Ruminations on everything from international affairs and politics to quantum physics, cosmology and consciousness. More recently, notes on political theory.
Saturday, September 16, 2017
The Brain As Quantum Computer
Recently I had the opportunity to watch southern African White-necked crows while they were watching me. I was taking afternoon tea (and eating rusks) on the patio overlooking a beautiful valley in the hills near Mbabane. Crows are smart and these are among the smartest. One sat on the roof of the next house staring at me convinced that at some point, I would grow careless and give him or her a chance to steal something, perhaps something to eat. As I was ever-vigilant, eventually they flew off over the valley, soaring and dipping in very real time. As I watched, I thought about the complex calculations that a bird must make moment-to-moment to move so quickly through three-dimensional space. They must keep track of where they are, where to go, how to get there. Knowing each requires entire subsets of information – such as (for where to go), where they saw food or last saw food or might find food while watching for anything that might require evasive action. These calculations must be solved each fraction of a second. I then thought this must be true for any animal with a brain (or nervous system). Neural systems allow the organism to move through, and react to, the environment rather than obey simple tropisms or merely be buffeted about by the external environment. The more complicated the neural system – reaching a peak of networks of networks to the 4th or 5th power (or beyond) running in our human brains – the more complex the information that can be stored and manipulated. A classical view of the human brain would start with the 500 trillion synapses of the adult brain’s hundred billion neurons. Now that is a lot of synapses. But think about how much information is stored there in language, knowledge, experience, memories and everything else that makes each individual unique and utterly complex.
I’ve speculated in this space about quantum consciousness, the production of mind from brain through “collapsing the wave functions apprehended from the perceptual flow. While watching the crows, I realized that the brain must function as a quantum computer and not as a classical system. The notion that quantum processes mix with (or form) consciousness is called “orchestrated objective reduction.” It rests on the possibility that the microtubules in nerve cells are small enough to contain quantum states. The brain accounts for just two percent of the human body’s mass but utilizes around 20% of its energy. It basically is like having a 20 watt bulb in our head shining all the time. This energy could be powering the creation and persistence of entangled states inside the microtubules of every cell. In this way, the neural organization of the brain would be the maintenance of a complex, constantly refreshed, while constantly changing, global entangled state. The collapse of the highest level of this entangled state-of-states coincides with consciousness. Inside our heads, this quantum computer has storage and calculating power well beyond what would be true if our brains functioned simply along classical physics lines. It may produce what we experience as consciousness. Or, collapse may come through the decisions that we – the “ghost” in the machine, acting as the internal observer – make in each moment as the crow flies.
Labels:
being,
brain,
complexity,
computers,
consciousness,
decoherence,
entanglement,
information,
intelligence,
mind,
physics,
quantum being,
science,
thinking
Thursday, August 3, 2017
Pre-history Inspired by the Surroundings
Been in Swaziland for the last month. A beautiful country and quite complex for such a small one. A traditional King and some of the oldest terrain on the planet. Sibebe Rock is a grand granite mountain some three billion years ago, the second largest pluton in the world. It dates to the first formation of continental crust.
From hiking through the hills here, some basic ancient history put together from various sources including my ancient geology studies: About 3.5 billion years ago oceanic basalt broke the surface in what is now southern Africa. Soon after, erosion, sedimentation, burial, heating and erupting began producing granite. By 3 billion years ago, enough granite had been extruded – and added with metamorphic gneiss also so produced – to form the root of a continental pluton. The Swaziland Supergroup of the Barberton Greenstone belt contains some of the oldest-known, least-metamorphosed sedimentary and volcanic rocks on Earth. Chert is the most abundant sedimentary rock type within the volcanic part of this mix. The oceans then were about 100oF degrees warmer than present. During this time – 3.5 to 3.3 bya – bacteria, including cyanobacteria, formed stromatolites “commonly low-relief, nearly stratiform, laterally linked domes … [and some] pseudocolumns and crinkly stratiform stromatolites … on a substrate of altered komatiitic lava [lava with high iron-nickel-copper-platinum-group content from an erupting komatiite volcano] and sediments deposited on the lava surface, and in most places … covered by later komatiitic flows. Abundant fine-grained tourmaline included within the stromatolite laminae suggests that stromatolites formed in an environment dominated by boron-rich hot-spring emissions and evaporitic brines.” Picture the hot springs of Yosemite on a larger scale and perhaps on the shore of an ocean.
Much later, apes turned into humans in the same area and the humans made some of their first tools with that chert.
