiado, na divisão internacional de trabalho. No plano cultural, ela ameaça povos pobres e ricos com o fantasma da perda de identidade, o que cria campo fértil para o ressurgimento de nacionalismos exacerbados, cujos efeitos deletérios marcaram o século XX.

Muitos temores quanto ao futuro carecem, porém, de bases sólidas. Enquadra-se nessa categoria o receio de que as máquinas nos dominarão. De fato, os computadores se tornarão cada vez melhores em tarefas que demandam, por exemplo, habilidades associadas a reconhecimento de padrões, tais como a identificação de imagens e de voz. Mas, quando se consideram as dificuldades enfrentadas para permitir às máquinas realizar algumas tarefas razoavelmente simples para os seres humanos, há um longo caminho a percorrer. A competição denominada “Desafio Urbano”, conduzida pela Agência de Projetos de Pesquisa Avançada em Defesa (DARPA), organização do governo do Estados Unidos, prova o quão difícil é dotar computadores de habilidades como dirigir um automóvel em um ambiente urbano. Se careço da autoridade científica de um Stephen Hawking, defensor da idéia de que, em breve, os computadores serão mais inteligentes que nós (o que é inteligência?) e nos dominarão, recorro a Marvin Minsky, um dos pais do campo da inteligência artificial, que disse: “Irão os robôs herdar a Terra? Sim, mas eles serão nossas crianças”.

O medo do futuro pode ser entendido como o medo do novo. Como espécie tentando sobreviver, tememos encontrar uma ameaça para a qual não consigamos resposta, seja ela natural ou resultante de nossas atividades. Daí o pânico usualmente causado por notícias de pandemias ou de crises econômicas. Além disso, o medo do novo é fomentado por fundamentalistas religiosos e líderes de regimes autoritários, que vêem como ameaça aos seus sistemas de poder a ampliação do acesso das populações a recursos tecnológicos e o conseqüente aumento na circulação de idéias.

A tendência a romper paradigmas, sejam eles sociais, tecnológicos ou produtivos, é, porém, resultado de nossa história evolutiva. Polegares opositores, associados a um córtex cerebral que se foi desenvolvendo ao longo do tempo, permitiram aos nossos ancestrais fazer ferramentas e elaborar modos de organização social que levaram ao domínio da espécie humana sobre as demais. Além disso, está provado pelas Neurociências que experiências novas e desafiadoras são demandadas pelo cérebro humano, sob pena de perda de capacidade intelectual.

Devemos, assim, tentar antecipar futuros desafios, mas não temer o porvir, pois somos geneticamente predispostos a inovar.

“We are reluctant, with regard to music and art, to examine our sources
of pleasure and strength. In part we fear success itself—we fear that understanding
might spoil enjoyment. Rightly so! Art so often loses power
when its psychological roots are exposed”
—Marvin Minsky

page 1 of

Art and Complexity – edited by John Casti and Anders Karlqvist

Kumar Vishwas is a poet of a new generation (in Marathi we call it Navkavi).  To quote few people-

Late Dharamvir Bharati, remarked him as the most promising lyricist of young-hindi generation, Honourable Neeraj used to call his compering as – “nisha-niyamak”, and according to the famous comedy-icon poet, Surinder Sharma, he is the one and only ISO2006 poet of this generation.

Dr.Vishvas, immensely popular with the coming generation has been using internet to spread the magic of his words—his beautiful poetry—to reach those Indians who are away from their soil, in far flung places like U.S.A, Europe, Gulf and Pakistan.

I heard his beautiful poem titled ‘Koi Deewana Kehta Hai’ and instantly fell in love with it. You can watch the video on YouTube or Google video.

Here are the lyrics-

कोई दीवाना कहता है, कोई पागल समझता है !
मगर धरती की बेचैनी को बस बादल समझता है !!
मैं तुझसे दूर कैसा हूँ , तू मुझसे दूर कैसी है !
ये तेरा दिल समझता है या मेरा दिल समझता है !!

मोहब्बत एक एहसासों की पावन सी कहानी है !
कभी कबीरा दीवाना था कभी मीरा दीवानी है !!
यहाँ सब लोग कहते हैं, मेरी आंखों में आँसू हैं !
जो तू समझे तो मोती है, जो ना समझे तो पानी है !!

समंदर पीर का है अन्दर, लेकिन रो नही सकता !
यह आँसू प्यार का मोती है, इसको खो नही सकता !!
मेरी चाहत को दुल्हन बना लेना, मगर सुन ले !
जो मेरा हो नही पाया, वो तेरा हो नही सकता !!

भ्रमर कोई कुमुदनी पर मचल बैठा तो हँगामा
हमारे दिल में कोई ख्वाब पला बैठा तो हँगामा,
अभी तक डूब कर सुनते थे हम किस्सा मुहब्बत का
मैं किस्से को हक़ीक़त में बदल बैठा तो हँगामा !!!

Lyrics source – Weeping Heart

I feel like like listening to the poetry now and then!

You can read more at a dedicated website for Dr. Kumar vishwas. The website also features some of his Hindi poems.

Why does music have so much profound effect on our mood? How do we perceive and interpret musical notes? Is it intuitive or involves continuous learning process or both? Marvin Minsky has tried to answer these questions on his paper titled Music, Mind and Meaning. He is an American cognitive scientist in the field of artificial intelligence (AI), co-founder of MIT’s AI laboratory, and author of several texts on AI and philosophy (interestingly I did BE final year project on Stock Market using AI techniques).

Related posts:

1. Teach yourself programming in ten years by Peter Norvig

Uzun, yorucu ve bunaltıcı bir dönemin hemen ardından; daha uzun, daha yorucu ve daha bunaltıcı olacağı her halinden belli bir dönemin hemen öncesinde tekrar merhabalar. Battlestar Galactica ile ilgili yazacağım yazıları biraz daha ertelemem gerekecek gibi görünüyor.

Daha uzun, daha yorucu ve daha bunaltıcı olacak dönemde bir parça yükümü omuzlaması, dert ortağım olması için, önümüzdeki ay içerisinde okumaya fırsat bulamayacak olsam da üç adet cillop gibi kitabı kütüphaneden ödünç aldım.

İlk kitap Marvin Minsky‘nin The Emotion Machine adlı eseri. Yapay zeka alanındaki çalışmalarından haberdar olsam da, Minsky ve fikirleri hakkında açıkçası çok da bilgi sahibi değilim. Bu kitabı okumadan önce belki de Minsky’nin içerisinde yapay zeka, akıl, beyin vb. konulardaki görüşlerini derli toplu bir şekilde sunduğu The Society of Mind adlı kitabını okumalıydım. The Emotion Machine ile sırayı bir nebze olsa da bozmuş olacağım sanırım, canımız sağolsun artık.

