Key Insights, Version 2.1

PERPLEXITIES:.

It's a Zoo In There

This is the second of a new series of exploratory articles by Ralph Morin at KEY.

It’s the micro-micro world of quarks and muons and positrons and up and down and strange that ultimately determine the fate of individuals and, consequently, of nations. It’s those little guys and their ‘feelings’ about each other that make all the difference in human affairs, and although some folks attribute their destinies to the stars, it is, in fact, the infinitesimally small particles that make up the stars and all of the rest of the matter in the universe, that change this universe and all that is in it. Physicists like to speculate about the shelf life of a proton. Does a proton decay? If so, what happens then? Does everything (including us) simply vanish? Does it hurt? Well, anyway, not to worry. Protons, according to the scientists, last a really, really long time.

Although commercial applications are a while off, scientists and researchers are now able to rearrange atoms to make unique materials that have not been made before. They can manipulate individual atoms and make them do our bidding in electronic circuits. They are able to pick up one atom and put it back in place later on, or put it in a different place. It’s only a matter of time before we get beaming. That’ll leave us with a lot of empty freeways, but in the foreseeable future we’re still going to be moving around on the ground, through the air, on the water and through space using the same systems and methods that we use today.

In many respects, it is a zoo in there, in the infinitesimally small space that is occupied by an atom. Some of the ‘species’ that inhabit the atomic neighborhood can’t stand to be in close proximity to others, while others can’t be without their partners, as the various particles and pairings whiz around in their domains, changing energy levels and zipping through space and time at unfathomable speeds and distances.

It would seem a reasonable assumption, therefore, that the motions and interactions in the subatomic world determine how our lives play out. (That is not quite as large a leap of the imagination, initially, as might be suspected.) The old concepts of ‘free will’, ‘pre-ordained destiny’ and ‘determinism’, etc, can be examined now in the context of the dispassionate interactions of the atoms and their constituent particles and energies.

What does it take to make a decision? What actual processes go into saying ‘yes’ or ‘maybe’ or ‘no’ to any set of data that is presented to the average Jane or Joe? What deeply imbedded part of our chemistry comes into play when we reach the right off-ramp as we are zipping along at 65 mph, or how do we gather enough information to decide to take the plunge into marriage, imagining ourselves far enough into the future to know that this is the one person with whom we want to spend the rest of our lives?

Of course, some ‘decisions’ are automatically made for (and by) us. Breathe in. Breathe out. We don’t have to decide to expand and contract the muscles around the heart to keep the blood flowing or to satisfy the other essential functions that keep the average Joanne alive. Somewhere beyond that, we encounter everyday conditions that require conscious decisions. These decisions are formulated and shaped by the interactions of the sub-atomic bits and forces that comprise the atoms in our brains.

Is this the day that I can stay in bed all day, or, do I have to get up, brush my teeth and go buy myself a soft ice cream cone? These decisions, shaped by minute charges, propelled by the food we eat and the drugs we ingest, are the decisions that get most of us through the course of a common day. They also can alter the course and fortune of mankind. They are the result of our innermost workings. Examining another decision making process, one that takes place deep inside a computer, we come up with a remarkably similar condition. These decisions, no, yes, or remember, are very similar to the ones that emanate from our human brain. They are, for the most part, pre-programmed into the chips that must act in the way that they are ‘taught’, similar to humans, (do this, don’t do that), but the output still relies on the interactions of the various atoms and their constituent atomic forces. Are there any parallels here? Most decidedly, the answer is yes.

Both computers and human beings take in information, process it, store it, retrieve it and act on it. They both communicate information to other entities and present it in various forms for others to use and perhaps, more importantly, they both make decisions on their own.

