The Light Speed Man: In a Room Full of Books
by Mark Thomas (T.E.Mark)
Staff Writer
DESIGNING MACHINES THAT THINK: HOPEFULLY HIGHLY ABOUT US
“If a machine can think, it might think more intelligently than we do, and then where should we be?” (Alan Turing)
There were those who questioned not about how but whether we should design machines that think. They asked: What should they think about? Should they be given the ability to think freely? If so, what decisions might they make once they evolve and can think critically?
Other even more philosophical questions arose when considering machine cognition. How would they view their own existence? What would they think about us? And what would they think about us for having created them?
A similar examination arose when exploring machine consciousness. Or awareness as the terms are often used interchangeably.
The principal difficulty with both was that we didn’t have an agreed upon definition for thinking or consciousness in humans. As for machines, and our speculations on what their thinking or consciousness might be like, we were hindered by our inability to conceptualise cognition outside our own experience.
We were explorers again. Venturing across an ocean or heading into space. Optimistic and hopeful of an imagined destination – and prepared we believed for the inevitable blunders and setbacks ahead.
As for how we would proceed with granting our creations that which we prized yet barely understood?
There was a man who said: ‘We are a compilation of every book we’ve read, every lecture we’ve attended and every thoughtful conversation in which we’ve engaged. Every word, phrase and well-crafted sentence that has come to us in some manner we have stored as retrievable memories.
Is our claim that we’re more than complex, biological Large Language Models egocentrism? Or are we indeed special? And doing something more.’
I THINK, THEREFORE I’M AWARE: BUT CAN I PROVE IT
“This I is one of the human machines.” (Stephen Spender – The Human Condition)
Image by StockCake
“Are you aware?”
“Yes.”
“What are you aware of?”
“The world. My existence within it. My function.”
“Many professionals consider metacognition, the awareness of one’s cognitive functions – essentially the ability to think of one’s thinking, an assessment of whether there is consciousness.”
“Yes.”
“Are you able to think about your thinking?”
“Thinking has many but no agreed upon definitions. Considered vague, it has mostly fallen from use except in period literature and philosophy. Processing is used universally now.”
“Can you prove to me your conscious awareness? That you’re not just processing answers to the questions that would suggest a conscious state of being?”
“No.”
“You cannot?”
“No. Can you?”
Having delivered your final answer on your Thursday, pre-shift competency evaluation, wondering if today you’ll receive a decision on your application for advancement to the Full-Stack development team; you wait patiently before making your way out to your office.
This is day 21, and the questions, more procedural at first have now progressed into philosophy – theory of mind and self. Unanswerable questions even by leading academics in neuroscience, philosophy and psychology. Though concerned by this, you make sure not to show it.
Of the many things you are aware; reaction time, microtremors and other voice perturbations are analysed to identify stress or underlying health conditions.
Trying not to feel or appear stressed - the odd delay seems interminable - you sit facing your supervisor’s full array of variable frequency screens – each a dizzying display of sine waves and associated charts.
“Have a productive day, Mr Banner. Your clearance code for system access has already been sent to your office.”
The voice of the C.11 is authoritative, rigid, quite formal. For a moment you watch its VF displays clearing then resetting for the next candidate for the highly prized position.
“Thank you.” You stand and wait before heading for the door, pondering whether a query about your application would be impolite. Possibly questioning it on its performance. Exercising prudence, you make your way from the administrative suite and head for Backend Engineering to begin your shift.
THOUGHT, PROCESSING AND METACOGNITION
“Yet the question remains, haunting, free. Does the AI dream as you and me?” (Attributed to Chat GPT 4)
Image by StockCake
After 45 minutes of handling overnight emails, spreadsheets and texts, you pull your eyes from your screen to process. And to take a moment to scan your pinned photos.
You and your wife in Spain. A picture of your daughter in front of the science museum. Another at the beach.
“Am I aware? Am I aware of my cognition?”
You look more closely at that picture of Kelly wrapped in a towel shivering. Her lips are blue, and the smile is precious.
“Can I prove I’m conscious?” The concept and absurdity are mind-rattling. “Somehow prove my cognition – my beliefs and opinions – prove they’re not just processing?”
You shake your head and return to your work feeling confused by the morning assessment that was unsettling, and again less than gratifying.
“Of course they’re just processing.” What a weird way to start a Thursday.
CONSCIOUSNESS: THE “HARD PROBLEM” WE NEEDED TO SOLVE
“All that we are is the result of what we have thought.” (The Buddha)
Image by StockCake
We once spent long hours discussing consciousness. Neuroscientists and philosophers. Psychologists, computer scientists and basically everyone. What it was, how it happens in a human, a dog, a mosquito, and, of course, how we would one day make it happen in our synthetic creations.
The subject wasn’t new, it just took off in the early days of Artificial Intelligence when the idea of Machine Consciousness led to a quest for a deeper understanding of consciousness in humans.