Genel bir fikir vermesi açısından, kitabın konusunu kısaca özetlemeye çalışayım. Minsky’nin bu kitapta ve diğer eserlerinde temel olarak yapmaya çalıştığı şeyi,  popüler bir anime serisi olan Hagane no Renkinjutsushi‘ye (Fullmetal Alchemist – a.k.a. FMA) selam durarak anlatmaya çalışalım. Simya (alchemy) disiplininin konu edildiği FMA serisinde, bir nesnenin simya ile dönüştürülmesi sürecini üç adımda özetliyorlar: İdrak etme (understanding), parçalara ayırma (decomposition), ve yeniden inşa (reconstruction). Benzer süreçleri Minsky, insan aklı ve beyni ile, özellikle düşünme eylemi ile, izlemeye çalışıyor. Minsky kitabın ilk bölümlerinde beynin ve aklın nasıl çalıştığını anlamaya yönelik oluşturduğu teorileri sunuyor. Kabaca, düşünme eylemenin belirli aksiyonlardan oluşan bir dizi çok daha küçük parçalara indirgenebileceğini iddia ediyor. Böylece, karmaşık düşünme sürecini meydana getiren göreli çok daha az karmaşık lego parçalarını tespit edebileceğimizi düşünüyor.

Kitabın ikinci bölümünde ise, düşünme eyleminin ve sürecinin nasıl işlediğini idrak ettiğimizde, Minsky bu bilginin (lego parçalarının) yapay zeka kullanılarak insanlarla benzer düşünme süreçlerini takip eden ve dolayısıyla duygulara / hislere sahip makineler (emotion machines) üretme konusunda bizlere nasıl yardımcı olabileceğini tartışıyor.

——————————————————————–

İkinci kitabımız, büyük üstad, yüce insan, sevilesi, sayılası tonton dedemiz Daniel Dennett ile ilgili hazırlanmış bir kitap. Cambridge University Press’in Contemporary Philosophy in Focus (CPiF) serisi dahilinde yayınlanan bu kitabın editörlüğünü Andrew Brook ve Don Ross yapmış. CPiF serisi felsefe alanında çığır-açıcı eserlere imza atmış, çalıştığı alana önemli katkılarda bulunmuş, kendi döneminin ve sonrasının akademisyenlerinin fikirlerinin oluşmasında önemli rolü olan, fikirleri sadece kendi çalışma alanı ile sınırlı kalmayıp diğer birçok alandaki düşünürleri ve onların çalışmalarını etkilemeyi başarmış saygıdeğer felsefe düşünürleriyle ilgili olarak hazırlanmış kitaplardan oluşuyor.

Tüm bu güzel sözleri hak eden Daniel Dennett’in birçok farklı alanda çalışmaları mevcut. Bu alanlardan en önemlileri: Bilinç, gelişimsel psikoloji (developmental psychology), bilişsel etoloji (cognitive ethology), yapay zeka (artificial intelligence) ve evrim teorisi (evolutionary theory). Dennett’in özellikle bilinç konusundaki çalışmaları ile ilgili önemli bir detay, kendisinin bilinç konusunu hem felsefe alanı içerisinde hem de nörobilim alanı içerisinde inceliyor olması.

Not. Geçtiğimiz ay Sabancı Üniversitesi’nde Darvin Yılı Kutlamaları vesilesiyle konuşma yapmak için gelen Dennett üstadımız hakkında Evim Çalışkanları güzel bir yazı hazırlamıştı. Dennett’in eserlerini okumadan önce onu kısaca tanımak isteyenler için güzel bir başlangıç.

Bağlantı: Evrim Çalışkanları sitesindeki Dennett yazısı

Bu kitap (ve genel olarak CPiF serisi) ile ilgili olarak hoş bir detay kitabın klasik bir biyografiden ziyade düşünsel bir biyografi olması. Kitapta yer alan çeşitli makalelerde, alanlarının (bilişsel bilim, bilgisayar bilimi, evrim teorisi vb.) önde gelen araştırmacaları Daniel Dennett’in eserlerinin ve fikirlerinin kendilerini ve alanlarındaki çalışmaları nasıl etkilediğini anlatıyor. Bu şekilde, hem Dennett’in fikirleri hakkında bilgi sahibi olurken, hem de Dennett’in çalışmalarının disiplinlerarası etkileşimdeki etkilerini birinci ağızdan okuma fırsatımız oluyor.

——————————————————————–

Çok keyifli bir eser olacağına inandığım üçüncü kitabımız ise, George Mandler‘in MIT yayınlarından çıkmış olan A History of Modern Experimental Psychology (Modern Deneysel Psikoloji Tarihi) kitabı. Mandler, 1879 yılında Wilhelm Wundt’un deneysel yöntemlerin kullanılmasına olanak sağlayan ilk muntazam laboratuvarı kurması ile başlayan modern psikoloji tarihininin izini 20. yüzyılın sonlarına dek sürüyor. Bu tarihsel yolculukta iki konu özellikle ilgimi çekeceğe benziyor. İlki, 1930′lar Almanya’sında psikoloji alanının geçirmiş olduğu dönem (henüz kitabın içeriğini detaylı olarak gözden geçirme fırsatım olmadı ancak, Albert Hoffman’dan umarım bahsediyordur); ikinci konu ise, özellikle 20. yüzyılın sonunda kendi kimliğini kazanmaya başlamış bilişsel psikoloji alanının doğuşu ve bilişsel bilim ile etkileşimi.

Jim Holt ha pubblicato una piccola storia e filosofia della battuta di spirito, utile riferimento per chi si occupa di edutainment, cioè di fare education attraverso l’intrattenimento.

Pare che l’inventore della battuta umoristica sia stato il mitico Palamede, che gareggiò con Ulisse in sagacia e fu inventore anche dei dati, dell’alfabeto e di molte altre cose.

Riscoprendo i pilastri della cultura del motto di spirito (il witz di matrice mitteleuropea), Holt ci ricorda il contributo di Freud nel suo “Il motto di spirito e la sua relazione con l’inconscio” del 1905. La barzelletta e il sogno secondo Freud sono simili in quanto entrambi hanno a che fare con gli spostamenti di significati, liberano da inibizioni profonde e sconfiggono il censore interiore.

Al di là della giustezza della sua teoria, ci ricorda Armando Massarenti in un pezzo su IL SOLE 24 ORE, Freud di barzellette se ne intendeva, in quanto ne collezionava di tutti i generi.

Si ride per un senso di “sollievo”, scatenato dalla liberazione di pulsioni represse. L’umorismo si genera nella mente ma agisce anche sul corpo e provoca delle reazioni constatabili, quali la contrazione di una quindicina di muscoli facciali insieme alla stimolazione dei muscoli regolatori della respirazione.

