Arts and Minds

Read Steven Weber's Discussion Of Why Art Is Vital

2009-06-09T10:11:29-04:00

I recommend reading Steven Weber's article on the importance of art in education and the mind. find it onThe Huffington Post at:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steven-weber/its-arts-time_b_212732.html

I read new posts on the Huffington Post several times each day. The journalistic freedom and effort there, the truths revealed and doors knocked off their hinges have become an essential isotope of oxygen for my mind. This Blog of Blogs has become an essential beginning middle and end every day.

Way Out On A Limbic About Quantum Entanglement for Associative Recall and Thinking

2009-05-31T18:56:11-04:00

Perhaps I am overreacting to a query at the end of an article discussing the implications of Quantum entanglement in organic environments—Technology Review by K. Birgitta Whaley et al. at the Berkeley Center for Quantum Information and Computation as published in Quantum Physics — but writing from the bottom of my limbic system, here goes —.

If there ever was an organ that might benefit from quantum entanglement it is the brain. If there is a system in the brain that would benefit most from entanglement it will involve associative process. Consider:

Quantum entanglement for information storage at the origin and terminus of nerve fibers in the brain might allow instantaneous signal processing at multiple locations within the brain that have in the past become associatively categorized and connected. This would make the brain operate as a far more energy-efficient organ. It could run cooler, require less sugar-fuel, and have a faster response-time and be free of the time-lag that is a product of transmission speed as a function of nerve fiber length. Cells located a few inches apart could be called upon to fire instantaneously (speed of light? no measurable speed?) and perhaps also to act simultaneously (seizure? migraine? consciousness?).

Pushing the envelope of the possible, credible and the probable:

Were it possible that entangled particles could be found at both ends of nerves, and that this entanglement could be produced not only in entangled pairs, but among great entangled families or multiples (think of: neural web), in other words—that they could be replicated, and their tangled-together potential to interconnect could be maintained over time by some yet unknown and unobserved mechanisms—then—quantum entanglement might yield advantages in associative processing power and speed within the brain.

Assume that associative memory and recall processing, (including processes of attention direction, memory formation, and memory recall) involves a great number of cerebral cortex end-point locations that are discrete and separate cells. The origins (in space, time, and entanglement) of these connections would lie somewhere among sensory systems and within the limbic lumps.

For associative connections to be made among many such end-points, transmission and process speed would benefit from (and perhaps require) multiple simultaneous real-time connections among a plurality of distal end-points that were first entangled when sensory, attention or thought stimuli first originated at a sensory organ or from within somewhere in the limbic system, or within the cerebral cortex itself (as in the case of thought and imagination).

Linear/logical processes (think of: tax accounting) would not require such massive investment in cellular connections or wiring as would associative / syncretic processing (think of: scientific hypothesis-making, art, invention).

Hypothesis: most untrained (unschooled), or ‘native’, ‘spontaneous’ thought process is associative, not linear.

A corollary hypothesis: education deals with almost exclusively with teaching and training in linear / logical processing at the expense of associative / syncretic processing.

This emphasis on logic eventually suppresses associative / syncretic processing, causing associative neural connections to devolve or disappear.

If quantum entanglement among a myriad of endpoint memory cells and attention systems or cortical cells were possible, then it might allow the communication structure of the brain to bypass the expensive problem of wiring and wire-maintenance among all these points. This would mean that the actual dissectable structure of the brain would diverge from how information travels within it. The brain is complex enough already and we are still stumped by it all.

This divergent independent network of fast linkages would allow a kind of 'wireless neurological network' with instantaneous interconnections and throughput to create what we call thinking and consciousness (two quite different phenomena, neither of which has been proven to exist, at least for many people).

There is nothing outrageous about a suggestion that quantum entanglement may be operating within the brain, except that I am the clearly unqualified person discussing it with you.

What may be unique about my spin (intentional pun) on the subject is that I emphasize the advantages for the highly interconnected requirements of associative processing and memory as differentiated from logical, cognitive, or other operations.

Mayer Spivack

Could Information-Projectiles be our Legacy?

2009-05-31T17:52:45-04:00

The internet, and within it the blogosphere, are not legacy media. The internet races always into the future trailing it’s comet’s tail, a short electric past, while blogs and websites tumble into their own archives and disappear forever. Websites and weblogs if not kept up (and paid up), lapse, leaving only limited traces to be traced in future decades. What wisdoms, without durable printed pages, are we leaving for upcoming generations to contemplate?

Bricks and mortar libraries have tended to last for hundreds of years and sometimes far longer. Digital information and digital storage devices are more fugitive do not survive as well, nor migrate through generations with surety. Desert caves and tombs seem to preserve information best, but let’s not go there.