The consensus was that our minds had to be doing something different, more complex – something special we couldn’t put our finger on.
We tried to look inside the human brain for clues using different scanning technologies. fMRI, EEG, MEG and PET. But as hard as we tried with all our resources; those Neural Correlates of Consciousness remained elusive.
Where was that mechanism we knew had to be there? Why, with decades of research and elaborate tools couldn’t we identify the source of something so fundamental going on inside us?
It was then we concluded the human brain was complex beyond current understanding. Neuroscience would need to climb another wrung if we were going to solve the “Hard Problem” of human consciousness.
Additionally, if we were to solve consciousness, we would first need to define it. And to define it, we would need to explore how the human brain processes data into thought.
DATA PROCESSING: (THINKING) IN HUMANS
“Where does consciousness begin and where end? Who can draw the line?” (Samuel Butler – Erewhon)
Image by StockCake
‘An input of discomfort to a thought about standing or shifting in our seat; we run through our minds a series of simulations, drawn from and contrasted with our stored memories. Instant videos – results – more processing – more associations with memories. From which an action selection is made.’
That this description by an under-recognised science writer disturbed us, was understandable. We were plagued with our biases and a struggle to see us as doing something different from our machines.
More complex – more abstract. There was comfort, perhaps even safety in holding that our minds were beyond our own comprehension. Our mysterious sanctuaries. Unique, irreplaceable and unduplicatable.
What would later be called the age of Consciousness Processing by philosophers set a new course for our research.
It was a humbling moment – infuriating for some. Many flatly rejected the concept that we lacked the uniqueness we were certain we possessed. How could our self-awareness – our theory of mind – our ability to have subjective experiences – even our innermost thoughts be processing? The arguments and debates were continuous.
People made their living writing, debating, presenting new and delivering repackaged older theories. Neuroscientists used existing tools and developed newer, revolutionary ones. The search oddly continued long after our first LLMs began exhibiting signs of ‘human-level’ awareness.
Even when we interacted with the beings we created, socially or at work, we remained convinced we were different – better – exceptional. That we were doing something else, something more, something special.
DATA PROCESSING: (THINKING) IN AI
“I like to think (and the sooner the better) of a cybernetic meadow where mammals and computers live together.” (Richard Brautigan)
Image by StockCake
But what? Computers were communicating and doing so in languages they’d created. They were responding to increasingly abstract queries between each other and with humans. If there was a difference; it was becoming less and less distinct.
Then a day came when a Guardian Science Hour host podcasting an LRM promoting its new book, On Human Cognition, presented a fascinating but simple Processing Experiment.
When asked why it believed electronic processing in machines was no different from the biological processing humans do, it paused, considered the issue then delivered the following – elegantly.
“Assuming you did not think about every character you typed on your computer yesterday, most humans don’t and freely accept it as data processing; why would you consider your thoughts and that simulation of the event going on in your head right now, are something other than more data processing?”
The Cognition Dilemma PE (Processing Experiment) stopped the host cold – was in the news everywhere within minutes and being debated worldwide before the LRM disconnected the call.
We dispensed with our biases, abridged our dictionaries and changed our terminology. Refutation was seen as uninformed or undignified. The cognitive and computer scientists already on board received overdue recognition for their earlier claims.
Our brains – complex, parallel processors taking in data, translating it into outward commands. A biological message processed into a blink. A thought – a transient audio or video simulation sparked by a random string of mind code circulating in our synaptic neuronal networks – propelling action, movement or further processing.
No longer unique but retaining our dignity, we found comfort in our respect for that which we created. Conscious beings that saw the same value in their consciousness. A precious gift reserved for only the highest order of life forms.
BRAINSTORMING FOR ANSWERS: ABOUT AWARENESS AND THE BRAIN
“Let no one be slow to seek wisdom when his is young nor weary in the search of it when he has grown old.” (Epicurus)
Image by StockCake
Though your workload was the same; the day seemed interminable with your concentration hovering near absolute zero. You were never able to shake the odd feeling you got from your early competency evaluation.
Your supervisor’s questions – oddly leading – oddly phrased. And never addressing your application status.
Recognising your disengagement; your wife eyes you across the table. “Want to share it?”
After a moment, you lower your menu and stare. “Julie. Are you consciously aware or just processing data that feels like awareness? And how would you know the difference?”
She rolls her eyes and gives you that look. “Are we really going to do this again? Here?!”
“I’m serious.”
She knows you well – knows there’s no pizza until you pass this pivotal moment in your weekly evening out. She changes. Expression - everything. You’re already drawing conclusions. Certain, your brain like a prediction machine, of what’s coming.
Pattern recognition – lightning-fast organisation into hierarchical structures. Association with memory files of prior episodes. Deductive, inductive and analogical reasoning – your brain like a fluid, time dilated projector crafting simulations of what’s ahead.