Secondo Marvin Minsky l’umorismo è un fenomeno evolutivo che ci aiuta a comprendere gli errori dei nostri ragionamenti.O come ritiene il neurologo John McCrone, a deliziarci è la scoperta creativa che ci sorprende quando comprendiamo la battuta-chiave di una barzelletta. Attraverso il brain imaging, è stato anche individuato una sorta di punto R, una minuscola zona dell’area motoria supplementare del cervello, che sarebbe direttamente responsabile del riso.

L’umorismo coinvolge entrambi i lobi cerebrali: il sinistro elabora il significato di un joke, il destro, più emotivo “comprende” il senso comico.

da leggere: ‘SENTI QUESTA’ – DI JIM HOLT – ISBN, PP. 126, 12 EURO

I couldn’t quite get together a coherent, non-technical-related thought this morning, so I thought I’d look up the Hacker Koan entry in Wikipedia for inspiration. A Hacker Koan is a “koan” made up by computing enthusiasts, especially network and AI programmers, particularly at MIT. One of the examples there I really like, and since they’re recent (and won’t really benefit from my paraphrase-telling), I’m just going to copy/paste the “koan” form, and the original story it was based on. Both have meaning.

Uncarved block

In the days when Sussman was a novice, Minsky once came to him as he sat hacking at the PDP-6.

“What are you doing?”, asked Minsky.

“I am training a randomly wired neural net to play Tic-tac-toe“, Sussman replied.

“Why is the net wired randomly?”, asked Minsky.

“I do not want it to have any preconceptions of how to play”, Sussman said.

Minsky then shut his eyes.

“Why do you close your eyes?” Sussman asked his teacher.

“So that the room will be empty.”

At that moment, Sussman was enlightened.

Unlike most traditional Zen koans, this koan has a possible concrete and correct answer: just as the room is not really empty when Minsky shuts his eyes, neither is the neural network really free of preconceptions when it is randomly wired. The network still has preconceptions, they are simply random now, and from a random rather than a human source.

Interestingly, this particular koan seems to have been closely based on a real incident; the following text extract is from Hackers: Heroes of the Computer Revolution (chapter 6):

“	So Sussman began working on a program. Not long after, this odd-looking bald guy came over. Sussman figured the guy was going to boot him out, but instead the man sat down, asking, “Hey, what are you doing?” Sussman talked over his program with the man, Marvin Minsky. At one point in the discussion, Sussman told Minsky that he was using a certain randomizing technique in his program because he didn’t want the machine to have any preconceived notions. Minsky said, “Well, it has them, it’s just that you don’t know what they are.” It was the most profound thing Gerry Sussman had ever heard. And Minsky continued, telling him that the world is built a certain way, and the most important thing we can do with the world is avoid randomness, and figure out ways by which things can be planned. Wisdom like this has its effect on seventeen-year-old freshmen, and from then on Sussman was hooked.	”
—Steven Levy, HACKERS: Heroes of the Computer Revolution

Humor je še ena od reči, za katere ne morem reči, da jih razumem, zato o njih včasih nastane tudi kakšen zapis, kot tole, kar trenutno prebirate. Ampak, če sem kaj odnesel od psihologije, je to morda spoznanje, da je kazanje naših afektov in stanj sporočilo, namenjeno naši okolici. To je lahko sicer sekundarna funkcija posameznega afekta, je pa to vseeno pot, po kateri lahko pridemo bliže tudi humorju, ki je skupaj z zabavo menda ena od bolj slabo razumljenih in opisanih stvari v človekovem delovanju. Smejanje je torej nekaj, kar sporočamo svoji okolici.

Kaj lahko torej povemo o smejanju, kot našemu odzivu na dogajanje, ki je po našem mnenju komično:

1. Smejanja ne moremo vedno zavestno nadzirati. Včasih nas enostavno “premaga” in ne moremo se zadržat in se čemu na ves glas režimo. Smejemo se torej večioma ne namerno (in prisiljeno), ampak je to nek mehanizem, ki se lahko dogaja nekje zunaj zavesti. Morda gre za še precej primitiven kognitivni mehanizem, ki se dogaja na neki daleč predbesedni ravni.


2. Smejanje je lahko, vendar je redko nevarno, smisel za humor še redkeje. Smeh ob nepravem trenutku in nepravi osebi je sicer verjetno že povzročil, da se je kakšno življenje končalo predčasno, vendar je prav tako pogosto tolerirano in celo spodbujano, samo če se spomnimo kakšnih dvornih norčkov. Še bolj zanimive so izpovedi kakšnih gangsterjev, pri katerih igrajo včasih celo v posebno napetih situacijah besedna merjenja moči, kjer je osrednji humor oz. “nadmudrivanje”, pomembno vlogo, kljub temu, da prisotnim pravzaprav ni preveč do smeha.


3. Smisel za humor je menda seksi. Vsaj večkrat ga lahko zasledimo na kakšnih listah zaželenih lastnosti pri obeh spolih, kjer kotira presenetljivo visoko. Zaželjeno je kar oboje, to da se smejemo šalam drugih, kot da znamo druge pripraviti do smeha.

Večje težave imamo že, ko bi želeli definirat, kaj je komično. Včasih nas popade smeh

1. ko nekdo nadvse nerodno čofne na rit
2. ko gre lahko za čisto pretiravanje, ko gremo čez meje pričakovanega in sprejemljivega
3. ko se vzpostavi kakšna povezava med rečmi, ki sicer menda običajno ne pašejo zares skupaj
4. smejimo pa se včasih tudi rečem, ki ne pašejo v nobenega od teh opisov.

Celo splošno priznane teorije, ki bi morda lahko poiskala skupni imenovalec vsemu, kar je smešno, zaenkrat ni videti. Obstajajo teorije, da s smejanjem izražamo:

1. superiornost


2. neskladnost, inkongruenco med dogajanjem


3. olajšanje oz. sprostitev neke psihične napetosti


4. igrivost

Očitno je torej, da je humor bolj kompleksen mehanizem, ali pa so vse zgoraj omenjene teorije napačne. Bergson je recimo pred časom iskal humor tako v izražanju superiornosti, kot v neskladnosti. Morda se odgovor skriva v zlitju elementov vseh teh teorij v eno samo, kar pa je zgleda morda težko zaradi neprimernosti naših jezikovnih struktur, ali pa zaradi same predbesedne narave humorja.

Pred časom me je navdušila razlaga, ki jo je podal Marvin Minsky, kot obrobno pripombo oz. ilustracijo razlagalne moči svoje ideje o našem umu kot o množici neodvisnih agentov in agencij, ki usmerjajo in se borijo za nadzor nad našim delovanjem in razmišljanjem.

