Time ≠ Reality

It occurred to me, when I was awakened to find myself both confused and lost, that during our slumber we have no time stamp on our dreams. More importantly, we can't seem to grasp the relativity of time as it passes us in our sleep. Just think about all those times after you have turned off your alarm because you KNOW you will only sleep for five minutes, only to wake up 30 minutes later swearing and punching your cat because you will now be late to work. Why? Why is it that we have no conceptual idea of time when we are sleeping? Why is it that our dreams may sometimes seem to last ages, but in reality only a few minutes? What the hell is this time code our brains stamp on our thoughts all about?!

Well, I really don't know, so I ask you…

What do you think?

How Not to Prepare for the Coming Robot Apocalypse (Because It Won’t Actually Happen)

In January GQ ran an article by Dan Halpern entitled “Are You Ready for the Singularity?” It chronicled the author’s misadventures at the Singularity Summit held annually in New York City. For the uninitiated, the Singularity (the technological kind, not the physics kind) is the “technological creation of smarter-than-human intelligence”. Now this can occur in many ways, including a super-advanced Artificial Intelligence (AI) kind of like the kind Haley Joel Osment played in the movie AI: Artificial Intelligence.

The Fall of Man?

The Singularity website offers some more suggestions: "... direct brain-computer interfaces, biological augmentation of the brain, genetic engineering, ultra-high resolution scans of the brain followed by computer emulation". Certainly intense stuff and, in theory, completely plausible.

That is, if you know what consciousness is (we don't know). And understand what exactly it means to learn (we aren't sure). And can feel (we can do this, but outside of Mr. Osment up there, robots cannot - yet). The reason for the Singularity Summit is a mixture of (unfounded) fears and extremely high hopes. As Mr. Halpern points out, there "are very smart men and women who have spent a lot of time doing a very creditable job at finding the right answers to whatever difficult questions they have pursued, and they have a lot of data that says they're right about this, no matter how strange it sounds."

But are they right? Really? Really really? No, seriously, I want you to be sure. OK... if you say so.

I think the main problem with believing in the singularity as an event that spells the end of mankind is hubris. People are actually cocky enough to believe that they can create an intelligence greater than their own. Part of the fantasy, in some sick, masochistic, pour more hot wax on my nipples you dirty, dirty scientist because I forgot our safe word, way is the idea that we humans who have already conquered nature (thanks evolution) can create something so much better than us that it can destroy us, and take our place at the top of the food chain - not that they'd need food.

Robots Hate Pancakes... It's A Trick!

But I digress, let's talk about how plausible all of this is shall we? Because of Moores Law, which states that however many transistors a chip has will double in about 18 months, people expect computers to have as much or more processing power than the human brain as soon as 2030. At this point, it is assumed, machines (for lack of a better word) will become smart enough to self-replicate and improve on themselves. This will eventually lead to said machines becoming conscious, and realizing that the world would be a much better place without those pesky humans running around causing global warming and deforestation! At least, I hope that's their motivations for genocide and not something like... I don't know... money? Would robots like money?

Here's the problem, at least on the outset: Machines are more than just hardware. They're software too, and usually pretty crappy software at that (I'm looking at you Windows Vista, I'm looking at you hard...). Jaron Lanier summed it up perfectly in his "One Half of a Manifesto" in 2000. He said, "For computers to design their own successors, someone has to write the initial software. Humans have given no evidence of this ability." He also says, along the same lines, "As processors become faster and memory becomes cheaper, software becomes correspondingly slower and more bloated, using up all available resources." One more quote, for the road: "... processing power isn't the only thing that scales impressively; so do the problems that processors have to solve." Really, the article should just be read. It's quite the argument, and covers a lot more territory than the three tethered quotes I chose to reproduce.

"Now hol' on there kiddo," I imagine you're saying right now, "Imma not good at the whole arithmetic thing, but by my figerin', that was 9 years ago that article you gon and mention there's been written. Somethin' musta gotten better since then." To this I would respond, "My good clearly southern based on your accent sir, I only need to point to the aforementioned Windows Vista, or maybe the dreaded RROD."