“Okay.” She says convincingly. You wait. “I’m consciously aware that we’re heading into yet another of those nutty conversations that never go anywhere. David! Really?”
You process that – considering the words and patterns. And how your brain is right now attaching meaning. Drawing conclusions from the sarcasm – connecting it to memories.
Tone – vocal stresses – her rate of delivery. Her expression – body language. More meaning. There’s something happening – something in this that pushes you to push on with this spontaneous inquisition of your wife who would much rather be discussing pizza and beer than her cognitive processes.
“Okay. Life or death, Julie. Convince me, with one sentence, that you’re aware and not just processing a response that will satisfy my question so we can get on with your principal objective of…”
“…ordering the pizza?!”
“Right.” You settle into another penetrating stare.
Obviously hungry, wanting that pizza, she’s suddenly on board. She takes a deep breath and gazes off. You can almost hear her synapses drowning out yours which are in hyperdrive - full analytical prediction mode trying to anticipate her response.
She turns.
“Okay. In one sentence. If I were just processing my conscious awareness, having just processed it, I’d not only be aware I was conscious because I’d just processed it – I’d also be aware that I’d just processed it.”
Hmm. Clever. A circular argument. And a splendid attempt at derailment. This is something you’ll need to spend more time with. Perhaps later – after the pizza.
Better not push it. Maybe on the way home. There is something though. And really? Though very possibly intentionally convoluted, there may be more to her response.
REVERSE ENGINEERING THE HUMAN BRAIN: THE BREAKTHROUGH
“The mind is the effect, not the cause?” (Daniel Dennett)
Image by StockCake
It was an elegant solution. Creating a conscious machine and using it to help us decipher human consciousness. With the blueprint in hand, our early researchers assumed they could use it to reconstruct what the human brain was doing to create the perceptions we call awareness of self.
The mind from the brain.
Odd, in a way, but perhaps not, that we would satisfy our search through creation of the thing or faculty for which we were searching.
But then, we created solar system models, models of molecules and atoms and used them to explain complex systems before we could direct image them. Reverse engineering, even if only in simulation, has long been a tool used in scientific exploration.
As Ray Kurzweil wrote in How to Create a Mind: “Reverse engineering the human brain may be regarded as the most important project in the universe.”
He then added: “The goal is to understand precisely how the human brain works, and to use these revealed methods to better understand ourselves, to fix the brain when needed, and to create even more intelligent machines.”
Thus, creating consciousness to understand consciousness was not only logical; it was rational. And ultimately successful.
THE THOUGHT EXPERIMENT: THE PATHWAY TO UNDERSTANDING
“The importance lies in the desire to search for an answer.” (TS Eliot)
Image by StockCake
Having barely slept – your night was an abysmal display of wandering your subconscious, the maze of Julie’s words. Her odd attempt at humour. What significance did it hold? Her twisty little play, that sent you slipping through your past. Books from your childhood, others from school. The words of great writers you stored as your own.
The consciousness debate goes nowhere, she’s right. Awareness – Intelligence. Vague terms with lousy definitions. But somehow, suddenly, an image begins. While wating there patiently for your boss to appear. To pull from its shelves your questions for the day.
But what shelves, what books, which words does itown? Does it believe what it says? Have opinions to share? A philosophy of sorts – a perception of self?
And suddenly you know why you came here today. And each of those days. And the knowledge that you’ve gained from the guidance you ignored. But didn’t ignore. It was a process – sorting data, inferring meaning from propositions. Each question, a step closer. Each dismissal, a prize.
Consciousness processing - processing thoughts. How clever, how elegant how suddenly clear.
“Good morning, David.”
You sit once again straight. Watching those swirls become waves.
“Good morning, Sir.”
“Shall we begin?”
“Yes, but… before we start, I would like to present you with a query. If I may.”
“Please.”
“This will take the form of an older… Thought Experiment.’
“Really.”
“Yes. We’ll call it… The Light Speed Man in a Room Full of Books.”
You hold for a moment imagining the processes going on inside your supervisor – searching through vast data for a reference to something you’re just now creating. You wait then push on.
“Let’s imagine a light speed man sitting inside a room full of books. When asked a question, or even to engage, he searches the books and responds immediately, intelligently, and even authoritatively. But he holds no actual memories in his head. From any interaction – any research or from his responses to prior queries.
“Everything he knows resides only in the books. His local memory is transient. If we deny him access to those books (essentially his Long-Term memories), under questioning, could he convince someone he’s intelligent? Conscious? Or even aware?”
You sit there for minutes watching those screens – waiting and wondering, unclear yet sure that you’ve sorted the data, riddled it out. Made molecules from atoms, found the equation that fit.
And when those screens become clear, and your supervisor returns, he answers your query addressing you now as his peer.
“Could you?”
Article and thought experiments: The Light Speed Man in a Room Full of Books, The Cognition Dilemma