Minsky postavi humor za enega zelo pomembnih in osnovnih kognitivnih mehanizmov. Lep kos naše miselne aktivnosti se ukvarja z napovedovanjem prihodnosti. Ko se nekdo spušča po stopnicah, nekako vemo, ali pa vsaj pričakujemo, da se bo čez nekaj sekund znašel na dnu stopnišča. Če se oseba pri tem spotakne in nadvse štorasto zvali po stopnicah in prisatne v nadvse smešni pozi, to pomeni, da so bila naša pričakovanja in predvidevanja o tem, kaj se bo zgodilo, napačna. To ima za posledico tudi, da jih je potrebno opustit in ne več gradit kakšnih načrtov na teh napačnih projekcijah prihodnosti. Verjetno je bolj pametno osebi v takšni situaciji ponudit roko, da se spet postavi na noge, kot pa pohvalit frizuro, ali celo lepe nove čevlje z visko peto, kot smo sicer nameravali predhodno. Smeh nam v tem primeru pomaga opustit prej načrtovano akcijo in se hitro prilagodit novi, nepričakovani situaciji, kot verjetno tudi sprostit napetost.

Tudi pri veliki večini vicev se smejemo, ko zaključek nikakor ne sledi situaciji, ki smo jo prej uspešno skonstruirali. Naprimer:

Na Brezjah prileti iz cerkve starejši moški, pogleda okrog sebe in začne vpiti: »Oh, spet bom hodil, spet bom hodil!«
Starejša ženička: »O Marija, sveta mati božja, hvala ti za usmiljenje, hvala ti za ta veliki čudež!!!«
»Kakšen čudež! Medtem ko sem bil v cerkvi, so mi ukradli moped!«

Ukraden moped kje drugje, v drugačni situaciji verjetno ne bi bil čisto nič smešnega, vendar pa smo v tem primeru, po predhodnem opisu situacije pričakovali čisto drugačen razplet in prav hitra prilagoditev novim okoliščinam je tisto, za kar je potreben poseben mehanizem, kot je humor.

Kaj s smejanjem povemo drugim? Morda to, da smo mentalno prožni, da smo se sposobni hitro prilagodit spremenjeni situaciji. S tem, da povemo nekaj smešnega pa, da smo sposobni povezat stvari, kjer povezave niso očitne. To lahko pojasni, zakaj je smisel za humor zaželena lastnost potencialnega partnerja, kot tudi vlogo v ritualnem merjenju moči, kjer lahko humor v soočenju igra vlogo pavjega repa, kar je gotovo varneje kot pa direkten spopad.

In ker je ta zapis spet hudo preveč resnoben, pa zato vsaj za konec še o smehu kot o igrivosti in njegovi povezovalni funkciji:

Nasmeh je nevarno orožje. Verjetno celo edino, ki lahko z distance prebije še tako debel led.

Fuente: Kris Davos (Flickr)

Viene de la Parte 4

Fuente: The Edge

Fuente: Kris Davos (Flickr)

¿Quieres compartir y difundir este artículo con otros?

Fuente: Kris Davos (Flickr)

Viene de la Parte 3

… Continua en la Parte 5

Fuente: The Edge

Fuente: Kris Davos (Flickr)

¿Quieres compartir y difundir este artículo con otros?

• Brockman, John (ed. lit.): La tercera cultura : más allá de la revolución científica. Barcelona : Tusquets, 2000

Hace treinta y cinco años, C.P. Snow, en un célebre ensayo, escribió sobre la polarización de las «las dos culturas» —intelectuales de letras por un lado y científicos por otro—. Aunque confiara en que surgiría una «tercera cultura» capaz de tender un puente entre unos y otros, sólo recientemente, tras la masiva acogida de libros como el de Stephen Hawking, la ciencia ha comenzado a cambiar el panorama intelectual, situándose en el centro del debate sobre la naturaleza humana y la naturaleza del universo.

Por eso John Brockman tuvo la idea, acertada y oportuna, de reunir en un libro a científicos y pensadores, desde áreas tan diversas como la biología evolutiva, la genética, la informática, la neurofisiología, la psicología y la física, que están precisamente debatiendo en este fin de siglo cuestiones fundamentales como:

- ¿De dónde surgió el universo?
- ¿De dónde surgió la vida?
- ¿De dónde surgió la mente?

La emergencia de la tercera cultura es una nueva filosofía natural, que desarrolla un nuevo conjunto de metáforas para describirnos a nosotros mismos, nuestras mentes, el universo y todo lo que sabemos de él. Así, los físicos Davies, Doyne Farmer, Gell-Mann, Guth, Penrose, Rees y Smolin; los evolucionistas Dawkins, Eldredge, Jay Gould, Jones y Williams; el filósofo Dennett; los biólogos Goodwin, Kauffman, Margulis y Varela; los informáticos Hillis, Langton, Minsky y Schank; y los psicólogos Humphrey y Pinker, se proponen aquí como un ejemplo de lo que podría darse en llamar los intelectuales de la tercera cultura, que introducen nuevas formas del discurso intelectual.

El ojo es nuestro órgano sensorial más importante del cual recibimos aproximadamente el 80% de la información sobre el mundo y en él empleamos casi un tercio de la corteza cerebral (es la actividad que más parte del cerebro utiliza con mucha diferencia). Su finalidad evolutiva es más que evidente: ver te permite localizar el alimento, las hembras o machos y tus posibles depredadores. Los primeros seres que poseyeran la facultad de ver tuvieron que evolucionar muy rápido. En un mundo oscuro en el que se encontraba alimento “a tientas” o, simplemente, esperando quietos a que éste llegara, un ser que pudiera ver y además pudiera moverse (con un flagelo, por ejemplo) tendría una ventaja enorme sobre sus competidores.

¿Cuál es el primer ojo de la historia natural? No lo sabemos con demasiada seguridad, pero los estudios apuntan a algún ser marino de una antigüedad de unos 1.000 millones de años. Los fósiles más antiguos son de una especie de trilobites llamada Roduchia, cuyos ojos de 543 millones de años de antigüedad se asemejan mucho a los de los insectos modernos. Entre las especies hoy existentes tenemos a la euglena, un protista unicelular con el “ojo” más pequeño del mundo (0,0003 cm). En realidad hablar de ojo sería decir mucho, simplemente es una mancha pigmentada que funciona de modo binario: sólo capta la luz o su ausencia mediante un fotorreceptor de adenilato ciclasa. A partir de esta información regula su conducta: cuando hay luz realiza la fotosíntesis (es autótrofa) y cuando no se alimenta del entorno (es heterótrofa). Muchas células fotorreceptoras juntas forman lo que se denomina “ojo plano” propio de muchas especies de medusas. Un conjunto de células fotosensibles ya pueden captar formas en dos dimensiones como si formaran un panel publicitario lleno de bombillas. Si los fotorreceptores se hacen más sensibles y pueden captar la intensidad de la luz, podemos percibir el volumen. Sin embargo, hace falta un cerebro más evolucionado para interpretar bien esas señales.

