It is proposed by the author that the latest Theory of the Brain, based on Bayesian statistical methods, has connections to a wider Theory of Information that underpins the deep nature of the evolutionary process itself.
Theories of Mind provide a framework for investigating the capacity of humans to attribute thoughts, desires, and intentions to others; to explain and predict their actions and infer their intentions. The current theories of the mind and brain, developed over the last few decades, primarily focus on defining the mental behaviour of others through mirror neurons. These are a set of specialized brain cells that fire when an animal observes an action performed by another. Therefore, the neurons ‘mirror’ or reflect the behaviour of the other, as though the observer was itself acting. Such neurons have been directly observed in primates and now possibly humans and are believed to occur in other species including birds.
However despite an increasing understanding of the role of such mechanisms in shaping the evolution of the brain, previous theories have failed to provide an overarching or unified framework, linking all mental and physical aspects- until recently.
In a breakthrough by a group of researchers from University College London headed by neuroscientist Karl Friston, a mathematical law that may provide the basis for such a holistic theory has been derived.
This is based on Bayesian probability theory, which allows predictions to be made about the validity of a proposition or phenomenon based on the evidence available. Friston’s hypothesis builds on an existing theory known as the “Bayesian Brain”, which postulates the brain is a probability machine that constantly updates its predictions about the world based on its sensory perception and memory.
The crucial element is that these encoded probabilities are based on cumulative experience, which is updated whenever additional relevant data becomes available; such as visual information about an object’s location. Friston’s theory is therefore based on the brain as an inferential agent, continuously refining and optimising its model of the past, present and future. This can be seen as a generic process applied throughout the brain, continually adapting the internal state of its neural connections, as it learns from its experience. In the process it attempts to minimise the gap between its predictions and the actual state of the external world.
This gap or prediction error, can be defined mathematically in terms of the concept of ‘free energy’ used in thermodynamics and statistical mechanics. This is defined as the amount of useful work that can be extracted from a system such as an engine and is roughly equivalent to the difference between the total energy provided by the system and its waste energy or entropy. In this case the prediction error is equated to the free energy of the system, which must be minimised as far as practical. All functions of the brain has therefore evolved to reduce the usage of free energy in relation to prediction errors.
As proof of concept, Friston created a computer simulation of the brain’s cortex or primary cognitive area, with layers of neurons passing signals back and forth. Signals going from higher to lower levels represented the brain’s internal predictions, while signals going the other way represented sensory input. As new information arrived, the higher neurons adjusted their predictions according to Bayesian theory.
When the predictions are right, the brain is rewarded by being able to respond more efficiently. If it is wrong, additional energy is required to find out why it is incorrect and come up with better predictions.
But the principle guiding this Bayesian model can be extrapolated to better understand the evolutionary process itself. In the author's soon to be published book- The Future of Life- A Unified Theory of Evolution, it is proposed that the process of minimizing prediction errors or in this case- useable energy, bears a striking similarity to the process of minimizing the information gap between a system’s environment and own internal state.
The system’s ability to minimize this gap determines its capacity to survive in accordance with an Information Law, first defined in the nineties by physicist Roy Frieden. This is based on Fisher Information, which provides a measure of a system’s accessible information, for deriving the dynamical equations of any process, including the physics of Quantum Mechanics and Relativity.
According to the author, it can also be applied to derive the dynamical equations of Evolution.
Bayesian mechanics can therefore be seen as an agent of the evolutionary process, providing a measure of a system’s capacity, whether a brain or species, to adapt in a changing physical or social landscape, by reducing the gap between its current and required knowledge states.
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Monday, April 19, 2010
The Future of Religion
At the beginning of the 21st Century it is clear that 'religion' is a social phenomenon, an outcome of social evolution that is reaching a crisis point or apostasies. The evidence points to the conclusion that all major religions evolved in response to the urgent needs of society to rectify and reduce corruption and find meaning and support in difficult times. Religion also manifested in response to the need to fulfil a desperate craving for immortality and to explain the how and why of life's presence on this planet.
In essence, religions evolved to confirm the existence of an infinitely wise and powerful creator and the nature of creation.
