Intelligent Design Theory Series

Have you ever heard of intelligent design theory? If you haven’t, trust me it’s an interesting theory that suggests that certain things did not just evolve but they were designed by someone with intellect and superiority, in this case being God.

This is a controversial issue between evolutionists and creationists. Evolutionists call the Intelligent Design Theory a religion but the creationists call it a science. The one side argues that organisms evolve - that’s how we got to where we are today – nature is responsible. While the creationists view, usually associated with intelligent design theory, preach that certain organisms are created by someone with specific guidelines of design. You may be wondering how they attempted to ‘prove’ this audacious theory in accordance with logical, scientific methods. If you are still wondering, this is a big deal in religious and scientific circles.

Just for interest sake, there was a whole court case in the US whether Intelligent Design Theory should be taught alongside Evolutionary Theory in public schools. The judge ruled against teaching ID (Intelligent Design) as a science because the theory was somehow strongly rooted in religious beliefs. However, a mathematician from Baylor University, William Dembski, mathematically proved that we can distinguish intelligent design from chance/natural occurrences.

If you are still interested in what my thoughts have to say, keep reading.

Here are my thoughts...

Please be aware that I may be slightly biased in expressing my opinion on this matter, but anyway my subjectivity will not stop me. I am not a specialist or expert on Intelligent Design (ID) but I discovered it when I was researching concepts about Artificial Intelligence. In my early stages of research, I was most impressed by Dr Werner Gitt’s hypothesis that ID may actually be a scientific theory. Let me try my best to explain Dr Werner Gitt’s logic.

Let’s use an exercise to kick start Dr Werner’s logic. Take a moment and think about the following questions: 

Who creates information? Where does information come from? What is information?

If you answer that a human being can create information, then you are probably right. So, I am quite certain that most of you have seen some form of a walking robot or one of those complex robots that assemble cars. Now, what makes these robots walk or assemble cars? It’s probably the software (a list of instructions the computer follows). Given that the robots ability to perform tasks is embedded in the software, how much do you think this software or list of instructions weigh? Any physicist or computer scientist will tell you that these walking robots or assembling robots will weigh the same with the software and without the software on them. So, we can safely say that information is a non-material entity unlike mass or energy, which are material entities. Now, let’s build this idea further. Ever thought about all the information in our DNA? Following this trail of thought, you can conclude that it was coded/programmed just like the walking/assembling robots by someone. It sounds logical doesn’t it? Or maybe it was through chance that the DNA is arranged the way it is. Or it was nature’s plan to design the DNA this way...

 

We can never truly know which is which if we are narrow-minded and blinded from all other possibilities. All I can say is that we will not stop trying to understand why things happen the way they do. Is it Pre-determined or Random? Just check out the next blog to find out how William Dembski mathematically proved Intelligent Design. Do not worry; I will eliminate the high-order equations from the blog so that it is easy to understand.

Reflection: Presentation - AI - Can sociable computers become a reality?

23^rd November 2011.

This day ranks among the top 5 frightening moments in my life. I do not think that I can come up with adjectives to describe how terrified I was.

Starting from the beginning, I only knew that I was making the opening presentation at 5:20 pm when the whole thing started 10 minutes later. If Mr Scudder, Mr Tago, John and Alexis were called upon to testify ; I would surely serve multiple life sentences for being worried about making a presentation. When I look back at all of this, I realize that I used so much energy and brain power worrying about nothing.

Worrying for nothing! I am sure most of you can attest to this feeling of apprehension. Just imagine all of this happened ten minutes before the actual presentations. How exciting, don’t you think?

Somehow, when I got on the stage, my fear was crushed by the instant excitement of talking to an audience about AI or as I recently discovered, affective computing.

Above all, I enjoyed this mixed experience I had before making a presentation [Not being aware that I was the first presenter, opening the floor].

What Did I Learn?