The Savior of Man?

So there's that. There is also the fact that consciousness is hard to define, let alone understand on such a fundamental level as to recreate it in a lab through code or processing power. The neuroscientist Gerald Edelman defines it in this way: "It is a process, and it involves awareness." Wow, way to be specific there Mr. Edelman. Based on that I can safely say I don't know many people that can be considered conscious. Hey-oh! Digressing from that awesome burn, that definition doesn't seem to be too far off from Merriam-Websters definition that I won't repeat here due to laziness.

So if we can't even really, accurately define the term, how will we know when machines have it? I suppose since we know we have it, and we know that animals seem to have it, we'll be able to tell through careful observation. If machines can think, and plan, then they'll be attributed consciousness. This is only fair. But what type of consciousness? Edelman, in the interview with Discover Magazine linked above, briefly mentions two types of consciousness: Primary Consciousness and Self-Consciousness. The biggest difference between man and beast is man's self-consciousness. I mean, how often do you see a cat checking itself out in the mirror before a date?

He's Ready for his Scuba Date!

Besides not even knowing their own reflection, animals aren't aware of their own impending dooms (especially from robot apocalypses). So how will we know which consciousness our machine overlords have? Maybe some sort of a symbol test? "The human brain is capable of symbolic reference, not just syntax." says Mr. Edelman. While a machine might be able to learn, and it might be able to remember, will it associate things without meaning with meaning? Will this lead to art? Religion? Anything like that? Doubtful, as any software a machine would run would be based off algorithms, and algorithms are pretty straightforward.

Besides that, if a machine is mass produced with the same components, and is given or achieves or however-you-want-to-look-at-it consciousness, will it share a consciousness with it's brethren? Actually, on a simple level, that's a very stupid question. Twins, for instance, are born via the same components but don't share a consciousness. Edelman says, "Every single brain is absolutely individual, both in its development and in the way it encounters the world." Although these twin machines may not be different in their development, they will no doubt become different via different experiences, just like any animal or person. But people and animals have something machines don't (and probably won't ever have): Organic materials.

Which brings me to my final, and my biggest reason, I don't believe the robot uprising will actually happen. Any real, organic brain is more than just electrical signals running through neurons. We, more than any other example, aren't just ones and zeroes as computers are. The neural code is far more complicated than that, so much so that we aren't even close to understanding it. The way the brain communicates within itself, and with parts of our bodies, has as much to do with hormones and chemicals as it does with electrical signals.

For example, the hypothalamus is a tiny part of your brain that releases hormones that control things in your body such as growth hormones (for puberty) and sex hormones (for women being bitches once a month). Let's focus on the sex hormones for a second. Besides the obvious joke already made about how it plays with women's emotions, how many guys in the room have had their thinking all clouded up due to some sex hormones being released at a bad time? Considering I'm the only guy in the room as I'm writing this, I'm going to raise my hand and say, "Amen brother!"

Sometimes You Just Have to Remind Yourself

How about the amygdala, which controls not only positive emotions such as sexual responsiveness (which shows that parts of the brain work together, my amygdala sees a bangin' hot chick and tells my hypothalamus, which then releases the appropriate hormones to the, uh, less reputable parts of my body). Emotions are mostly a hormonal response to a stimulus, which the amygdala controls. Will computers have that? It's been said that if you experience a strong stimulus, or something emotionally scarring, that your brain will scar from it. New neural connections are formed on a daily basis. Unlike a motherboard, an organic brain is not a static thing. It's constantly evolving, constantly remaking itself in response to stimuli.

Now does that mean that the singularity in it's most base form won't happen? No, I do believe eventually we'll make machines that are smarter than us in terms of processing power. Hell, that's an inevitability. It is also completely possible that once technology advances that far some evil, evil men will want to use that power for evil, evil purposes. And, I mean, cyborgs are a possibility. However, cyborgs would still be human on some level. And with that humanity would come some sense or morality. There is a huge worry over what constitutes human, and while I won't get into that here, I think it's deeper than just our hardware. We like to see the trees in the forest, but not the forest itself. Our bodies, our consciousness, is a whole. To use a sports metaphor only 250,000 people at best will understand, consciousness in people is a lot like the Buffalo Sabres; There aren't any great individual players but the team as a whole is great.