Southern Africa Fossil Stromatolite
Labels:
Africa,
continents,
earth,
geology,
granite,
humans,
life,
prehistory,
Swaziland
Monday, March 27, 2017
Saint Thomas’ God
Somewhere
in the writings of St. Thomas Aquinas is the suggestion that when one
follows reason as far as it can go, that is a finger pointing to God.
Over the past several years, I have been considering what the
existence of consciousness, modern
cosmology, quantum
physics and relativity
can say about the origin of consciousness,
life
and the
universe. This
has led me to some conclusions, including that consciousness may be
primordial, that there may indeed be a “ghost
in the machine,” and that the creation of the universe seems to
have happened according
to laws written into the act. My way of summing all this up has
been to accept the notion that the universe is a product of conscious
intent and that we all share in that same consciousness. I have come
to think of the “creator” as a kind of Shakespeare who wrote a
cosmic script setting the stage full of interesting processes,
happenings and beings and dumped itself into it in order to
experience its creation first hand. (Each “I” is part of that
consciousness.) Another way to think about this might be to imagine
an all-powerful being who designed the most amazing multi-level,
multi-player computer game to play – to alleviate a really cosmic
case of boredom? – by downloading itself into it to play every role.
As
a former Catholic, however, I had trouble with the concept and notion
of “God.” Cleary the God of all three religions of the Book –
the Hebrew, Christian and Muslem
– was too anthropomorphized. The concept of God comes with baggage
I could not accept. A transcendent
being
like some sort of super human that loves us as a parent and deserves
worship is
simply a reflection of our own collective
lack of psychic maturity. There is also no evidence for such a
being
that judges us and will hold us accountable for our actions, right
and wrong. Given the fantastic and unlikely beauty of a universe
that seems just right for us, there is no reason to suppose that
there must be a heaven beyond it. Given our experience of the
various forms of evil, historical and current, there is also no
reason to suppose the need for some other hell. It seems clear to me
that the universe as it exists is ungoverned by any morality beyond
what we humans bring into it.
But
recently, sitting in the Bishops Garden at Washington’s National
Cathedral on a sunny, early spring morn, I made my peace with the
word God. Listening to the gentle sound of a burbling spring
and basking in the warmth of the sun, I considered the process by
which the millions of photons showering down reached me. The sun’s
energy comes from a myriad of fusions of two hydrogen atoms into one
helium in the sun’s core. It takes thousands of years for the
energy produced by each single fusion event to reach the surface of
the sun. Then it takes just eight minutes to travel the 93 million
miles to earth. The physical laws governing our universe are just
right to allow this font of endless free energy sitting in the middle
of an expanse of nothingness to bring to life our planet and all the
creatures on it.
Some
might say that that conditions may seem just right because else
wise
we wouldn’t be here. Just a happy accident out of an infinity of
possible combinations that don’t work for conscious life forms.
But that seems to violate Occam's Razor. Why suppose an infinite
number of random fluctuations just to come up with one that has us?
Much more direct to suppose that the one that contains us
was
meant to do so. And besides, the fundamental questions
remain
why is there anything at
all rather
than nothing and how could something arise out of nothing. Much
more logical to recognize the likelihood of a First Cause. And
one
might
as well call that God. Not one to worship, follow
or depend upon for any kind of salvation but one to wonder about.
Accepting the existence of St.
Thomas’ God
opens, at
the
most basic level, the door of wonder.
Labels:
Aquinas,
consciousness,
cosmology,
existence,
God,
life,
quantum physics,
reality,
reason
Wednesday, February 1, 2017
Globalization and Its Discontents
Globalization
and Its Discontents
Just
about a year ago, I wrote in this space about premature
globalization, suggesting that it may have come
too early in humanity's history and gone too far. Whatever
the putative benefits of globalization, they appear to not be shared
equally but have left many – the
unprotected – behind. Well before the November election, it
was already clear that Donald
Trump was riding the wave of discontent with globalization and
would be seen as the transformation
candidate.
A
fierce critic of globalization now sits in the White House right
behind the new President, Steve Bannon. As
David
Ignatius notes,
however, it would be incomplete, maybe even inaccurate, to see Bannon
as simply an extreme nationalist. Rather, fusing criticisms from the
left and right, Bannon sees globalization as benefiting “crony
capitalists” and as a threat to working Americans. Under his
guidance, Trump now seems to be undoing the global order of
interconnectedness that has seemed increasingly unstoppable over the
past few decades. Leaving the politics of this aside, this raises
two questions: Whether globalization is indeed an evolutionary
inevitability or something still subject to conscious intervention by
we human beings? And, if it turns out to be an inevitability, what
happens if Trump and Bannon succeed in taking the United States out
of contention to continue to occupy the central role in the evolving
global reality?