Should we invent an overview capture system within the internet that sends information-projectiles, skipping-stone time-capsules, that repeatedly revisit our great grandchildren’s computer-thingys to stir things up during their part of the Long Now? Like a benign viral pandemic, it would mysteriously appear into whatever the internet has then become at intervals of twelve years? How would we now know what is worth preserving and set to fast forward? The question begs us to evaluate the worth of what we are doing now. Most Twitter content and Utube afterimages would not make the short list. Lose the spam and the list is over eighty percent shorter with one click. The advertisements would fight for their lives and then be smothered by the mute button. What would remain? What do we really care about?

I Reject Intuition and Insight

2009-05-30T21:20:58-04:00

I think of the word intuition and the word insight as far too-comfortable and simplistic euphemisms for complex associative / syncretic /concilliative processes that operate in the brain all the time, and that we are too lazy to examine. We use the words intuition and insight to cover up the fact that we do not know how creativity operates, or what it really is. I don’t trust many of the words in common use that have to do with the mind and the brain, and with thought.

I never allow myself to deceive myself by using these words. Words are like stage ‘magicians’ who are distract us from what is really happening to the rabbit. Words like these, unexamined operational terms, have the reflexive effect of make us incurious and complacent. In this case, we end up remaining ignorant and believing in magic instead of science.

Intuition and insight are usually identified as the sources of ideas and sudden insights. Not so. We and our accumulated experiences, and the amassed brain associations among superficially dissimilar (but deeply similar) things are the sources of our own creativity.

Because I need to understand how creativity works, I reject the illusions of intuition and insight.

Visual thought and the ‘blind’ artist

2009-05-28T20:42:21-04:00

Please watch the video about the work of the artist Esref Armagan at the end of this posting.

It presents a credible record of the process of a Turkish artist, Esref Armagan, born blind, who nonetheless draws and paints. Despite the ‘common sense’ impression one might have that this is a trick, his is not a ‘supernatural’ ability or parlor trick in which he attempts to convince us that the blind can see. The video demonstrates quite solidly how he is able to conceive of and draw what he can only touch and walk around.

This calm and humble man has the desire, as does any artist, to make images. What is unusual and provokes our interest is that he cannot see because he was born blind. Yet, he makes images of objects and places that he can only know by touching and moving through and around them, and presumably by hearing sound reflected and refracted from their surfaces. Listen closely outside to the echoes in a quiet public square. You will hear this effect when the environment is relatively free of motor noise. Go to Venice and learn that the whole city is an echoic symphony.

His memory of shape, form, and space are apparently a combination of tactile, kinetic, and probably acoustic (passive echo-location) sensory and cognitive abilities and skills.

I think that there are important lessons here! Mr. Armagan is not a freak talent but in some ways is an ordinary and true artist. For us who pour over images on websites, drawing and painting have become a kind of faux litmus test of intelligence and creativity in animals, and we have become accustomed to novel u-tube videos featuring elephants and other animals that can paint. We know chimps can make images of sorts. Those animals have been trained to draw by humans, and/or have found some pleasure in moving colors around. Those videos should not be compared in any way with this one. Blind people are not elephants.

This video documents a man making art using the neurological equipment and talents he was born with, just as do other artists, myself included, (sculpture).

Sculpture-making, at least for me, is a process, similar to the kind of 'seeing' Mr. Armagan describes and demonstrates. What he does is quite familiar. When I am working on a piece of sculpture, images of form 'arrange themselves' in my mind's eye. There is no ‘muse’ in my mind. I am doing the arranging, and the eye I speak of here is truly in my mind’s visual center, but it feels much as if I am watching a mind-controlled computer-graphics display filling out an image. This envisioning may occur voluntarily or involuntarily with my real eyes open or closed. I can do this any time I need to imagine an object. In any case, I choose to do much of my most successful decision-making and preparatory conceptualization work just as I am about to sleep in order to take advantage of the leverage of hypnagogic imagery.

Most often, when I am intensely creative and productive, I intentionally set aside some time before sleep to consciously think about alternative ways of solving a formal or other problem for the next day’s studio work, and am able to evolve and to ‘watch’ various alternative solutions develop on the screen of my mind. I have learned though that I must consciously ‘tell myself’ that I will remember all these images when I am awake and able to draw or write them to paper or computer. Occasionally, if I am fortunate, this process continues while I dream. This sleep-work is a great boost to my studio work.