However, at the beginning of the third millennium these raison d'etres are fast disappearing. The set of ethical and moral principles that coevolved as part of all religions are beginning to pass their use-by date. They are now taken as a given, encoded in legal conventions and entrenched as basic human rights by most societies. These early ethical and moral frameworks, enshrined in religion, are now generally accepted on a broad scale by peoples of all societies. Though still valid, they have now become mainstream.
The Ten commandments of Christianity; the Book of Life of Confucianism and the Koran of Islam, all provide a basis for the ethical and moral values of human behaviour; establishing 'good' codes of conduct which encapsulate the moral structure of future society. These were the norms that created the original basis for a future civil society.
But the great Chinese philosopher Lao-Tze, did not postulate a set of rules; rather he created a set of insights or self-organising principles by which society could evolve. Jesus Christ did a similar thing. Some of the early rules are now dated, as are the early theories of the physical universe, but many of the core truths remain valid. They were the encapsulation of wisdom by forward and radical thinkers of an earlier time. However, repeating them like a mantra doesn't enhance their validity. These early ethical principles evolved in response to the survival and potential needs of human society over the past 20 millennia. They will continue to evolve in response to tomorrow's needs.
By adopting literally what was enshrined in books over two thousand years ago, we are rejecting the capacity of humans to continue to adapt and learn and their ability to improve all processes. Ethical and moral principles will continue to evolve and of course have already done so. The meta-wisdom of 2000 years ago was invaluable to human progress, but like everything else it must continue to evolve in order to be relevant to future human societies; reflecting their requirements to a more relevant degree..
The need to find a creator is also rapidly reaching its use-by date. Evolution, quantum cosmology, the Big Bang etc, have all conspired to push the early metaphysical cosmogonies into the background of mythology. Even the ‘god of the gaps’ is in full retreat. The Pope now begrudgingly accepts Darwin and Galileo into the theological fold and the Big Bang has become the new moment of creation. But what created the Big Bang? Certainly not a god- just as a god did not create an earthquake or a flood or the earth.
Today's scientific explanations instead favour a quantum phenomena which triggered a rapid expansionary process, powered by a huge energy field. The use of a god, substituting in a causal context for real intellectual analysis does not explain anything. It is just a substitute for currently unknown causes- an intellectual cop-out. The big bang itself may be just one of an infinite number of creation events, each engineered by the evolutionary process through a recycling of energy. Whatever the cause, it does not advance human understanding by eternally repeating the nostrum that a god was responsible for it.
There appears to be no limit at this point in time to life's ability to acquire new knowledge. As seemingly insurmountable problems arise, new and novel techniques co-evolve to push the knowledge barrier back further. Therefore the God notion will continue to recede and attenuate. There have been periodic predictions that the number of new theories will eventually peter out. But this has been proved nonsensical. The ever-evolving Theories of Everything, marking the quest for the ultimate building blocks of the universe, is not the end of the search- just the beginning of our intellectual odyssey. One can understand religion’s past evolutionary benefit, but it is probably of greater benefit to humanity to now examine other equally optimistic but more rational scenarios for life's outcomes
The ‘god' concept on the other hand is basically an excuse for intellectual laziness. It is also a dead end as far as the knowledge discovery process goes. Having served its social purpose it is now not adding any new knowledge to human enlightenment, although it still offers a significant proportion of humanity with comfort. Cold comfort however when a tsunami strikes or its leaders are found to be complicit in criminal abuse against its most vulnerable believers.
A personal god has been a popular figment of the imagination for a long time; eternally and totally supportive of the lucky recipients of its beneficence. As with a personal trainer, a god will look after an individual's needs providing that person remains subservient to it; lavishing gifts and praise and asking for forgiveness, for real or imagined sins. A personal god is invoked by salesmen, politicians and the wealthy, as well as the poor, to guarantee longevity, redemption and overall success in their everyday lives.
Provided all protocols are carried out as required, the god will grant the acolyte special favours, such as ensuring continuation of life or in the best American new age tradition, making the individual seriously rich; while millions of the less privileged dye of starvation, AIDS or wars. The big payoff however- the glittering prize, is immortality. This means making it big time.
Immortality, Nirvana, Heaven is the potential pinnacle of life's attainment. For the wealthy it represents risk minimisation- to get to keep what they have acquired on earth. For the poor it represents their only chance to attain wealth and equality- all that they missed out on in their earthly life. At the most basic level it is a classic reward system, rewarding good behaviour and punishing evil as prescribed in all religions, combined with the carrot of eternal life.