El caracol marino tiene lo que se denomina “ojo en copa”, que no es más que una superficie cóncava llena de fotorreceptores. El ojo se hace aquí tridimensional y puede percibir con precisión la dirección de donde proviene la luz. A lo largo de la evolución, la concavidad de este ojo se hizo más profunda y sus bordes fueron estrangulándola hasta llegar al siguiente hito evolutivo: “la cámara oscura”. El ojo del Nautilus deja pasar la luz por un diminuto orificio para proyectar la imagen invertida en una retina llena de fotorreceptores.  Este ojo permite percibir todo tipo de imágenes, incluso esquemáticas o débilmente iluminadas.

Otro modelo muy común en el mundo animal es el ojo facetado o compuesto propio de los  artrópodos. Se compone de un gran número de unidadaes hexagonales llamadas omatidias o facetas cada una de las cuales capta una pequeña porción de la imagen para integrarlas luego en un conjunto de modo que la imagen resultante sería algo así como un mosaico romano. Con un sistema así, algunas especies de insectos pueden captar unas 250 imágenes por segundo (frente a las 24 que capta el ojo humano. Por eso las moscas son difíciles de atrapar) y tienen un ángulo de visión que llega a los 360º (ven en todas direcciones a la vez…).

Supongamos un insecto volando por la plaza del mercado de Brujas. ¿Cómo es ver en 360º? Sería algo así:

Bien, pero nuestro insecto tiene que ver en mosaico. ¿Cómo es ver en 360º con ojos facetados? Algo parecido a esto:

Y, por fin, llegamos al “ojo con lente”, la cima de la evolución, poseído por casi todos los vertebrados y algunas especies de calamares muy evolucionados. Al tener lente se puede enfocar la imagen, consiguiendo más nitidez  que cualquier otro ojo. El humano tiene visión estereoscópica o binocular que nos permite ver en tres dimensiones (por eso tenemos dos ojos en vez de uno), capta una gran gama cromática (longitudes de ondas electromagnéticas que van desde los 400 a los 700 nanómetros) con sus más de seis millones y medio de conos y puede ver en condiciones de poca luminosidad (visión escotópica) gracias a sus 120 millones de bastones situados alrededor de la fóvea. Algunas estimaciones afirman que si comparamos el ojo humano con una cámara digital, el ojo tendría una resolución  de 250 megapíxeles.

Es curioso como el calvinista Charles Hodge eligiera precisamente al ojo en su obra ¿Qué es el darwinismo? (1874) como ejemplo para combatir la teoría de la evolución. A la afirmación de que su maravilloso diseño no puede ser fruto del azar sino de la inteligencia de un supremo hacedor (de la que ya hablamos aquí) se unía el argumento de que si la evolución era gradual tenemos que encontrarnos ojos inacabados en alguna especie animal y, ¿para qué vale un ojo inacabado? ¿Puede funcionar un ojo al que “le falten piezas”? Pues precisamente del ojo tenemos pruebas de que sí. Hemos visto como los antecedentes evolutivos del ojo con lente consistieron en una concavidad que fue estrangulándose cada vez más hasta cerrarse y, en cada una de sus fases, esos ojos fueron plenamente funcionales. Podemos comprobarlo en especies vivas en la actualidad (los gasterópodos de la familia haliotidae el ojo está casi cerrado y en los del género Turbo el ojo está completamente cerrado y todavía sin lente).

Los 1.ooo millones de años de evolución que ha necesitado el ojo para llegar a ser como es pueden dar algo de luz al hecho de la dificultad que tienen los ingenieros de  AI para conseguir que las computadoras puedan ver. El problema, evidentemente, no reside en el hecho de ver (cualquier cámara de fotos “ve”) sino en reconocer los objetos, interpretarlos. Nuestro sistema de visión reconoce objetos en condiciones muy diversas. Si pensamos en una silla, la reconoce en todas las posturas posibles, con cierto grado de incompletud (si sólo veo media silla sigo reconociendo que es una silla) con diferentes grados de luminosidad que cambian su color; reconoce diferentes tipos de sillas (con tres patas, circulares, sin respaldo, amacas, sillones…). Marvin Minsky, uno de los pioneros de la AI, creyó ingénuamente que sería sencillo que los ordenadores reconocieran objetos. Larry Roberts fue el primer informático que intentó realizar un programa de reconocimiento visual y sólo consiguió un rotundo fracaso. Es tremendamente difícil emular un sistema tan sumamente sofisticado. A día de hoy, lo más avanzado que existe en este tema es un programa desarrollado en el MIT por el laboratorio de Tomaso Poggio que se presentó en el 2007. Es un programa que, después de un entrenamiento previo, es capaz de reconocer en fotografías si están presentes o no los objetos que ha aprendido a reconocer.

La empresa de AI Numenta permite descargar en su página Web la demo de un programa de reconocimiento de imágenes que reconoce varias categorías de objetos en una serie de fotografías. La verdad es que acierta bastante.

Fuente: Fractal Recursions

La primera parte de este conjunto de interesantes leyes, se puede consultar aquí

(Esto no es pesimismo, sino realismo, una analogía ampliada de la segunda ley de la termodinámica.)

Por ejemplo:
Cerebro-Mente
Mente-Cuerpo
Emoción-Razón
Natural-Adquirido
Nosotros-Ellos
Recuerda siempre que es fácil estar en posesión de alguna explicación, pero extraordinariamente dificil conocer la verdad.


… Continúa en la Parte 3…

Fuente: The Edge

Fuente: Flickr, KrisDavos

¿Querés compartir y contribuir a difundir este artículo?

Marvin Minsky

Padre dell’Intelligenza artificiale ( la voce di Hall9000 nella v.o. Di 2001 Odissea nello Spazio non poteva che essere sua)

“Tra centomila anni i computer ci terranno come animali da compagnia”

De: Aurelio Miní Sánchez <nautaretis@yahoo.com> Fecha: Lun, 19 de Ene, 2009 7:53 pm Asunto: El mundo actual y la guerra contra el espíritu

nautaretis@yahoo.com Enviar mensaje Modificar membresía

De: Aurelio Miní <tsunamini@gmail.com>
Asunto: El mundo actual y la guerra contra el espíritu
A: “Aurelio Miní Sánchez” <nautaretis@yahoo.com>
Fecha: miércoles, 14 enero, 2009, 11:46 am

http://www.webislam.com/?idt=9456

El mundo actual y la guerra contra el espíritu

¿Ha elegido usted ya su campo?