These images, particularly the ones that I choose as the better ones, then become multi-sensory and sometimes synesthetic impressions. Nearly always they combine into visual ideas or visual thought having qualities of tactility, form, space, time, place (location), material (wood, steel, copper etc.), mass, weight, size, structure, balance, motion, color, texture, , light absorption and reflectivity, shadow, highlight, (and myriads of other qualities).

Visual thought integrates the relationships among all these parts, giving to my imagined sculpture a high degree of apperceived realism. I can rotate the envisioned object, observe it from various angles, inspect it internally and externally for contradictions and mechanical interferences and failures in structural logic. Making the piece the next day in the studio is then a matter of completing this previously envisioned solution, and inventing changes to it as the work progresses.

The analogy that comes to mind is as if my brain were able to compose, code, and send the output data (via a buffer) to a printer (my hands), to ‘print’ by representing the original visual thoughts in three dimensions, or more, (my work often involves movement and time). This print-out of the whole pre-conceived artwork develops like film in a darkroom tray as I work during the next days or weeks. Many of my pieces go on like this for a year or more.

All this internal envisioning and real-time studio work is a compelling experience that one does better as one works.

Mayer Spivack

Now please watch the video.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3783271421768921322

and read:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esref_Armagan

Was It Torture?

2009-04-18T15:29:56-04:00

Was It Torture that the Bush administration lawyers allowed, within ‘limits’? My first question is how could they have known if it was or was not torture? Had they tried the various techniques on themselves or on each other in a specially equipped legal dungeon with a dispassionate group, twelve of their peers, observing, taking snapshots, and helping to form a decision? It is common to expect experts in any professional discipline to have some direct experience living, or at least working within the niche where they advise or decide.

Now that so many people worldwide are out of jobs, as a nation we may be grateful for the visibility of strong, hands-on famous role-models teaching us how to get and keep a job.

I suggest that any tribunal that seeks to pass judgment on the people who allowed torture, and those who did the torturous acts, make it their goal to give these folks their old jobs back—with slightly altered job descriptions. Put them back to work as evaluators who are in a proper position to decide just where the line is that demarcates torture from uncomfortable piffle. Their daily work, on a contract of uncertain duration—(to assure their ‘security’) would oblige them to subject themselves, and each other, to the same experiences they once had decreed for others. At the end of that work they will be able to render opinions and judgments of their own, on precisely where that line aught to be drawn.

These serious legal issues are at the core of national and worldwide debates that only seasoned field experts can hope to sort out for us. We trusted them and depended upon them when they made their initial determinations, and we should continue show our trust and loyalty and support now. In a sentence, our hats are off to the lot of you as your head(s) are off to the dungeons, and keep up the great work!

Art and Real Value *

2009-04-15T17:22:24-04:00

Artists have practice in survival on minimal rations and little income. Many make little or no income from art, but with pluck and luck can make a side-job support their own work efforts. Peanut-butter and impasto paint are both common artist’s materials. Peanuts in—paints out.

Some people must be paid to do a stitch of work, while artists gladly pay for the privilege of working. That is the first paradox. The second paradox is that what the larger economy values (not necessarily art), has now become massively devalued and everyone else’s shirts are in tatters, the hair shirts worn by artists are still as itchy, and covered with wet clay and paint.

While Christies and other Auction houses, and the galleries report declining art sales, this does not much affect most living artists whose art is rarely shown, and infrequently offered at high-end auctions.

Now, as the economic slump closes factories and stores, causing bankruptcies and foreclosures, artists work right on into the night, their studio lights burning brightly.

Many people who disliked their jobs have now lost them along with their income and security. Artists still have their artwork and love to do it. They are used to not having security and they don’t have it now. Yet, we are not all in the same boat. Artists keep on working, creating the inherent value of discovery and invention. They open our senses to what was previously unnoticed, sometimes make ‘beautiful’ objects or images, and in the process they re-create our ideas of the beautiful; and they remain busy.

They are working to create something of real value to themselves. How could art be “real value”? If I replace the word ‘real’ with ‘long-enduring’ does that help? New breakthrough artworks become the great art treasures of tomorrow and their value may last for generations, if not for centuries. Notice the word ‘may last’—this is not risk-free investment. No investment is risk-free, as today’s headlines demonstrate. It is up to the collector/art buyer to perform their own due-diligence; to know the current art world, and to go it one better based on their personal aesthetic choices, to invest in the un-noticed or undervalued artists, find the significant, the rare, and to buy and to exhibit these works, and thereby create a niche for their growing collection.

Most of the time, the works of living artists are affordable, because artists must meet a ‘price-point’ that smaller art collectors can bear. Now during the economic slump these artworks are relative bargains, available to the more prosperous collectors who have not lost their taste for art that they still love, even though they no longer can afford the work of great masters.