Religion is at different times a great comfort to the deprived, oppressed, aged and infirm, but it doesn't solve their problems. In fact it often blocks progress as evidenced by the Hindu caste system, which decrees that the lower caste must remain at the lowest level of the social hierarchy, in the cause of social stability. Those who have had reduced opportunities in this life, such as the members of a lower caste, carry the hope of future equality. Those who have acquired substantial wealth sustain the hope of retaining it.
The afterlife, however, is not what it used to be. Not many now believe that the celestial fairy light canopy is the home of angels. Fewer and fewer believe that the prophet Jesus was immortal and not too many believe that the souls of sinners will burn in hell.
Heaven and Hell are increasingly seen to be metaphors, extremes of the spectrum of possibilities; a method of dispensing final justice in order to keep ethical and moral constraints on society, while at the same time maintaining the power of religious brokers. Even amongst the most rational there is a deep belief that those guilty of atrocities on earth must somehow receive a measure of justice in the afterlife and that innate goodness and truth will eventually be rewarded.
Unfortunately to date there is no hard evidence suggesting that this is the case; or that an afterlife exists except in our imagination. The need for an afterlife is however deeply ingrained. It obviously assists in the survival of the species at the most basic level, in terms of the need for nurture. At a deep level it provides the bonding so essential for the cohesion of the family, tribe or group.
For most animal species there is a dominant leader from which the group derives its strength and guidance. In the human species this is no less true, with the emergence of both family and tribal leaders, whether patriarchal or matriarchal. Obviously a god plays a similar role, all-powerful and all-wise, positioned at the peak of the pyramid. If this super-leader does not physically exist, then it can be anthropomorphically created in the abstract. There is evidence that humans appear to have evolved neural structures that reinforce such a hierarchy.
Love for the gods or spiritual love is no less real however than physical love. But the need for spirituality is another matter altogether. Spirituality manifests as an innate yearning, a quest for a deeper love and true enlightenment, a feeling of the numinous and of wonderment. Did this need for spirituality evolve as other emotions and feelings did? No doubt! It evolved to push the bounds of human potential. Without the urge to comprehend the unknown, to understand the unknowable and revel in the thirst for love, truth and knowledge, evolution would be less effective and life would lack most of its essential drive. Spirituality doesn't need a god but it does need a mystery.
All religions also come complete with a set of ethical guidelines such as the Ten Commandments. Although each set evolved independently of religion, prophets were able to successfully distil this knowledge from the social discourse and incorporate it within a religious framework. The framework therefore received moral authority from the God-head.This usually had the desired effect of establishing its credibility.
Each ethical standard has a genesis and a long history of trial and error; a sifting out of the essentials forming the basis or bedrock for a society. Ethical rules all aim to extend human potential and foster equality, compassion and human understanding. They also represent the basis for the evolution of the formal legal edifice that circumscribes our life today.
The evolution of emotions such as virtue, altruism, guilt, sadness etc. are also intimately linked to ethical guidelines such as sacrifice of the few for the many, reflecting feedback from countless social interactions; their successes and failures.
In the future, Churches are likely to transform into social organisations, already a major part of their function; providing essential support for the sick, poor, alienated and disenfranchised. Most churches now provide social and economic support functions in many countries. Churches have also recently migrated to the cutting edge of human rights. Religious orders such as the Jesuits and Buddhist Monks have long championed human rights as an imperative of the morality of their religions.
If freed from the baggage of the 'god' notion, religion’s ideals of charity, social justice, morality, truth and wisdom are likely to be attained far more effectively in the future.
The future of religion is therefore not difficult to divine. Its evolutionary origins and purpose are clear. Its future rests on the adaptive and cumulative wisdom of humans – not gods
In essence, religions evolved to confirm the existence of an infinitely wise and powerful creator and the nature of creation.
However, at the beginning of the third millennium these raison d'etres are fast disappearing. The set of ethical and moral principles that coevolved as part of all religions are beginning to pass their use-by date. They are now taken as a given, encoded in legal conventions and entrenched as basic human rights by most societies. These early ethical and moral frameworks, enshrined in religion, are now generally accepted on a broad scale by peoples of all societies. Though still valid, they have now become mainstream.
