That Does Not Compute! That Does NOT Compute!

That Does Not Compute!  That Does NOT Compute!

by Lee J. Keller

Recently while looking over my RSS feeds (Google Reader we will miss you), I was interested enough to read an article (cited below)  that stated that Ray Kurzweil's notion of the Singularity, and in particular, his hopes of ever finding an AI that could be comparable to the human brain was completely false, as the brain could never with all of its complexity be able to be reduced to anything based on computationalism.

What followed was a pretty heated discussion (debate really) going back and forth between the Singularians and the article's main proponent of the non-computational view, a neuroscientist named Miguel Nicolelis (and his camp).  At stake on Kurzweil's side is his reputation as has recently been solidified by stating his position in a recent book about building an AI based brain and the confirmation of his views by his appointment at Google as their Director of Engineering; where he is undoubtedly working on one of the greatest AI projects than has ever been attempted or designed before.

On the other side is the able minded Nicolelis, who while speaking at a major scientific meeting, he addressed his fellow scientists by saying that Kurzweil's view was 'full of hot air' and could never prove out because (summary statement) nothing based on engineering could ever rival the human brain.

These views (likely both sides could be viewed as extreme ones based on who is looking at them)  could be seen as almost polar views on a continuum of human intelligence; i.e., that part of brain functioning which evolves in Nature, and brain functioning as may be augmented, enhanced,  or loosely modeled upon the human brain by AI or AI models. Perhaps there is yet another view about AI, that which evolves in a non human fashion of its own selection process, in a way that is not understood as anything even remotely human, yet still capable of great human significance.

And I think the clash between the two views is more than just a dialectical tension between materialism and the reductionism of computationalism.  For whoever said that computationalism in all of its complexity as that which can still only be hinted at and has barely begun to be modeled by our current rudimentary state of quantum computing and beyond--is reductionistic after all? And what if nothing is simple in terms of simplicity when compared to the actual natural brain functioning in human skulls? (I do not know if there is a true Occam's Razor here unless we are just being straight materialists). Both Nature and computationalism harbor complexities that cannot yet be fully understood or explained.  But it does not mean that either view will be unfruitful regardless of which view becomes the dominant paradigm!

And in fact combining the two views in some sort of synthesis, seems essential to the discovery of what is being sought after all. Perhaps some emergent view, one strongly functionalistic in part, rooted in physicality, but with emergent AI properties will arise out of it all. For we may not simply be talking about some sort of token-type identity theory here (both rooted in physicalism) as some philosophers of mind refer to, but something that has not yet been seen, but can only be advocated and perhaps anticipated, as a possibility, and this is the importance of quantum computing and how this may impact this whole endeavor. That and the contribution of other emerging technologies cannot be overlooked.  Cognitive science and AI has a long history of making grandiose predictions that turn out to be short sighted, and in  AI, it is precisely this, that the emergence of quantum computing and how it and other quantum properties may play a role in both Nature and synthetic development--that would lead one to be very cautious about making predictions and to avoid ever using the word 'NEVER' in any predictions or statements in science.  Such statements might have a very strong possibility of biting most of us in the ass.

Regardless, of what view proves to be borne out and demonstrated by future history, one thing is certain, the knowledge of brain science and the evolution of the human species is made richer by the dialogue, the research, and the findings that will make the twentieth and  twenty-first centuries crucial to an understanding of the human brain, brain sciences, and our future destiny and development as a species.  These are certainly exciting times to live in as many mysteries are being explained, and as our knowledge of the complexities involved in human development, functioning, and as the exciting fields of AI, synthetic biology, and quantum computing intersects; I am optimistic that the outcomes will be very fruitful indeed.  Among these outcomes and the technologies that play a role, are the betterment of health, existence, and consciousness for all of us.~~LJK

Citation: Leading Neuroscientist Says Kurzweil Singularity Prediction A “Bunch Of Hot Air” 

http://singularityhub.com/2013/03/10/leading-neuroscientist-says-kurzweil-singularity-prediction-a-bunch-of-hot-air

updated:  perhaps one of the most recent anti-Kurzweilian views was published in 2018 at salon.com-- in a piece by a fellow Oregonian: The Singularity is not near: The intellectual fraud of the "Singularitarians" https://buff.ly/2wC81oi