This is their time to pounce. Great art collections were acquired this way, when relatively wealthy collectors, art patrons, galleries, and private buyers have invested in art while others counted only their losses. Their investments in art were often relatively so small in comparison with their own larger economic losses (along with the losses of others), that the downside risk was negligible while the upside possibilities were great.

Many of those investments appreciated wildly over decades and are the reasons that we visit now museums. Museums, these days more so than banks, continue to retain works of real value.

Now is the time for smart people to visit their local artists, before the quick old foxes wake the lazy dogs.

*(Full disclosure, I, the writer, am a sculptor.)

Economic Recession and The Psychological Ecosystem Around Individual Depression and Violence

2009-04-08T15:02:13-04:00

Economic recession and depression are part of the larger psychological ecosystem that interacts with individual human depression. If we were too busy to notice these relationships before the current economic ‘downturn’, we cannot fail to be aware of it now if we read the headlines.

We all live together in a largely unnoticed greater context of nested interacting ecosystems. This is a way of describing and interlinking environments of all sorts—physical, social, economic, educational, climatic, geophysical—I could go on naming them until the list and their interactions became too complex to imagine, let alone sort out. That is the work of science, and this is a brief article of opinion.

People are killing themselves and each other at an increasing rate. While what the media casually refers to as ‘gun violence’ has always varied quite a lot, in the United States statistics have been more or less consistently bloody with up’s and down’s but the yearly totals of deaths by violence of all kinds is usually written in red ink. Murder is probably easier with a gun, but without guns, psychotics would kill with knives or bats or automobiles. We cannot hope to limit the uses of sticks and stones, bats and bullets, but we can and must deliver mental health intervention to desperately needy families and individuals even in tough times. Most especially in tough times. Everyone knows of at least one such example. Every community institution is aware of several or many. We pile up the papers, overwork and underpay our health delivery workers and ignore the problems until the spike on the desk is suddenly bloodied.

Since the downturn, there has been an up-tick, a compulsive thumb cocking the hammer and releasing the safety; taking aim at the mirror or through the window. Desperate times trigger desperate acts and the times are becoming increasingly desperate.

The feeling of helplessness, or real hopelessness and helplessness for that matter, is at least in part a mental and emotional trap, a closed dark room. For some this room has only rage and a gun as an exit.

Will we change our attitudes about emotional stress, depression, and the potential for destructive acts like murder and suicide, or quite often murder/suicide and rid ourselves of the stigma of being human and terribly upset?

Probably we will not be effective in large-scale public education and healthcare delivery for some time to come, as financial resources for preventative care are being cut from budgets. Can you see the downward spiral?

We may complain and grow fearful for our lives and for our children’s safety, but it is our collective responsibility, not our guilt, that needs to be recognized. In these desperate times, we desperately need legislation to assist in the early identification of children and adults who are at high risk of committing mayhem, and get some kind of help delivered to their doors, whatever the cost.

There are far too many privately owned guns in the nation to effectively reduce their use in psychotic attacks. There are, as most of us have been figuring out, far more crazy people, seriously crazy people, in every group than we used to believe. Believe it now.

As a nation, we have jealously guarded both our first amendment right to peaceably assemble, and our second amendment right to keep and bear arms. These two positive aspects of our national heritage are coming into increasing conflict. How long will you or anyone feel safe in a crowd that (statistically) must contain a few depressed people with fear, helplessness, self-hate, rage, and homicide blocking their minds?

Gun control, or perhaps more realistically an acceptably intelligent negotiated legislative effort leading to ‘gun management’ will be of some limited help.

We must focus our attention on matters of mental health, childhood education and safety from abuse, and job creation.

Mayer Spivack, Wednesday, April 8, 2009

Those Who Work With Money Are Tempted To Play With Money

2009-03-21T12:35:03-04:00

When you work with other people’s money you may be tempted to play with money. Some bankers now seem to fear that no one will trust them or pay them again—ever, so they are trying to quickly grab as much cash as they can on the way out of the tower, a case of institutional ‘take the money and run’.

In a few months time, everything they value or measure value by, has been devalued by their own hand. They have undone themselves and us. As their stash of value diminishes (as does our own), by reflection, their self-worth along with their net worth—disintegrates. Their established social and professional connections fracture. They are in pain. In a moneyslide, many now tumble like mud down an over-logged hillside in a downpour, pouring down from the top and wildly grabbing at our wallets to stop their fall. They appear ready to take anything from anyone because they believe that their own lives or their way-of-life is out of control and the whole hill is washing down the sewers. The out-of-control aspect of their fall is crucial to their mental health. These folks were quite control centered orderly people when things are going their way. That is why we trusted them. As the chaos they created explodes around them, they have become disoriented and helpless. They have no control of anything. They are at a Wall Street intersection, with their pants down. It is no dream, and their panic is beyond their (or our own) control.