The Ten commandments of Christianity; the Book of Life of Confucianism and the Koran of Islam, all provide a basis for the ethical and moral values of human behaviour; establishing 'good' codes of conduct which encapsulate the moral structure of future society. These were the norms that created the original basis for a future civil society.
But the great Chinese philosopher Lao-Tze, did not postulate a set of rules; rather he created a set of insights or self-organising principles by which society could evolve. Jesus Christ did a similar thing. Some of the early rules are now dated, as are the early theories of the physical universe, but many of the core truths remain valid. They were the encapsulation of wisdom by forward and radical thinkers of an earlier time. However, repeating them like a mantra doesn't enhance their validity. These early ethical principles evolved in response to the survival and potential needs of human society over the past 20 millennia. They will continue to evolve in response to tomorrow's needs.
By adopting literally what was enshrined in books over two thousand years ago, we are rejecting the capacity of humans to continue to adapt and learn and their ability to improve all processes. Ethical and moral principles will continue to evolve and of course have already done so. The meta-wisdom of 2000 years ago was invaluable to human progress, but like everything else it must continue to evolve in order to be relevant to future human societies; reflecting their requirements to a more relevant degree..
The need to find a creator is also rapidly reaching its use-by date. Evolution, quantum cosmology, the Big Bang etc, have all conspired to push the early metaphysical cosmogonies into the background of mythology. Even the ‘god of the gaps’ is in full retreat. The Pope now begrudgingly accepts Darwin and Galileo into the theological fold and the Big Bang has become the new moment of creation. But what created the Big Bang? Certainly not a god- just as a god did not create an earthquake or a flood or the earth.
Today's scientific explanations instead favour a quantum phenomena which triggered a rapid expansionary process, powered by a huge energy field. The use of a god, substituting in a causal context for real intellectual analysis does not explain anything. It is just a substitute for currently unknown causes- an intellectual cop-out. The big bang itself may be just one of an infinite number of creation events, each engineered by the evolutionary process through a recycling of energy. Whatever the cause, it does not advance human understanding by eternally repeating the nostrum that a god was responsible for it.
There appears to be no limit at this point in time to life's ability to acquire new knowledge. As seemingly insurmountable problems arise, new and novel techniques co-evolve to push the knowledge barrier back further. Therefore the God notion will continue to recede and attenuate. There have been periodic predictions that the number of new theories will eventually peter out. But this has been proved nonsensical. The ever-evolving Theories of Everything, marking the quest for the ultimate building blocks of the universe, is not the end of the search- just the beginning of our intellectual odyssey. One can understand religion’s past evolutionary benefit, but it is probably of greater benefit to humanity to now examine other equally optimistic but more rational scenarios for life's outcomes
The ‘god' concept on the other hand is basically an excuse for intellectual laziness. It is also a dead end as far as the knowledge discovery process goes. Having served its social purpose it is now not adding any new knowledge to human enlightenment, although it still offers a significant proportion of humanity with comfort. Cold comfort however when a tsunami strikes or its leaders are found to be complicit in criminal abuse against its most vulnerable believers.
A personal god has been a popular figment of the imagination for a long time; eternally and totally supportive of the lucky recipients of its beneficence. As with a personal trainer, a god will look after an individual's needs providing that person remains subservient to it; lavishing gifts and praise and asking for forgiveness, for real or imagined sins. A personal god is invoked by salesmen, politicians and the wealthy, as well as the poor, to guarantee longevity, redemption and overall success in their everyday lives.
Provided all protocols are carried out as required, the god will grant the acolyte special favours, such as ensuring continuation of life or in the best American new age tradition, making the individual seriously rich; while millions of the less privileged dye of starvation, AIDS or wars. The big payoff however- the glittering prize, is immortality. This means making it big time.
Immortality, Nirvana, Heaven is the potential pinnacle of life's attainment. For the wealthy it represents risk minimisation- to get to keep what they have acquired on earth. For the poor it represents their only chance to attain wealth and equality- all that they missed out on in their earthly life. At the most basic level it is a classic reward system, rewarding good behaviour and punishing evil as prescribed in all religions, combined with the carrot of eternal life.