It
may well be that the dynamics behind globalization are unstoppable.
Human society has moved forward over the last 100 thousand years from
small isolated groups to ever larger units that now exist as
interconnected nations and organized states. Since the Industrial
Revolution, the economic drivers have become mass production for
consumption requiring ever-broadening networks of trade for resources
and customers. Efficiencies have been gained not only through
advances in technology but also through the ever more comprehensive
and inclusive concentrations of wealth, organization, production,
distribution and trade made possible by those advances. Even when
networks extended into new areas far away, they utilized the
technological and “free-trade” aspects of globalization to make
distributed production more efficient than previous nationally based
activities. Left to itself, globalization does not produce greater
equality but it does seem to create greater wealth. Since Marx at
least, it has been possible to see this ever increasing accumulation
of wealth as an objectification of our existence as a species.
Who can stop this? Is any effort simply doomed to fighting the
logos of human history?
If
globalization is inevitable, would Trump and Bannon’s effort to
resist it simply take the US out of the center and leave it to some
others to occupy? As it now stands, the US has in the last several
decades invested mightily – in money and blood – in shaping the
world as much as possible
in its own image. If we close our borders, emphasize national
productions over free trade, reduce our role in international
affairs, do we leave it to China or Russia or even a compelled
reinvigorated Europe? And if globalization is inevitable, what kind
of future would that make for whatever the US becomes behind its
walls?
These
are questions and not answers. But it seems to me too early to
simply surrender to globalization as inevitable. Logically, at
least, it would seem possible to walk and chew gum at the same time.
We could seek to address inequality. Perhaps some limits and
standards for free trade have a role in this. It makes sense to seek
to protect ourselves from sources of instability and insecurity
around the world but through working
multilaterally within the international system rather than
unilateral armed interventions. Walls and fences may have a role
too, but with careful attention more on how we let people in rather
than keep them out. This may be were politics becomes most relevant.
Labels:
Bannon,
capitalism,
change,
choice,
economy,
evolution,
globalization,
government,
humanity,
inequality,
technology,
Trump,
US
Friday, January 20, 2017
Westworld’s Consciousness Riff
The
HBO remake of Westworld
is
superior TV in a number of ways. But its most intriguing aspect may
be its foundational riff on what makes up consciousness. The basic
premise is that recursive experience plus an emotional occurrence
that anchors memory – especially an episode of painful loss –
ignites (self) consciousness. Intriguing, yet not finally convincing.
The ability to experience emotion itself requires consciousness –
one must be aware
of feeling such-and-such. Westworld’s
premise begs the question of where
that awareness comes from.
There
seems to be no
a
priori
reason to suppose that machines cannot be intelligent.
It may be useful to think about intelligence as existing in more or
less distinct forms. Generically, intelligence might be defined as
the ability to acquire,
process
and
apply
knowledge. (Animals have varying degrees of this kind of intelligence
and so may plants.) Machines have the ability to store and process
information. Machine intelligence is the orderly processing of
information according to governing rules (software). Both the
information and the rules are externally derived and stored within
the machine. The machine itself may be contained in discrete units or
widely distributed (the cloud). Machines can learn – by adding and
elaborating rules based on previous cycles of processing – but they
can’t process information without instructions stored in memory.
Cloud intelligence is machine intelligence taken to a higher level by
accessing massive information from many data sources using more and
many powerful processors and sophisticated software with built in
“learning routines.”
Human
intelligence is what we human beings have. It is what we know as
manifested in thought and action. Our knowledge is stored in two
places, our heads and in our culture. Culture is contained in
language, traditions, techniques, art and artifacts, beliefs and
whatever else carries collective knowledge across time and
generations. The basic unit of human intelligence, however, remains
the individual mind, which itself can be thought of as an
organically based “machine.”
But there seems to be a
ghost in the human machine
that we experience as consciousness. Mere machines cannot feel
emotion – or pleasure and pain – no matter how massive the memory
and computing power. And the movies Matrix
and Terminator
aside, machines do not inherently strive for self-preservation.
Machines are not alive nor
do they have “souls.”
Whether because humans are organic life forms evolved over hundreds
of millions of years after having crossed-over
somehow from an inorganic strata or
from deeper principle of the universe,
we feel and experience pleasure and pain. Why
is the unknown. Westworld,
for all its brave speculation, sidesteps this question.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)