Something happens in the conscience (wherever that may be in the brain) when a marginally illegal, destructive, or self-destructive impulse goes badly wrong. When bankers and investment councilors lie and run off with lots of our money they also lose everything that they are or have been. They lose their sense of who they are and eventually lose their money. Once heroes of the reserved tables and the country club, they fear that they will be shunned.

Just as the depressed enraged husband who mangles and shoots his wife and children must then tip into the part of his mind from which there is no returning, and must shoot himself to stop his crazy rage, these moneymadmen tip and morph into self-destructive cash filled piñatas that will be batted about by their victims until they are entirely emptied of their hoard of sweets and pocket change.

People seem to have a tipping-point for fear. When unconscious fear and guilt dominates the mind; when a sneak becomes a thief, that thief may become a bank-robber. This is why bankers rob banks (After all, who else has the insider information to be able to rob a bank?). As we know there have been many ‘professional’ bank robbers who famously robbed banks in the kind of robberies that require a misspelled note handed to the teller, a mysterious paper bag, and maybe a gun. (Incidentally this classic kind of penny-anti bank robbery is on the increase now that the magic carpet has flown off without us, pilot-less.) Bonnie and Clyde are the archetypal characters in that dramatic tradition. But these kinds of crooks are amateurs despite the infrequent dramatic heist in which they haul off thousands of dollars in nickel and dime money-bags. They rarely vanish with billions. The pros are showing the way and providing their biographies for the next decade’s film scripts.

We are gullible. In lies we trust. Our trusting mind-sets and belief systems having learned unshakable categories for social and professional roles and behavior, and codes of conduct and ethics, we do not anticipate that the trusted experts upon whom we depend are playing with our money in an expensive version of three-card-Monte or a shell-game with our minds and our money. Gullibility, our own greed, and our ignorance allow us no hint that bankers might ever become robbers.

There is a wailing multi-million-voiced high wind on Wall Street. The card game is been busted, and the cards are scattering with the operator, the shills, and the marks money. We have seen the cardboard box fold-up and blow away, and the confident ingratiating smile twist into a smirk.

Trust not only has to be earned, it has to be demonstrated, and we must do our own and our national due-diligence by asking the kind of simple, probing, questions that must untangle and ultimately result in laws that edit out misleading language and the tiny print on the other side of our contracts. So far we have been reluctant to reveal the extent of our ignorance to our hired-in experts. But this is not ignorance. it is honest confusion in a long prevailing culture of financial obfuscation and fraud.

Once we were e a nation of people who made things. We worked with our hands, our minds, and our whole bodies to produce goods of value to ourselves and to others. That kind of effort was a full time job (and where has that gone?) that left little time or energy for a farmer or machinist to become an amateur banker or investment broker. This information-gap provided the niche for the con men. That gap and the niche will never go away. Someone will always try to exploit it. But we need to get back to the business of making stuff of real utility and tangible goods of value. We can now take off our dunce-caps. We can stop pushing paper around from pile to pile until someone looses track of it. April fools used to last only one day. Let’s keep it that way.

2009-02-27T18:32:44-05:00

Everyone who loves music should follow this link to a performance from Venezuela during the recent TED conference.

I think that this is an unbreathable performance. Now that I have inhaled, I cannot remember such energy in a conductor or orchestra integrated so well since Sergei Koussevitzky conducted The Boston Symphony Orchestra, way back. That is the highest praise, well deserved. Hope, alive in the world!

Talks Gustavo Dudamel and the Teresa Carreño Youth Orchestra: A musical sensation from Venezuela

<objhttp://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/astonishing_performance_by_a_venezuelan_youth_orchestra_1.html

Artificial Intelligence and The Railroad Track Illusion.

2008-08-08T16:02:48-04:00

by Mayer Spivack
8/6/2008

The Singularity—The Siren.
If any definition of ‘The Singularity’ is: That future moment when artificial intelligence function levels in machines are equal to or greater than human intelligence, then how do we get there from here? By the wayside, how intelligent are we? What do we include and exclude from our definitions of intelligence, including our own?

The Railroad Track Illusion.
Consider a walk alongside a railway line where one rail represents human intelligence and the other represents AI. The tracks will always remain parallel because the two kinds of intelligence are likely to remain dissimilar. From where and when we stand here and now, standing on one rail, they do appear to join at the horizon— at ‘The Singularity’. However, no matter how far we walk, these rails will remain parallel and never join.