Religion is at different times a great comfort to the deprived, oppressed, aged and infirm, but it doesn't solve their problems. In fact it often blocks progress as evidenced by the Hindu caste system, which decrees that the lower caste must remain at the lowest level of the social hierarchy, in the cause of social stability. Those who have had reduced opportunities in this life, such as the members of a lower caste, carry the hope of future equality. Those who have acquired substantial wealth sustain the hope of retaining it.
The afterlife, however, is not what it used to be. Not many now believe that the celestial fairy light canopy is the home of angels. Fewer and fewer believe that the prophet Jesus was immortal and not too many believe that the souls of sinners will burn in hell.
Heaven and Hell are increasingly seen to be metaphors, extremes of the spectrum of possibilities; a method of dispensing final justice in order to keep ethical and moral constraints on society, while at the same time maintaining the power of religious brokers. Even amongst the most rational there is a deep belief that those guilty of atrocities on earth must somehow receive a measure of justice in the afterlife and that innate goodness and truth will eventually be rewarded.
Unfortunately to date there is no hard evidence suggesting that this is the case; or that an afterlife exists except in our imagination. The need for an afterlife is however deeply ingrained. It obviously assists in the survival of the species at the most basic level, in terms of the need for nurture. At a deep level it provides the bonding so essential for the cohesion of the family, tribe or group.
For most animal species there is a dominant leader from which the group derives its strength and guidance. In the human species this is no less true, with the emergence of both family and tribal leaders, whether patriarchal or matriarchal. Obviously a god plays a similar role, all-powerful and all-wise, positioned at the peak of the pyramid. If this super-leader does not physically exist, then it can be anthropomorphically created in the abstract. There is evidence that humans appear to have evolved neural structures that reinforce such a hierarchy.
Love for the gods or spiritual love is no less real however than physical love. But the need for spirituality is another matter altogether. Spirituality manifests as an innate yearning, a quest for a deeper love and true enlightenment, a feeling of the numinous and of wonderment. Did this need for spirituality evolve as other emotions and feelings did? No doubt! It evolved to push the bounds of human potential. Without the urge to comprehend the unknown, to understand the unknowable and revel in the thirst for love, truth and knowledge, evolution would be less effective and life would lack most of its essential drive. Spirituality doesn't need a god but it does need a mystery.
All religions also come complete with a set of ethical guidelines such as the Ten Commandments. Although each set evolved independently of religion, prophets were able to successfully distil this knowledge from the social discourse and incorporate it within a religious framework. The framework therefore received moral authority from the God-head.This usually had the desired effect of establishing its credibility.
Each ethical standard has a genesis and a long history of trial and error; a sifting out of the essentials forming the basis or bedrock for a society. Ethical rules all aim to extend human potential and foster equality, compassion and human understanding. They also represent the basis for the evolution of the formal legal edifice that circumscribes our life today.
The evolution of emotions such as virtue, altruism, guilt, sadness etc. are also intimately linked to ethical guidelines such as sacrifice of the few for the many, reflecting feedback from countless social interactions; their successes and failures.
In the future, Churches are likely to transform into social organisations, already a major part of their function; providing essential support for the sick, poor, alienated and disenfranchised. Most churches now provide social and economic support functions in many countries. Churches have also recently migrated to the cutting edge of human rights. Religious orders such as the Jesuits and Buddhist Monks have long championed human rights as an imperative of the morality of their religions.
If freed from the baggage of the 'god' notion, religion’s ideals of charity, social justice, morality, truth and wisdom are likely to be attained far more effectively in the future.
The future of religion is therefore not difficult to divine. Its evolutionary origins and purpose are clear. Its future rests on the adaptive and cumulative wisdom of humans – not gods
Monday, April 5, 2010
Rebirthing HAL
The arrival of super smart evolutionary computers, capable of autonomous reasoning, learning and emulating the human-like behaviour of the mythical HAL in Arthur C. Clarke’s Space Odyssey 2001 is imminent.
The Darwinian evolutionary paradigm has finally come of age in the era of super -computing. The AI evolutionary algorithm which now guides many problem solving and optimisation processes, is also being applied to the design of increasingly sophisticated computing systems. In a real sense, the evolutionary paradigm is guiding the design of evolutionary computing, which in turn will lead to the development of more powerful evolutionary algorithms. This process will inevitably lead to the generation of hyper-smart computing systems and therefore advanced knowledge; with each evolutionary computing advance catalysing the next in a fractal process.
