Wednesday, November 7, 2007

Conciousness, spiders, humans, machines, and anthropomorphism

Anthropomorphism is defined on Wikipedia to be: "the attribution of uniquely human characteristics and qualities to nonhuman beings, inanimate objects, or natural or supernatural phenomena." We use this term to attribute 'uniquely' human characteristics, but often mistake characteristics common to all conscious creatures as anthropomorphic features. I believe that we do this for a number of reasons. Firstly, as a species we have generally been incredibly arrogant and biased against any idea or hypothesis of consciousness or intelligence that treats humans and animals as fundamentally similar. We use the concept of anthropomorphism to artificially distinguish humans from animals. We also use it as a justification for belief in 'intelligent' design.

It is quite possible that when all is said and done, the only traits that are uniquely human are those that are solely cultural. Of course, these cultural traits are just as good as discriminants between individuals within different human cultures as they are between human beings and animals. What does this mean? We are just animals. Or removing the verbiage of human arrogance, we are biological machines just like the monkeys, the birds, and the bees.

I would guess that the only trait that distinguishes us from other biological machines in respect to fundamental mechanisms is brain complexity, but this trait is not uniquely human, just more pronounced inasmuch as we can measure or are aware. It is already well understood and accepted that we are not the most complex biological mechanisms within our own experience. We are no more complex than most of our mammalian counterparts. But far less complex than most any Earth ecosystem, even the most barren.

There is something about self-knowledge that intuitively seems particular to human activities. However, regardless of how self-aware we might be, I am pretty sure that even the simplest biological machine is self-aware. When a hand or newspaper threatens the continued existence of a spider, we consider this only to be the end of a potential nuisance. However, the spider understands at a far more fundamental and complete manner what it means to be squashed. The spider, however, considers this to mean the end of its existence. Does this make the spider conscious of its own existence? Most likely. Does this mean that it has a theory of mind? This is hard to establish without knowing spider-talk. Does it consider its existence in the same manner that I do? Probably not. However, do I consider my existence in the same manner that you do? Most likely not, although we share common biology, and aspects of culture. Depending upon the specific life-philosophies of another human, within particular domains, I might even have more in common with the spider. I am a rational, objective, and atheist. It is likely that within the simple mind of the spider, there is little spare room for the supernatural or sophism.

So, my whole point about discussing spiders and the self-awareness of such a creature is to bring to the forefront the idea that our assumptions about self-awareness are probably very incorrect. It is quite possible that any machine capable of truly independent action is also fully capable of being self-aware. Whether or not an animal, insect, or fungus is self-aware probably has less to do with whether or not we can detect it and more to do with natural selection. Does the biological machine in question have a mechanism in which knowledge of self can reside and be processed? More importantly, would the organism benefit from self-awareness?

If the mechanism of self-awareness is far more diverse or far simpler than we had ever presumed we could have easily overlooked it in our studies of anatomy and behavior. What about single-celled organisms? Organisms which are clearly driven by fixed responses can be easily modeled and understood, such as the forward motion of a protozoa. It isn't likely, but if there is a mechanism for self-awareness within such simple organisms we would probably have missed it due to using the wrong tools to attempt to observe it. And whenever self-awareness emerges within our own mechanical creations we probably won't realize it. So far, if it doesn't take the same exact form as that which we are so used to within our own minds, we simply don't know how to detect it. I think that so far, we understand these things in terms of their effects and not the ultimate causes.

Some references:
What is the Octopus Thinking?: http://www.fortunecity.com/emachines/e11/86/cephpod.html
Animal's Self Awareness: http://www.strato.net/~crvny/sa03002.htm
Cradle of Thought: http://books.google.com/books?id=OWzpKZwYNXkC
Animal Imagination: http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=288
Not so dumbo - elephant intelligence: http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/animals/features/302feature2.shtml



Images:
Sponge Bob Hug - latca - Flickr.com - http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/deed.en
Spider IV - SeraphimC - Flickr.com -
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.0/deed.en

Sunday, November 4, 2007

The problem with representation in technical language

I was having an enjoyable and extended leave-of-absence from academics for about 5 years. My day job didn't interfere much with my nights and weekends and I really felt that nearly everything that I did had a purpose. Whether this be software development, project management, basic research for my employer, or weekends spent bent on bringing about my own ingenious schemes.

Now that I have returned to academics, I realize that not much has changed in the last few years. It is great to have guides to navigate the enormous amount of material latent within any discipline. I generally enjoy lectures and enjoy the material presented (depending upon the format).

However, there are several things that I don't enjoy.

Particularly, I despise convoluted explanations for simple phenomena. Regardless of the field, the intent of specialized, specific language is make concepts more precise. Gaining this precision compromises generality and has a negative impact on nascent minds. But much of the use of specialized language is conjured out of no more than habit or expectations of academic precedence. Precision is fine, jargon for the sake of jargon is not.  This is done in corporate and government environments ad nauseam.  I shouldn't have to put up with it when doing science.

All precise terms should be succinctly and generically defined wherever they are used. A fundamental problem with the definitions provided for many terms is that they self-referentially depend on other precise terms. For the nascent learner, this is unacceptable. One cannot learn these terms without building conceptual context into which they fit and this won't happen if terms are defined outside of the context of shared human experience. For example: Eigenfunction is a complex sounding German derived word that simply means 'characteristic function'. These characteristic functions along with 'characteristic values' uniquely define a space, allowing all points within the space to be referenced using combinations of the eigenfunctions and eigenvalues.  The reason for the complex-sounding German word is that it is precise.  Mathematics is rife with specialized language.  So are many fields, but some are more sensible than others. Some leverage metaphor, common English, and broad cultural knowledge.  Whereas others seem to be completely unaware of the value of sensible representation.  My criticisms are straightforward:

1. a specialized language is a barrier to learning, understanding, and retention
2. little account of human cognition is considered in the design of technical language
3. technical languages are generally ill-conceived through a process of ad-hoc conglomeration
4. we have adequate knowledge of human cognition to design superior specialized languages
5. I am expected to 'deal with it' as part of the cost of acquiring new technical knowledge

This is unacceptable.  Quite simply, we need to rethink our approach and revise our technical language representations using a consistent approach having a scientific basis.  We must consider aspects of human cognition and human vision.  We must designing our technical languages (just as programming languages are designed) to take advantage of the human mind (just as programming languages take advantage of computing hardware).  

We must do this soon.  If not, the expanse of time (think 10's of thousands of years) will relegate all but the most obvious technical wizardry of today to the domain of the anthropologist.