Yet, something is shifting in the ground below the tracks. Humans are becoming cleverer, (but not necessarily smarter), and computer driven AI is getting more complex. We wonder, are these rails beginning to bend toward a convergence? Is their angle changing as their intelligences grow? Is this path converging, or is it only asymptotically, ever so tauntingly, closing the impossible gap? Perhaps despite increases in computation power and richness, and greater human ingenuity, the tracks can only become narrower gauge, to remain forever parallel however nearly touching.

The Rapidly Receding Singularity.
I suggest that the singularity will recede at the same rate that we approach it.
It is in some respects a fixed race, with humans on one track, and our inventions on the other, with us at a fixed distance from the apparent horizon. Philosophically-speaking, is it possible for us to become cleverer enough to invent clever machines that outsmart us, without that event making us also just that much smarter than the machine we have just built?

Picking AI Up By It’s Bootstraps.
About forty years ago at the MIT Instrumentation Laboratory in the Gyro Research Group, I faced a similar problem. As a novice designer and builder of inertial navigation equipment, I designed and built a high-precision rotary grinder, one that could finish the interior annular groove inside a ball bearing race. It had to produce better tolerances in that surface than could be obtained—or could then exist—in the bearings and on the motor of the grinding wheel that machined them. In simple machines this bootstrap trick can be, and was, done. In AI we can, I am sure, make a device that is smarter and works more smoothly than ourselves sometime in the future, but when we are done, it may only be something like a ball-bearing race, not a person-replacement. It may just be a gadget, like my grinder or it’s product. We know that all gadgets are obsolete the moment they are built, because we learn so much in the effort of making them that we end up smarter than we were at the outset. This is particularly true in the world of computers.

Emotion Trumps Crunch.
Speed is not the most important factor in Artificial Intelligence, but we cannot move forward in that effort with slow equipment. If AI merely succeeds in making computers with faster crunch, we will gain negligible advantage in our quest to make them smarter. If we believe that faster is smarter we are fooled by an illusion. In that scenario, AI would have failed at the larger goals of replicating the rich abilities of our own brains and minds within machines. Human minds are not mere number crunchers. We are emotional thinkers.

We Need An Owner’s Manual For The Brain And Mind.
Achieving holistic machine intelligence that resembles our own messy emotional intelligence may always seem a long way down the tracks. Many will say at the outset that we should keep emotions out of the AI effort because they insist that emotion cannot be understood nor controlled. They are wrong. The work starts in the examination of our own minds. We use mind and emotion together all the time, yet we have no idea how they interact, or even if they are separable. We have no owner’s manual. Before we get good at AI, we need to write a good owner’s manual for the brain and mind, and keep it updated in Wikipedia.

We Cannot Reverse Engineer What We Have Not Studied.
I think AI is a noble goal. It is noble not because of some romantic compulsion to climb impossible mountains, but because the pursuit of AI will finally drive us humans to do something we have resisted for millennia—we have to take a good careful look at ourselves. We cannot reverse engineer what we have not first studied.

We Are The Forbidden Fruit.
Most cultures, and most individuals, resist the work need to acquire self-understanding or self-knowledge, instead substituting religious, moral, or legal belief systems in the place of careful scientific self-study. By running as a team together along the tracks, the developers of Artificial Intelligence with the new neurosciences, along with psychotherapists, can do what has usually been taboo or was considered too embarrassingly touchy-feely. (Does the phrase ‘touchy-feely’ suggest that we are afraid of admitting the emotion in ourselves)?

Go Talk With A Psychodynamicist!
It is time to tackle the work of understanding what we are and how we work. That effort is great and noble beyond description. It is essential to world peace, health, and planetary salvation, to the development of human intelligence, and not least or last to the development of Artificial Intelligence.

AI Is Brain Science.
This will be a complex and unfamiliar kind of work for the computer wranglers. It is not yet clear to neurologists. It is finally an exiting and hopeful time in the sciences of brain and mind. In order to move forward, we must parse the work into units that complete some task or other in the brain. This will break the AI goal into manageable pieces that can integrate with each other and with the findings from neurology and psychodynamics. Ultimately we would try for integration of all the parts within an environment that is holistically higher than any particular part contained in the effort. This will take a long, long, time and lot’s of people.