Evolutionary design principles have been applied in all branches of science and technology for over a decade, including the development of advanced electronic hardware and software, now incorporated in personal computing devices and robotic controllers.
One of the first applications to use a standard genetic algorithm was the design of an electronic circuit which could discriminate between two tone signals or voices in a crowded room. This was achieved by using a Field Programmable Gateway Array or FPGA chip, on which a matrix of transistors or logic cells was reprogrammed on the fly in real time. Each new design configuration was varied or mutated and could then be immediately tested for its ability to achieve the desired output- discriminating between the two signal frequencies.
Such evolutionary-based technologies provide the potential to not only optimise the design of computers, but facilitate the evolution of self-organisational learning and replicating systems that design themselves. Eventually it will be possible to evolve truly intelligent machines that can learn on their own, without relying on pre-coded human expertise or knowledge.
In the late forties, John von Neumann conceptualised a self-replicating computer using a cellular automaton architecture of identical computing devices arranged in a chequerboard pattern, changing their states based on their nearest neighbour. One of the earliest examples was the Firefly machine with 54 cells controlled by circuits which evolved to flash on and off in unison.
The evolvable hardware that researchers created in the late 90’s and early this century was proof of principle of the potential ahead. For example, a group of Swiss researchers extended Von Neumann's dream by creating a self-repairing, self-duplicating version of a specialised computer. In this model, each processor cell or biomodule was programmed with an artificial chromosome, encapsulating all the information needed to function together as one computer and capable of exchanging information with other cells. As with each biological cell, only certain simulated genes were switched on to differentiate its function within the body.
A stunning example of the application of Darwinian principles to the mimicking of life was development of the CAM-Cellular Automata Machine Brain in 2000. It contained 40 million neurons, running on 72 linked FGPAs of 450 million autonomous cells. Also the first hyper-computer- HAL-4rw1 from Star Bridge Systems reached commercial production in 2000. Based on FPGA technology it operated at four times the speed of the world's fastest supercomputer.
And at the same time NASA began to create a new generation of small intelligent robots called ‘biomorphic’ explorers, designed to react to the environment in similar ways to living creatures on earth.
Another biological approach applied to achieve intelligent computing was the neural network model. Such networks simulate the firing patterns of neural cells in the brain, which accumulate incoming signals until a discharge threshold is reached, allowing information to be transmitted to the next layer of connected cells. However, such digital models cannot accurately capture the subtle firing patterns of real-life cells, which contain elements of both periodic and chaotic timing. However the latest simulations use analogue neuron circuits to capture the information encoded in these time-sensitive patterns and mimic real-life behaviour more accurately.
Neural networks and other forms of biological artificial intelligence are now being combined with evolutionary models, taking a major step towards the goal of artificial cognitive processing; allowing intelligent computing systems to learn on their own and become experts in any chosen field.
Eventually it will be possible to use evolutionary algorithms to design artificial brains, augmenting or supplanting biological human cognition. This is a win-win for humans. While the biological brain, with its tens of billions of neurons each connected to thousands of others, has assisted science to develop useful computational models, a deeper understanding of computation and artificial intelligence is also providing neuroscientists and philosophers with greater insights into the nature of the brain and its cognitive processes.
The future implications of the evolutionary design paradigm are therefore enormous. Universal computer prototypes capable of continuous learning are now reaching commercial production. Descendants of these systems will continue to evolve, simulating biological evolution through genetic mutation and optimisation, powered by quantum computing. They will soon create capabilities similar to those of HAL in Arthur Clarke's "Space Odyssey 2001"- and only a few decades later than predicted.
However the reincarnation of the legendary HAL may in fact be realised by a much more powerful phenomena incorporating all current computing and AI advances - the Intelligent World Wide Web. As previously discussed, this multidimensional network of networks, empowered by human and artificial intelligence and utilising unlimited computing and communication power, is well on the way to becoming a self-aware entity and the ultimate decision partner in our world.
Perhaps HAL is already alive and well.