In conclusion, suck it HAL 9000.

Science > God?

VS.

Scientists are crazy God is a large white man in the sky

Has science proven to be better than God? Is this necessarily a bad thing? Can there somehow be a marriage between the two? Will I actually answer any of these questions or just digress into talking about my favorite childhood television and radio shows? Just kidding, we didn't have radio shows when I was a kid.

First, we need to define God: "The supreme or ultimate reality: as A: the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe." In other words (mine), that means some dude that may or may not be our reality who is basically the be all end all of everything, ever. It's kind of mind-boggling to think about it, as our tenuous grasps on concepts such as "perfect", and "wisdom", and "goodness" are flawed at best, considering we as a species aren't any of those things. Except me, of course. I'm pretty perfect(ly acceptable looking), wise(assish), and good (at air hockey).

Now, in order to figure out whether or not scientists are playing God, we should first define the phrase "playing God". According to my sources (that hyperlink up there), there are three overlapping meanings:

1.) "The sense of awe rising from new discoveries into the depths of life", which might mean something along the lines of finding a new species of animal (Lizard Man of Scape Ore Swamp mayhaps?).

2.) "...Supposes that scientists are substituting themselves for God. Like Prometheus, scientists are said to be overstepping finite limits; out of pride or hubris they are risking a backlash from nature." This is pretty self-explanatory, scientists are cocky bastards that don't care what boundaries they overstep, even if nature herself tells them to back the (expletive) off.

3.) "...Refers to the sacralization of DNA." Perhaps this definition is against bringing dinosaurs back from extinction to put them into large parks for people to come look at? Although, that could be one hell of a learning experience for any children interested in paleontology.

Allow me to take on those definitions one by one by one, if you will. I don't think "the sense of awe rising from new discoveries" can get anyones panties in a bunch, as that seems pretty harmless. Discoveries are only discoveries, and awe simply means someone like you or me looking at said discovery and going, "No shit..." with eyes wide and mouth slightly open. Hardly a reason to get up in arms if you ask me, unless someone somewhere has something against awe. Which is completely possible.

The second definition is where people of the religious variety get pissy about science like an old person who can't figure out how to make their VCR work. The definition brings up Prometheus , which is kind of funny because he doesn't have anything to do with a monotheistic God. Although, I guess as a metaphor it works comparing Prometheus to scientists, as scientists could be seen as stealing "fire" from God when they cure the flu, or make someones heart beat when it wasn't supposed to, or any number of other evil sciency things.

But perhaps the worst thing about science in light of that definition is that they're "overstepping finite limits", although it is vague in terms of what limits they're talking about. I'm going to make a logical leap here (much like the Bible - oh snap!), and take that to mean that science has overstepped its bounds in terms of the origins of the universe, evolution, and basically anything else that contradicts Genesis, because Genesis does a good enough job of contradicting itself and doesn't need anyone else to do it for him!

Get it? Genesis?

Is this the great evil of science (disproving the Bible, not Genesis the band)? Why people hate it so? Considering the basic tenets of intolerance most religions have subscribed to throughout history (including now - gay rights anyone? No? Alright...), this seems like a logical argument. Science and religion, in this way, are not compatible. My good friend Dr. Richard Dawkins would like to say something now: "The question of whether there exists a supernatural creator, a God, is one of the most important that we have to answer. I think that it is a scientific question. My answer is no."

Wow, strong words there Mr. Dawkins. Any rebuttals from anyone else, anywhere? How about you, Dr. Francis Collins? "Yes. God's existence is either true or not. But calling it a scientific question implies that the tools of science can provide the answer. From my perspective, God cannot be completely contained within nature, and therefore God's existence is outside of science's ability to really weigh in."