There Is No Yellow Brick Road To Artificial Intelligence.
There can be no roadmaps isomorphic to the inside an illusion. There are no onramps leading to an indefinite location that will always remain somewhere over the rainbow, in a future that may not occur. Those of us who pump our little handcarts along the tracks will have to be open to new ideas, new psychological discoveries, and be patient. We will not be able to publish four papers per semester. Why am I so pessimistic? Do I have no faith in human ingenuity, innovation, and engineering? Alice, following the yellow brick road, heard the Tin Man sing—“If I only had a brain!” At least we each have one. Let’s study it.

The answer is that I am wildly optimistic. I think that we will make wonderful advances in neurology, computation, and networking. We are already making amazing progress in studying our brains. We need to come together in teams. What will keep the tracks parallel instead of convergent is not lack of computation power and abilities but an inherent paradox. If AI and human intelligence get even close or get very close, then it will be just great! Close will be more than good enough, and we get there.

May The Paradox Be With You.
The paradox is within us. We are the problem. We may be the one problem that is most difficult for us to solve because of our lack of distance from the structure of the device we are studying. The device on the workbench is ourselves. We have trouble overcoming that blindness and fear of discovering of our own workings, even trouble accepting the terms of the study of ourselves. We strongly resist psychodynamic understanding for our own personal, social, familial, and cultural reasons. If we do not understand our own mental process, we will fail at understanding our psychological/emotional processes. Ask any psychotherapist to help you understand what I mean. This is not psychobabble. In fact, the term psychobabble is employed as a defense to prevent self-understanding and shut out the psychotherapist. Now, psychotherapists need to become a significant part of the AI team effort.

What Is The Secret In The Shoebox?
The whole subject has been in a shoebox at the back of the human family closet for a few thousand years. Within the past century, psychiatry abandoned it’s own psychodynamic child. Freud died and we buried his ideas. We must look at how we think AND HOW WE FEEL about the world we experience, and within which we work on our computers. The AI enhanced computers in our future must not just fool us into believing that they feel what we feel, they must be able to proactively replicate the processes of emotion. The AI computer needs to be selfishly recursive, it must always strive to understand it’s own process independently from it’s operators or programmers. (see comments by Aubery De Grey, PH.D., on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0A9pGhwQbS0

However smart our AI computers get, they will not even be temporarily replicate our intelligence only then to surge ahead of us to become our galactic-cloud self-extensions, the supernovas of our extrahuman intelligence. That is fun to imagine, but it is science fiction. We need to mount a more humble effort from within the computer community to learn about ourselves in enough depth and detail to fashion computers that resemble us.

We Are The Secrets In The Box.
A blocking problem occurs at this junction on the railway to the future of AI. We humans have no adequate agreed-upon model of how to self-examine. We do not nearly understand ourselves. Those of us who work in the area of emotion and behavior with real people know that most people, mentally healthy or not, do not begin to conceive of how to do this task for themselves, and the AI community, however smart, is no exception. We are the ultimate black box problem, and we are all inside the box.

In order to understand general human intelligence, and the intelligence that underlies science and engineering, we must to deal with human emotion. Emotion is an important part of intelligence. It is not a separable human foible. Emotion mediates, motivates, and directs all our actions and reactions to our own thoughts and ideas, to each other, to what we work upon; all experience and mentation is emotionally correlated. Emotion rules all of it, there can be no exceptions. Are you angry yet? Do you emphatically disagree? Are you emotional about an idea that you hold dear? There is no objectivity. Science is passionate because it is the work of passionate people.

We Cannot Download Or Upload Psychology.
Psychology cannot supply any simple answers or a neat and clean mind-dump, consultation service for AI designs. or supply, on contract, the human emotional package that completes artificial intelligence for the rest of us psychologically unwashed. Psychologists are themselves intellectually divided, and emotionally conflicted about what is acceptable content within their own fields of research and practice. They are of at least two minds about everything, like the rest of us. Nonetheless, we need their participation in AI and they need ours to help drive the effort of self-understanding. We first have to accept that computers and ourselves are, and may have to remain, as distinct entities. We could do this now, and here. Just accept it.

If we team together, the most we can hope for is that we might intentionally and incrementally narrow the distance between the railroad tracks—between ourselves and our computers. We will learn a lot about both in the process. What are the predictable moments when the track might narrow but not touch?

Where The Tracks Can Get Closer.
I believe that narrowing, or a drawing together of human intelligence and AI might occur at the following railway junctions:

We Replicate Intelligence Incrementally.
The first narrowing point may occur when we become incrementally able to replicate our own neurological structures in a complex and useful built device. That device (or network of devices) must have enough processing power to be assist in real-time human interactions and communication. It must be a tool. Modestly—just give us one machine that can occasionally out think, not just outwork, a talented and informed human. If we are ever going to do a good job of self-replication we had better mount a national project to discover our own humanity.

