Author Archive

The Little Dude in My Head Controls Me

Monday, November 23rd, 2009

When asked about the origin of my thoughts and decisions in my brain I began to create analogies to my brain. This weekend while staring at the ocean i also began to make connections to waves. Analogies between computers and the brain are many but the wave analogy really helped me understand. As a child i always wondered where waves in the ocean came from. This subject was especially difiicult because no matter what i  could not trace the origin of a wave to the shore, much like i cannot see the origin of my thoughts turn in to an action with my body. In computers, tracing an input to an output seems more possible. The fact is because i cannot look inside my brain, I have difficulties understanding where and how my thoughts originate.

After falling asleep on a plane I began to comptemplate when do i have thoughts? Why would i have a thought? With this line of thinking, I began to see my thoughts as reactions to the world surrounding me. While I am known for being highly tangential, in my mind my thoughts all follow a clear and logical chaing of reasoning (at that moment). Like how something happens and my brain is “reminded” of a analogous situation and begin churning out ideas. (Please note on the plane I almost said omg my brain works like Metacat! )

Furthermore, on the plane a baby began to cry. Besides thinking to myself  how that baby should shut up i began to think does the baby know how to do anything but cry. Besides being cute, babies, at first, cry, eat, sleep, and go to the bathroom. But as babies mature they begin to ask for food, learn how to use the toilet, and play. This thought process lead me to the  idea that just like how language is learned so is thinking. Babies initailly cry whenever “something” is wrong. I do not know if babies know whether they initially know what is wrong but they cry. Because we learn to communicate and function on higher levels , I thought just how language was being “taught” in Elman’s paper and to Metacat, functioning is being taught to babies. Intially all they know how to do  is cry, but after a while they learn how to function based on given situations.

Initially this question really perplexed me becasue i was thinking of ideas as spontaneously generated objects but now i see them as reactions to the internal and external stimuli i experience. So much like a computer, inputs are given and throught a network of neurons the brain returns thoughts and ideas for the situation. While waves aren’t quite as analogous, they gave my brain an input with in combination of the prompt an idea of how my brain creates thoughts. (Now I am relatively certain that there is no little dude in my brain that controls me 🙂  ).

Metacat – analogies and awareness

Monday, November 2nd, 2009

After experimenting with metacat in class and later over the weekend i just have to say metacat’s ability to “analyze” and justify its solutions to problems its just really really cool. When experimenting with metacat later i tried to “trick” it to make a conclusion that there was no solution. I entered in a->b and then asked metacat to determine what z would go to. My goal was to see if metacat was able to see that there is no other letter to send z to and thus no solution. While this seems like one of those problems that Doug’s kid would laugh at, for a program to understand why there is no solution is quite remarkable.

Additionally, i am still contemplating the two schools of thought about how ai should function. I do see how metacat’s self awareness and ability to recall is like how i would look at a problem but i still am struggling to see how the other program can produce valid results with out using these qualities.

On a side note i absolutely love that the program has a personality and when justifying its answers it has hilarious responses!

On Steven Johnsons’s Emergence

Sunday, September 27th, 2009

From approximately the first half of Johnson’s Emergence, the subject matter in intellectually quite sitmulating .  The begining of the book gives the reader an introduction into the idea of what emergence is. Which I found particularly interesting because in class the idea of emergence seemed vauge to me.  Johnson’s discussion on how differenct fields were connected to emergence and the discussion from class allows me to contemplate whether all of life can be governed by the principles of emergence. This idea seems to reveribrate with the existence of a grand unification theory in physics. The idea that the complexity of life could be governed by a set simple rules that can create intelligence,  forces me to contemplate how the laws of string theory could be rippling through my brain like the squares in Conway’s game of life do.  Furthermore, I seem to find more and more examples of emergent behavior in life.

Johnson’s discussion of recognition also intrigued me because i came to comtemplate if recognition was different, comprable, or incomprable from species to species and inanitimate objects to antimate objects. The ants that Deborah Gordon study sense a change and then react similarly to the immune system within the human body. Furthermore, the way humans react to external stimuli can mimick ants and the immune system.  This idea brings about the Johnson’s discussion of what conciousness really is. Despite, johson’s discussion on conciousness i am still left with a vauge idea about if an object has or can posess conciousness.

I wonder if conciousness can emerge from simple rules can iniantimate object gain conciousness through a small change in set up like DNA?