The Darwinian evolutionary paradigm has finally come of age in the era of super -computing. The AI evolutionary algorithm which now guides many problem solving and optimisation processes, is also being applied to the design of increasingly sophisticated computing systems. In a real sense, the evolutionary paradigm is guiding the design of evolutionary computing, which in turn will lead to the development of more powerful evolutionary algorithms. This process will inevitably lead to the generation of hyper-smart computing systems and therefore advanced knowledge; with each evolutionary computing advance catalysing the next in a fractal process.
Evolutionary design principles have been applied in all branches of science and technology for over a decade, including the development of advanced electronic hardware and software, now incorporated in personal computing devices and robotic controllers.
One of the first applications to use a standard genetic algorithm was the design of an electronic circuit which could discriminate between two tone signals or voices in a crowded room. This was achieved by using a Field Programmable Gateway Array or FPGA chip, on which a matrix of transistors or logic cells was reprogrammed on the fly in real time. Each new design configuration was varied or mutated and could then be immediately tested for its ability to achieve the desired output- discriminating between the two signal frequencies.
Such evolutionary-based technologies provide the potential to not only optimise the design of computers, but facilitate the evolution of self-organisational learning and replicating systems that design themselves. Eventually it will be possible to evolve truly intelligent machines that can learn on their own, without relying on pre-coded human expertise or knowledge.
In the late forties, John von Neumann conceptualised a self-replicating computer using a cellular automaton architecture of identical computing devices arranged in a chequerboard pattern, changing their states based on their nearest neighbour. One of the earliest examples was the Firefly machine with 54 cells controlled by circuits which evolved to flash on and off in unison.
The evolvable hardware that researchers created in the late 90’s and early this century was proof of principle of the potential ahead. For example, a group of Swiss researchers extended Von Neumann's dream by creating a self-repairing, self-duplicating version of a specialised computer. In this model, each processor cell or biomodule was programmed with an artificial chromosome, encapsulating all the information needed to function together as one computer and capable of exchanging information with other cells. As with each biological cell, only certain simulated genes were switched on to differentiate its function within the body.
A stunning example of the application of Darwinian principles to the mimicking of life was development of the CAM-Cellular Automata Machine Brain in 2000. It contained 40 million neurons, running on 72 linked FGPAs of 450 million autonomous cells. Also the first hyper-computer- HAL-4rw1 from Star Bridge Systems reached commercial production in 2000. Based on FPGA technology it operated at four times the speed of the world's fastest supercomputer.
And at the same time NASA began to create a new generation of small intelligent robots called ‘biomorphic’ explorers, designed to react to the environment in similar ways to living creatures on earth.
Another biological approach applied to achieve intelligent computing was the neural network model. Such networks simulate the firing patterns of neural cells in the brain, which accumulate incoming signals until a discharge threshold is reached, allowing information to be transmitted to the next layer of connected cells. However, such digital models cannot accurately capture the subtle firing patterns of real-life cells, which contain elements of both periodic and chaotic timing. However the latest simulations use analogue neuron circuits to capture the information encoded in these time-sensitive patterns and mimic real-life behaviour more accurately.
Neural networks and other forms of biological artificial intelligence are now being combined with evolutionary models, taking a major step towards the goal of artificial cognitive processing; allowing intelligent computing systems to learn on their own and become experts in any chosen field.
Eventually it will be possible to use evolutionary algorithms to design artificial brains, augmenting or supplanting biological human cognition. This is a win-win for humans. While the biological brain, with its tens of billions of neurons each connected to thousands of others, has assisted science to develop useful computational models, a deeper understanding of computation and artificial intelligence is also providing neuroscientists and philosophers with greater insights into the nature of the brain and its cognitive processes.
The future implications of the evolutionary design paradigm are therefore enormous. Universal computer prototypes capable of continuous learning are now reaching commercial production. Descendants of these systems will continue to evolve, simulating biological evolution through genetic mutation and optimisation, powered by quantum computing. They will soon create capabilities similar to those of HAL in Arthur Clarke's "Space Odyssey 2001"- and only a few decades later than predicted.
However the reincarnation of the legendary HAL may in fact be realised by a much more powerful phenomena incorporating all current computing and AI advances - the Intelligent World Wide Web. As previously discussed, this multidimensional network of networks, empowered by human and artificial intelligence and utilising unlimited computing and communication power, is well on the way to becoming a self-aware entity and the ultimate decision partner in our world.
Perhaps HAL is already alive and well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