Wow, that's a strong argument. And one I would like to expound on, if I may. No objections? Good, here it goes: If God cannot be quantified by scientific study, then why is there still an argument about this? If you believe he can be, as Dr. Dawkins seems to, then it only makes rational, logical, more synonyms for those two words, sense that you cease to believe, or at least revise it. Let's face it, the Earth is billions of years old, not thousands. Genetically it's impossible for us to have come from two people, or one really if Eve was a part of Adam's rib. And Noah's Ark, really? Do I really have to point out the flaws in the story of Noah's Ark? I'll leave that to my colleague Anthony.

So... Where did brown cats come from then?

And of course, there's the argument that science (better sit down for this one) isn't necessarily bad. In fact, it could be more merciful than an already all merciful (if vengeful) God. As Minette Martin says in her article, "Nature is astonishingly cruel. Science, by contrast, has the power of mercy." She later goes on to say, "...Whatever we may think about playing God and defying nature, we are doing it already..."

Everything about mankind is unnatural. In this way we shunned God and the world (universe?) he created long ago. Probably around the time we started using toilets. Man has even been known to change the rate of evolution, if you believe the December/January issue of Discover Magazine and the fact that we've wiped out more than one species of animal singlehandedly. On the reverse side of that coin, as Ms. Marrin points out, "...one could argue that rescuing such (disabled) people from extinction is also rescuing their disability from extinction - a godlike activity, surely." Yet I think you would be hard-pressed to find a religious individual that thinks we should just let people with disabilities suffer for it.

So what was the point of this dissertation? The point is that I'm kind of tired about hearing creationists vs. skeptics/atheists/scientists, or religion vs. science, or God vs. science, or Jesus vs. giant ape men or whatever is top billing this week. Science is not bad, nor does it have to do with God in a direct way necessarily. Tolerance would be a good word here, although religion does not have a good track record under that heading as I pointed out above. They can co-exist, as they do in Dr. Collins life, but need to be kept separate. When they're not you get things like creationism, or that horrible movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. I don't even want to link that one.

Here are some facts to close this out, the universe is 13.4 billion years old, the Earth about 4.54 billion years old, evolution is a real, observable thing, God is not, everything about man is unnatural, and my hands hurt from typing so damn much.

- Craig

P.S. - I know I didn't tackle the third definition, but I don't need to in order to make my point, whatever that was. I don't remember now.

DREAMS?! WTF!?

Ok, so when I was a wee lad, slowly growing out of diapers and into power rangers, I was often awakened by a very strange and haunting dream that would not leave me the hell alone. These types of dreams are referred to as recurring dreams, and I am sure many of you have been the recipient of this strange phenomenon. What is weird to me, and to this day has never been revealed, is why in the world I kept having that dream. Come to think of it, why did I have ANY dream at all?

During the time of these relentless nocturnal brain fillers, I lived in St. Petersburg Florida home of sand, sun, and Hungry Howie's pizza. Now, as with many small persons growing up in the world, my favorite place to go, out of ANYWHERE, was (and still is) Chuckie Cheese. My world WAS Chuckie Cheese, and every free moment I had was used begging my parents to take me to this awe filled place of pizza, tokens, tickets, and skee ball. This MAY explain why my recurring dream always dealt with Chuckie himself (the mouse, not the My Buddy-turned-killer). Yeah, I know, Chuckie Cheese, haunting MY dreams. And that is just it, they weren't happy dreams of the multi talented musician-mouse, they were horrendous manifestations of a very eerie 6 foot tall mouse. Chuckie Cheese was always a haunted house in my dreams, and I was riding a carnival ride through it all. There was fire, demons, a few dragons sprinkled in there, and a huge black and red castle. There were no tokens, no tickets, and definitely no pizza. So why the hell did hell manifest itself as Chuckie Cheese?!