Pensamiento > Chiíta – 17/03/2008 19:12 – Autor: Antonio Martínez – Fuente: El Manifiesto

Vota:

- Resultado 64 votos

No tiene sentido que nos sigamos engañando: Occidente está en guerra. No se trata, desde luego, de un conflicto clásico con bandos bien reconocibles. Y no nos estamos refiriendo a la confrontación entre Occidente y el Islam: una parte importante del Islam desprecia al Occidente ateo y aspira a conquistar su hegemonía, pero no es éste el tema que ahora vamos a tratar. La guerra de la que hablamos es, ante todo, una especie de “guerra civil”. Y una auténtica “guerra contra el espíritu”.

Un enfrentamiento espiritual decisivo se desarrolla ante nuestros ojos en el conjunto de los países occidentales. En este conflicto, luchan dos facciones cada vez más irreconciliables. Por una parte, quienes aún creen en el hombre y en el universo del espíritu: el hombre es, ciertamente, como decía Pascal, una frágil “caña pensante”, pero en su interior alberga una misteriosa grandeza espiritual que puede ser despertada por la luz de la fe, de la metafísica y de la auténtica cultura. Por otra parte, quienes, más pesimistas, consideran que el hombre ya es un “proyecto superado”. Miles de años de civilización no han elevado al hombre por encima de sí mismo. El espectáculo es realmente lamentable: un ser humano prisionero de sus limitaciones biológicas y psíquicas se ve impotente para trascender la cárcel de su propia finitud. En consecuencia, ha llegado la hora de que el ser humano dé el próximo salto evolutivo y haga realidad el sueño nietzscheano del Superhombre.

Peter Sloterdijk, una de las grandes estrellas de la filosofía actual, ha planteado el problema de una manera directa y brutal: en la posmodernidad post-metafísica, el único humanismo posible es un posthumanismo. El hombre constituye un proyecto agotado que ya no puede dar más de sí. La cultura humanista ha demostrado su incapacidad para conjurar la barbarie y cumplir las más legítimas aspiraciones humanas. ¿Religión, filosofía, cultura? Meras ensoñaciones de los ilusos que creyeron en ese concepto evanescente que es el “espíritu”. El futuro está en la biotecnología y en la hibridación entre mente y ordenador, que rediseñarán al hombre liberándolo de sus antiguas servidumbres. La deshumanización del mundo es, por tanto, la condición indispensable para nuestra futura felicidad.

Habermas y los humanistas tardíos protestan contra Sloterdijk y los transhumanistas, pero no ofrecen ninguna alternativa real: dicen creer en el hombre; pero el ser humano en el que creen ha sido privado de su esencial referencia al espíritu, se ha convertido en un simple “hombre horizontal”, habitante de la caverna platónica cuya falta de grandeza, en realidad, da argumentos a los partidarios de Sloterdijk: el Superhombre se presenta como alternativa a la mezquindad pequeño-burguesa del “último hombre”. Por lo tanto, los únicos adversarios serios del nuevo mito posthumanista son los defensores del espíritu: en primer lugar, los hombres que aún creen apasionadamente en Dios, y de manera muy especial los cristianos; y, en segundo lugar, quienes, sin ser formalmente creyentes, conservan el auténtico sentimiento sagrado del mundo.

La doble faz del nihilismo

Podemos entender mejor todas estas consideraciones acudiendo a dos conocidos conceptos de la filosofía de Nietzsche: los de “nihilismo pasivo” y “nihilismo activo”. La posmodernidad tendría precisamente estas dos vertientes. Podríamos hablar de una “posmodernidad pasiva” con una vertiente hedonista (simbolizada por la “Love Parade” que se celebra cada verano en Berlín, y en la que se mezclan a partes iguales la música techno y el desenfreno sexual) y con otra vertiente melancólico-cultural (la del hombre culto posmoderno, que, decadente y alejandrino, contempla el crepúsculo de nuestra civilización y se refugia en una degustación solitaria de la cultura acumulada durante siglos). Pero, por otra parte, existe también una posmodernidad no pasiva, cuyo “nihilismo activo” se esfuerza por derribar los últimos bastiones de la cultura tradicional del espíritu, como paso previo para inaugurar la era posthumanista del Superhombre. Esta posmodernidad activa tendría tres componentes: una vertiente gnóstica (fascinada por el mito cátaro como paradigma del “hombre libre” frente a la “tiniebla teológica”), otra cientifista (el transhumanismo de Marvin Minsky o Ray Kurzweil, que sueña con un ser humano hibridado con las máquinas) y una última sociológica (que lucha por provocar una revolución transgresora ante todo en el plano moral y sexual: como símbolo, el matrimonio homosexual). La estructura y significación de esta “posmodernidad bifronte” resulta evidente: el nihilismo pasivo muestra una civilización occidental sin fe en sí misma y entregada a un narcisismo estéril. El nihilismo activo contempla el creciente caos de una sociedad vulgar y desorientada y, sin intentar ponerle remedio –más bien, al contrario-, nos ofrece una vía de salida: abandonar la decepcionante “era del hombre” y entrar en la prometedora y estimulante “era del superhombre”.

Lógicamente, y como decimos, este nihilismo posmoderno que cultiva la religión del Superhombre independizado de Dios contempla con secreto placer la banalidad de la sociedad contemporánea: ¿vulgaridad televisiva, decadencia del saber, burla de la tradición, guerra de sexos, caos educativo, degradación de la juventud? ¡Tanto mejor! Celebremos la ceremonia de la confusión. Nuestro plan ya está urdido: fomentar el caos para presentar, como salvación, la Gran Tiranía biotecnológica y de la más moderna ingeniería social: un Mundo Feliz a lo Huxley, pero disimulado, maquillado, camuflado, para que no se perciba su profunda inhumanidad y sea más difícil de combatir. Un mundo de hombres mecánicos, espiritualmente vasectomizados, satisfechos con una vida interior de ínfima calidad, encuadrados en unas estructuras sociales estabilizadoras y “racionales”, pero deshumanizantes. Un mundo, por cierto, que ya hoy ha empezado a existir.

Occidente está en guerra, sí: en guerra contra sí mismo. Y, en la medida en que la cultura occidental se ha convertido en una koiné planetaria gracias a los modernos medios de comunicación, esa guerra se extiende hoy por todo nuestro planeta. La alternativa es diáfana: o bien dejar de creer en el hombre y adherirse al caos bienhechor que nos abocará al futuro paraíso posthumanista, o bien convertirse en uno de esos seres extraños que, en una sociedad cada vez más banal, aún creen que en el hombre alienta la presencia de Dios y el soplo sagrado del espíritu. Está en juego ni más ni menos que nuestro futuro: un mundo sin Dios y, en último término, sin auténticos hombres –sustituidos por supuestos “ultrahombres” y por “infrahombres”-, o bien un mundo de hombres que aprenden a serlo de la mano de Dios.