Psychodynamic Modeling Is Problematic And Necessary.
The next narrowing of the tracks will occur when, modeling upon our own psychodynamics, we replicate some our own psychological and psychodynamic structures in a built device and that device has fewer neurotic bugs than we do.

AI and Civil Society.
A grand narrowing will occur when we can agree internationally and across cultures upon the common wisdoms and common sense underpinnings that support a civil society, for only then can we begin to judge whether our machine intelligences have got it right or not. Strong AI will have an enormous impact upon civil society because civility is perhaps the greatest product of intelligent communities. The impact is inescapable. Civility at the macro-scale is a by-product manifestation of human intelligence so hopefully and our intelligent machines can be scalable to this high level. The first part of this millennia-long challenge does not need a machine at all, it is first up to us. So far, unaided by smart equipment, we have not been very good at civility (maybe we are not yet intelligent enough for peacefulness), but no machine will have much value without it. We have to teach machines our values, large and small.

Why Can The Train Tracks Never Meet?
We are essentially trying to reverse engineer something we do not understand, that we have never completely inspected, that has some parts we do not want to acknowledge; something that is changing all the time, and that is one of the most complex devices (organism-systems) in existence; ourselves, us humans. We will therefore remain the model for the top of the line AI machine, and it will never catch up with us.

The Human Information Input-Output Pinch-Point.
As we make progress in AI (and general information technology), we will quickly arrive at a pinch-point beyond which we can no longer communicate with our artificial assisted intelligence devices fast enough to benefit from their speed and complex outputs. Our sensory inputs and expressive output channels will simply not operate anywhere near machine speeds. This is something that we are already experiencing. Everyone has experienced this at some time when listening to fast speech in voicemail.

Our learning and expressive abilities will fail because information flows too fast for our eyes, ears and fingers. Our tongues and fingers will fail to keep up. Even our prize, the mind itself, will boggle as information speed increases. We are very nearly at this pinching-speed now. Our eyes and ears frequently overload our brains as information flows faster. Our brains, when forced to attend to rapidly changing data get fatigued. We lose concentration and focus. Our bodies have various bandwidth limits that technology might not be able to overcome completely. We have not yet evolved to move that fast. Our biological inputs and outputs seem to have built-in speed limits. As we accelerate our walk along the railroad tracks in an imagined high-speed train we reach the pinch-point quite quickly. This will push the tracks apart so far that our
AI work may be derailed. This is a major challenge to AI.

The Parallax Paradox Of AI Development.
As we get better at replicating our own brains in vitro, our brains will grow that much smarter because of that process. Here is the explication of this claim: In order to build a brain as good as our own, we must first observe the brain within ourselves as it is doing the work of machine-making. We know from Heisenberg’s work at the smallest scales that a system observed is changed by that observation. There are some very small-scale electrical and chemical processes running inside brain tissue. Recursiveness ratchets us tightly into this conundrum in a kind of Heisenburgian dilemma that will dog every step of our effort.

It’s nip and tuck, becoming self-aware pushes the train tracks further apart, just as continuing, accelerating changes in our intelligent machines appear to move the contact horizon closer to us. Damn! a variation on Zeno's paradox has grabbed us. Just because we figured ourselves out a bit more, we raceed ahead of the computer we made—just when it was so close to being our equal. Maybe we just learned something. That is already an advance in AI. Yet what we have learned will bring us no closer to AI.

I am starting to post in Twine.com

2008-07-06T12:50:45-04:00

I am starting to post in Twine.com. Twine is a new service for sharing and discussing information around mutual interests. It's like blogging but more interactive, and there is more community. Also, Twine uses the Semantic Web to automatically organize information and help you discover content around your interests. Twine is the product of my son's company, but that's not why I'm using it -- it's actually really useful.

Note: Twine is still in invite-beta, which means you have to register and then get invited in, but it's free and they will be opening it up soon -- so join and then once you get in join my twine and let's connect. I'm looking forward to getting to know my readers.

I Am Now Publishing Lumia Photography in this Weblog

2008-06-29T13:06:30-04:00

I have begun to publish a series of my Lumia and other photographs as an addition within this weblog. This begins a longer term effort to present a range of photographic art. I will upload images as I convert them to digital format from my own 35 mm archives, and from my still, yet quite active, handheld cameras. The original Lumia images are high-density film transparencies. As photographs are converted to high resolution in digital format they might eventually be available as large archival quality color prints.

These images can be found most easily by pasting the following code into your browser:

http://artsandminds.typepad.com/photos/lumia/index.html

http://artsandminds.typepad.com/photos/lumia/index.htm