It’s that particular area that scientists and lay people alike find interesting, and to some people, distressing. How much should we allow computers to do? It’s a philosophical question that has many answers. What’s too much for some will be not enough for others. Do you want to ride in a train or car or an aircraft that has no driver? How many accidents are attributable to ‘pilot error’ or ‘driver error’? Most, yet we still feel safer in a vehicle where there is someone at the controls. That feeling, of course, is an entirely emotional thing and not based on cold, pure logic. We let machines do our dishes (not much risk there), but when the risk level rises, we become more leery of letting the machines do the thinking for us. Therefore, we can assume that low-level risk machine decisions are appropriate at this stage of the development in the human-computer interface area.

In his seminal film, “2001, A Space Odyssey”, Stanley Kubrik gave his computer creation known as HAL 9000, a conscience, of sorts. HAL, after killing all of the on-board crew, and attempting to kill the last remaining member, and now facing his own ‘disconnection’ (death), tries the machine equivalent of making amends by telling Dave, the crew commander, ”Things have been quite rough with me”, and “ I know that I’ve made some poor decisions recently”, and “I give you my complete assurance that my work will be back to normal. I want to help you, Dave.” and further, as Dave begins and continues with the disconnection process, “Dave. Stop. Will you stop, Dave?” and finally, pathetically, “I can feel it, Dave. My mind is going. Stop, Dave”.

Unknown to Dave, HAL has been programmed to keep the real objective of the mission completely secret from the crew. He also has been programmed never to lie. In the face of this enormous conflict, and in a very human way, he dissembles and goes off on a tangent, tries to eliminate the entire crew so he can run the mission without human influence, thereby eliminating the source of his conflict. This is a high-risk level situation, fictional, but at least close to possible in the ‘intelligent’ machine era into which human beings are plunging.

What of the zoo? Those repulsive and attractive forces, the known and probable undiscovered particles that force their way into the decision making process. How does this all come about? Is it the same in thinking machines as well as in humankind? Does too much caffeine (doping) alter the decision? How about the general health of the individual? They don’t call it a virus for nothing.

Physicists are slowly gaining more knowledge about the Higgs boson particle. It seems to have a great influence on the mass of other particles as well as giving a great deal of credence to the super-symmetry thesis. Theorists are still “closing in” on this elusive bit as they have been for a number of years now. Once found, what will it reveal vis-a-vis the human condition? Probably a better understanding of why we do what we do and how we do it.

However, it will take years for the medical community and the theoretical scientific community to intermesh the findings that have been made, to say nothing of the ones yet to be made, but in the final analysis, the decisions we make and the way we live our lives rests on the fundamental particles and their forces.

Most all of the foregoing statements in this essay contain forward looking information and probably have no basis in reality as we know it, (but then, you never can tell).

There was no hair on the top strand of wire on the fifteen-foot high fence surrounding the gorilla cage in the real zoo in Dallas where Jabari the 300 pound gorilla lived. He was probably discontent with the living conditions and the other five or six gorillas in the same cage and he wanted his freedom. Zoo officials commented that Jabari, after a running start, must have sailed cleanly over the top of the wire. (Subsequently, he was shot to death by police). The sight of a three hundred pound gorilla sailing over a fifteen-foot high fence must be a familiar one to physicists who are constantly seeking new, very elusive particles that will someday make their day, and lives, complete. Catching them will shed some light on the mysteries of the human and emerging machine cognitive processes.

Note from Ralph: The publishers of this newsletter have taken some risk in asking me to write something not directly related to their primary business of representing a Premier IBM Business Partner. They wanted you to know that there is a lot of humanity associated with our company. That is as it should be with any collective human endeavor. They decided to take the risks that are associated with letting me have at it and write this column. The collective ‘they’ will not always agree with what I write, nor, I expect, will some of the readers, but that is also as it should be. It keeps us healthy, mentally. The old saw of ‘the views expressed in this column do not necessarily reflect the views of management’ is certainly applicable here. I will deeply appreciate any comments from ya’ll out there because, first, feedback tells me that the column is getting read, and secondly, I am sure that someone out there has a different position or opinion. I would like to hear it. Laudatory comments are also welcome. Reach me at Rmorin@keyinfo.com.