También usted, estimado lector, tiene que elegir.

RAY’S PREMISE – WE ARE FACING EXPONENTIAL GROWTH

Lines are blurring between humans and machines
When Humans Transcend Biology

Ray is one of the world’s leading inventors, thinkers, and futurists, with a twenty-year track record of accurate predictions. Kurzweil was selected as one of the top entrepreneurs by Inc. magazine, which describe him as the “rightful heir to Thomas Edison.”

Ray Kurzweil’s keynote address at The Singularity Summit at Stanford and is put on by the Singularity Institute

(part 1 of 3)

(part 2 of 3

(part 3 of 3)

The Singularity is Near and access to the following resources will bring you closer to understanding one of our greatest futurist of our time or access Ray’s Web Site.

THE SINGULARITY IS NEAR:
When Humans Transcend Biology
By Ray Kurzweil, Viking Press

THE THESIS:

“…Singularity, an era in which our intelligence will become increasingly nonbiological and trillions of times more powerful than it is today—the dawning of a new civilization that will enable us to transcend our biological limitations and amplify our creativity. In this new world, there will be no clear distinction between human and machine, real reality and virtual reality. We will be able to assume different bodies and take on a range of personae at will. In practical terms, human aging and illness will be reversed; pollution will be stopped; world hunger and poverty will be solved. Nanotechnology will make it possible to create virtually any physical product using inexpensive information processes and will ultimately turn even death into a soluble problem.That merging is the essence of the Singularity, an era in which our intelligence will become increasingly nonbiological and trillions of times more powerful than it is today—the dawning of a new civilization that will enable us to transcend our biological limitations and amplify our creativity. In this new world, there will be no clear distinction between human and machine, real reality and virtual reality. We will be able to assume different bodies and take on a range of personae at will. In practical terms, human aging and illness will be reversed; pollution will be stopped; world hunger and poverty will be solved. Nanotechnology will make it possible to create virtually any physical product using inexpensive information processes and will ultimately turn even death into a soluble problem.”
By Ray Kurzweil

ACCESS THE BOOK ON LINE
at Amazon on line reader.

Access to Charts and Graphs will provide a detailed review of Ray’s vision by reviewing the following links to his book:

Sections:
17
Countdown to SIN -logarithmic
19
Paradigm Shifts for 15 Lists of Key Events
20
Canonical Milestones
48
Growth of U.S. Phone Industry
49
Estimated U.S. Cell Phone Subscribers
50
Mass Use of Inventions
57
Dynamic RAM Smallest Feature Size
58
Dynamic RAM Price
59
Average Transistor Price
60
Transistor Manufacturing Costs Falling
61
Micro Processor Clock Speed
62
Micro Processor Cost per Transistor Cycle
63
Transistor per Microprocessor
64
Processor Performance (MIPS)
65
Total Bits Shipped
67
Moore’s Law – The Fifth Paradigm
70
Exponential Growth of Computing
71
Growth in Supercomputer Power
73
DNA Sequencing Cost
74
Growth in Genbank
75
Random Access Memory
76
Magnetic Data Storage
77
Price Performance (Wireless Data Devices)
78
Internet Hosts – Logarithmic
79
Internet Hosts – Linear
80
Internet Data Traffic
81
Internet Backbone Bandwidth
82
Decrease in Size of Mechanical Devices
83
Nanotech Science Citations
84
U.S. Nanorelated Patents
98
Real Gross Domestic Product
99
Per-Capita GDP
101
Private Manufacturing
104
E-Commerce Revenues in the United States
106
U.S. Patents Granted
107
IT’s Share of the Economy
108

U.S. Education Expenditure
129
Reduction in Watts per MIPS
159
Resolution of Noninvasive Brain Scanning
160
Brain Scanning Image Reconstruction Time
331
U.S. War Death

Source: Book Jacket Quotes

“Ray Kurzweil is the best person I know at predicting the future of artificial intelligence.”
–Bill Gates

“…one of the leading futurists of our time.”
–Marvin Minsky, Toshiba Professor of Media Arts and Sciences, MIT

“One of our leading AI practitioners…”
–Raj Reddy, founding director, Robotics Institute, Carnegie Mellon University

THE SINGULARITY IS NEAR
THE MOVIE 2009

Movie Backgroung:

The Singularity is Near, A True Story about the Future, based on Ray Kurzweil’s New York Times best selling book, will be a full-length motion picture slated for theatrical release in early 2009. The movie intertwines a fast-paced A-line documentary with a B-line narrative story.

featuring:

Ray Kurzweil
Alan Dershowitz
Tony Robbins
Pauley Perrette
Bill Joy
Mitch Kapor
Vinod Khosla
Bill McKibben
Marvin Minsky
Martine Rothblatt
Alvin Toffler
Sherry Turkle
Eliezer Yudkowsky
Cynthia Breazeal
Richard Clarke
David Dalrymple
Aubrey De Grey
K. Eric Drexler
Robert A. Freitas Jr.
James Gashel
Neil Gershenfeld
J. Storrs Hall

Alternanza di leggerezza e serietà. Oggi tocca ad un mix delle due, basta solo il nome dello speaker,  non metto nemmeno il link a Wikipedia: Marvin Minsky.

In a similar manner to Arthur Conan Doyle’s alleged relationship with Orang hutans, many people used to (only used to?) hold a sort of perversely amazed and awed apprehension about computers, robots, “Automatons”.   Imagine the exotic tingle of the you of the 18th century sitting down across a chessboard

Reconstruction of "The Turk"

from just such a creature.  It looks human enough, though of course its skin is darker than yours and it has on some sort of quaint hat and fuzzy bathrobe, the proportions are there.  It’s similar to dioramas you’ve seen, perhaps they could appear to play an instrument, or divine your future, but those were clearly just toys, diversions; cute surely and interesting to a point, but their awkward clicks and whirrs were no threat to your humanity.  They were as human as a kangaroo rat, not a Great Ape!

But this one…this one on the other hand…can play chess.  Chess, the greatest of all Western games, the game with more possible scenarios than atoms in the universe, the game of potentates and intellectuals, the epitome of intelligence tests; and you are told that you can be beaten by an Automaton.  Imagine the stomach sinking fear and the masochistic enthusiasm: the civilization-burning, ego-annihilating, destructive glee of meeting face to “face” with an intelligent robot, who was designed to look like a barbaric savage at that.