These dreams have since been stuffed away in the corner of my head where I keep the memories of things like Kazaam and Juwanna Mann, among other things I would like to forget. I wonder though, why did I have that dream, or why did I have the dream where I trip over pine cones to my death, or the one where I was dancing with a bunch of walking rams around a fire, or the one where I sat talking to an old man whispered sweet nothings into my ear and abruptly transformed into a jaguar. Point is, we all have super weird dreams from time to time, and some are actually brought on by our diet that night, or our lack of sleep from the week, or even the last thing we hear before we hit that all-important R.E.M (stupid band reference joke here).

Now that we have all dismissed the misogynistic, sex driven man who coined the phrase Psychoanalysis, It is safe to move on to another explanation of dreams. After all, Freud thought dreams were things of our unconscious that came about because we are all repressed. In his book, The Interpretation of Dreams, Freud alludes to many different reasons for the dreams we have, but they all relate back to the repression of our inner most sinister and secret thoughts. Freud was sure that our dreams were our way of dealing with the constant societal pressures that keep our thoughts to ourselves. According to Freud, everything we dream about is a symbol for something in our waking lives. Eh, I find this interesting, but it gives us humans far too much credit in the field of metaphor and symbolism, I don't think we find universal symbolism in ALL of the same organic and in-organic objects.

SOOOOO, if it isn't symbolism for our sexually suppressed minds that our dreams are created, what is it? Entertainment? Fear Mongering? what about Evolution? Whoa whoa whoa...evolution, dreams? Sorry Freud, its time I hang out with a REAL man of Science... Mr. Darwin, Is it true that our dreams are really mechanisms for survival?

Dogs dream don't they? Well, we can see them flailing around as if they were frolicking with the best of the best rabbits all the while enjoying the best steaks ever produced. So we don't really know what dogs are dreaming about, but lets assume they have a similar perception in their dreams as in their observation of their real world. We would then assume, according to Freud, that symbols arise in dreams for the same reasons in dogs as in humans. In lieu of getting deeper into this anti-Freud postulate, I will just say this: humans do not share the same symbols in their lives, and I don't think I need to prove that humans and dogs do not share common symbols either.

Back to Darwin and his "dangerous idea". Seeing as how I can't find any recent empirical evidence in any form, nor have I found any REAL theories about the idea, I must deduce for myself and create for you a blueprint of the newest theory of why we dream:

Random Thought Mutations

The mutation of our thoughts, somewhat homologous with genetic mutations, may be the real reason we dream. The idea is that we use all five senses to perceive things during the day as well as in our sleep, and mix and mash those perceptions into new scenarios to see how we would react to them. They are almost like test runs for what MAY happen in our future, and our mind is preparing accordingly so that we may survive and continue the transferring of our genes unto the next generation. We dream at night to prepare ourselves for the next wave of dancing chickens with uzis for hands and rainbow colored feathers. NO! well, maybe, but that isn't the theory. The theory is that we formulate all of these mash-ups for our own benefit in the world. A way to see if those thoughts could be useful sometime in our future. Almost like genes randomly arising with no observable purpose, our thoughts can be randomized to create novel thoughts. These thoughts, like novel traits in evolving organisms, could help shape the success of our existence. With the aid of our brain and the random mutation of thoughts, we could dream about the next big Twilight rip-off, or even a new approach to curing diabetes. All of the information could already be in our underutilized brains, and we just need to "see the light" in our dreams. Sure, dreams could just be entertaining ways for our brains to relax, a sort of prime-time programming for our all-day-laboring brains to sit on the couch and enjoy. If this is the case, why do I always wake up before I am going to die, because I thought death was a big money maker in the entertainment world. I guess that is another question all together.

This theory is yet another way our minds and bodies are reduced to nothing but complete slaves to nature and survival (of genes that is). It seems kinda neat, at the very lest, to think that our brains are using all incoming stimuli to construct possible futures for is to delve into as well as novel ideas to latch onto and create. I wonder if people in the early 1600's had dreams about 25 foot tall Ronald McDonalds rampaging through bio-domes on the moon. Doubtful, unless of course they had different names for the parties involved. There were clowns back then, right?