When what occurs is the illumination of stupidity, ignorance, or greed: I often find myself sympathetic to the hoax’s perpetrator(s).  The Super-Dupers, I’ll call them.   What has been described above was a hoax carried out supposedly for over 80 years.  Someone built an automaton called “The Turk” which was purported to be a chess-playing computer of sorts.  It’s ability came (you’ll never guess) from a little person sitting inside the base telling it what to do.

Philosophers of mind have co-opted yet another of antiquity’s ridiculous biological terms to embody a very important concept for any materialistic discussion of consciousness.

homunculous (n). A miniature, fully formed individual believed by adherents of the early biological theory of preformation to be present in the sperm cell.

As foolish as we now understand this to be, many people still hold an analogous thesis with regard to mind and consciousness.  Any theory of mind which slips up and allows for there to be, contained therein, a formed intelligence as a constituent part, has fallen prey to the reductio/question begging argumentation of the homunculus.   If you want to explain consciousness in a material manner, in a non-vitalist, non-mysterian fashion; you would do yourself well to not assume that the “agents” which make up consciousness are not themselves conscious.  We do not have little people sitting in our brains, operating us as glorified automatons.

To attempt to explain consciousness with an appeal to constituent parts which are themselves conscious is a road down which many philosophers have taken us, and is one possible answer.  But for those of us to whom plausibility is desirable, and possibility is considered but the most frugal of virtues, we shall try to explain how the illusion of consciousness is created by purely standard, unconscious matter.  All homunculi are barred at the door.

Holist: I’ll prove no box can hold a mouse.  A bos is made by nailing six boards together.  But it’s obvious that no box can hold a mouse unless it has some ‘mouse-tightness’ or ‘containment’.  Now, no single board contains any containment, since the mouse can just walk away from it.  And if there is no containment in one board, there can’t be any in six boards.  So, the box can have no mousetightness at all.  Theoretically, then, the mouse can escape!

Citizen: Amazing.  Then what does keep a mouse in a box?

Holist: Oh, simple.  Even thought it has no real mousetightness, a good box can ’simulate’ it so well that the mouse is fooled and can’t figure out how to escape.

This mini-dialog comes to us from Marvin Minsky in his book Society of Mind (recommended), and goes a long way to elucidating the incoherence of the dualist position.  Invent a concept (mousetightness/consciousness), then show how “obviously” the parts (boards/neurons) do not possess this concept, and claim that emergent properties are impossible (no combination of boards gives you mousetightness/no combinations of neurons gives you consciousness), and voila! you have proven that brains cannot explain consciousness.

I think our point is: The “simulated” mousetightness that “fools” the mouse into not being able to escape IS mousetightness.  The “subjective experience” that “fools” you into thinking you have “consciousness” IS consciousness.  In one manner of speaking that means consciousness is explained, and in another it is “explained away”.  I have no problem agreeing that in many important senses consciousness simply does not exist, though in many others it does.  But the form in which it exists is different than how fundamental particles or even ordinary objects do.  It exists as illusion.

I just finished reading Marvin Minsky’s The Emotion Machine, and as always, I very much enjoyed Minsky’s ability to reduce the most complex issues in cognitive science into simple scripts; not by avoiding complexity, just by explaining it.

In this book he goes through analyzing the most “conflictive questions” in cognitive psychology and philosophy, such as consciousness, creativity, emotionality and common sense (among many others) and his proposals for solving these problems are always full of creative insight. One good example would be the following paragraph:

“Could any person ever invent a totally new kind of representation?

Such an event must be quite rare because no type of representation would be useful without some effective skills for working with it-and a new set of such skills would take time to grow. Also, no fragment of knowledge could be of much use unless it is represented in a familiar way. For reasons like this, it makes sense to conjecture that most of our adult representations come either from refining our primitive ones, or by acquiring them from our culture. However, once a person has learned to use several different representations, then that person might be more able to invent new ones. This could be what distinguishes the work of those exceptional writers, artists, inventors, and scientists who repeatedly discover new and useful ways to represent things. “

-          Marvin Minsky, in The Emotion Machine

It’s Christmas time and I have some time off work, so Isabel and I drove from Bilbao to our old place in Santiago de Compostela, my home town, where we are spending a few days. Coming to this old home always feels like coming back to a diffent time. Nobody lives in the apartment, just us when we come for a few days like now, so we keep just enough stuff in it so that a couple of persons can survive for a short time. There is no dishwasher and no DVD player, but there are blankets and cutlery and brand new furniture. You may wonder why we keep brand new furniture in this place where we spend no more than two or three weeks a year. Well, we bought the apartment in 2000 and be spent some money in furnishing it and setting it up nice and cozy. Who would know that, shortly after, I would be offered a position in Australia and we would move there for 4 years! Since carrying large things to the other side of the world is insanely expensive, and houses in Sydney are much smaller than here, all the furniture and stuff that we had just bought stayed, and it’s been sitting here since then, gathering dust but still lovely and so ours.

This is why coming to this place feels like coming back to the past. It is amazing how much it can influence me. After two or three days in the apartment, it is like I haven’t ever moved out of it, and Australia and Bilbao feel so distant. At the same time, things look old-fashioned and like taken from a dream, especially the tiles in the bathrooms and the kitchen. But it’s our place.

Three things have made me think of the past especially this time. The first one is the collection of Byte magazines that I keep in the bottom shelves of the dining room. I have in front of me the April 1985 issue of Byte, a special number on artificial intelligence, including articles by Marvin Minsky, Elliot Soloway, Steve Ciarcia and Dana H. Ballard among others. Great reading. At almost 500 pages per issue and a superb mixture of solid papers, technology commentary and regular columns, Byte is the best computer magazine I’ve ever known. It flourished in the 1980s and I guess it survived in the 1990s, but I don’t think Byte would be even possible these days.

The second thing from the past is a worn down recording of Close Encounters of the Third Kind on a VHS tape. We keep a small collection of great movies on VHS, and today I spent some time flicking through them and watching most of Encounters. It is so well crafted. Spielberg at his best. The script is rich and full of nuances, refreshingly avoiding the overuse of technicisms that seems to plague most of today’s sci-fi movies. If you haven’t watched Encounters in two or three years, I suggest you run and get a copy now.

The third thing from the past is rain. Dark outside, no noise from neighbours or cars, just the soothing ghghghgh of the rain. We have a thick double-window system so I need to slide at least one of the window panes open in order to hear it. Again, you may wonder how rain can be something from the past. Well, what I find to be from the past is not rain itself, but the experience of listening to the rain from a warm place that I feel my home. Last time I recall feeling this was in Sydney, a few years ago, at our place in Lavender Bay. I find rain in Santiago, however, more soothing than in Sydney, because it is usually not as intense and goes forever.

I’m going to bed now. To my old bed.