• As much as I preach using artificial intelligence to optimize crowd sourcing, I only practised it the day before the presentation. Getting random people’s opinions and advice makes presentations things better.
• Let me give gratitude where it is due. Linda Rebeiz helped me finalize the symmetrical features of my presentation. In other words, Linda explained to me the importance of symmetry in a presentation and how non-symmetric features may distract the audience. Thanks to her, she helped me make a fair presentation. If you ever need a crash course on making power point presentations; dump your ego, carry boldness and kindly request a lesson from Linda.
•  simplicity and Relevance are an essential component of a presentation. Make it as simple as possible so that even a computer phobic can understand all the zeros and ones you are talking about. Secondly, use current, relevant examples which are applicable to the audience. It is much easier to achieve understanding through simplicity and relevance.
• Do not underestimate or overestimate yourself. You never know what you can actually do if you do not try. I was terrified at first, but most of the audience could not pinpoint any signs of fear during my presentation.
• Examples, Examples, Examples. They work trust me. Everyone understands examples
• Build confidence through randomly talking to people about your presentation/topic. That is how I actually prepared for the presentation, no mirrors but actual people. The reason I recommend using people as models is that you do not see yourself during a presentation (as you would in a mirror), but you see a large group of people. You will also familiarise yourself with facial expressions, body language and eye movement. These human signals will help you to have real-time control of your presentation (react if people are bored) rather than relying on a memorized presentation.
•  Respect time.

·         There is more, but I hope you have learnt something by reading what I have learnt.

What Can I Do Better?

•  Plan better. Respect the time allocated.
• Have a focal point. Focus on what you really have to.
• Engage the audience.
• Do not talk too much. You can easily lose the audience if your topic is complex. Give people a break so that something can sink in.
• Less is better. Succinct, specific and simple is always a good guideline to follow.

I think I have shared all that I recalled, heard and noticed.

Now, imagine this:

“Your computer could sympathize with you during difficult times by reminding you of the good times (through family/friends pictures or your most favourite song). Computers that can assist you if you having trouble finding something on it. Communicating with it like a best friend. Tell it your secrets, worries and desires. You can ask it human-like questions, it will respond with human advice. It will know when you are angry, sad or happy. It can affect your emotions/mood positively. An electrically wired human being made up of zeros and ones.”

At the end of the day, we have computers that will experience, understand and affect emotions in human beings. How awesome is that?

Tune in to the next post because you will be marveled...

What did I learn from the talk by Dr. Walker and Dr. Burton?

Well, let me start with the obvious. The life of a researcher (in this case, the highest level of an academic) is pretty much guaranteed. Most of all, I got the impression that scientists make up 0.1% of the working population that love their work. And the best part yet, scientists get the opportunity to explore the most diverse parts of the world for FREE... Can you imagine that?

I was particularly encouraged by Dr Burton because he purposefully tipped us to follow our passions and be prepared to make life-altering decisions along the way. Dr Burton went to Cambridge University and Lund (Sweden) and now stays in California (USA). Besides all these travelling adventures, another aspect of his life that stood out to me was the way his career diverged from physics and chemistry to immunology and virology. I do not know exactly what led to this specialisation, but one thing that I inferred throughout his speech was that he was hungry for knowledge and he still is (at his age?). He is just living evidence that no one ever stops LEARNING!!

As for Dr Walker, I do not know where to begin. I certainly enjoyed the candid nature of his presentation. And the most important lesson that I learnt from Dr Walker is to: "always to be persistent, you will never know what may happen".

As for the sci-factories in both them - I found the technological biomedical advances very captivating... Knowing that the best biomedical research facility will be built in Africa - a step towards development. I feel that Dr Burton and Dr Walker's project has a higher social impact than foreign aid that is just pumped into poor,  disease-ridden countries. I say this because of the following reasons:

• The research is conducted with by the nation's people for the people - in effect, educating the people.
• When this immunization research produces conclusive results - the vaccines may soon protect people from HIV infection and more and more lives(especially the poor) will be saved. However, competition exists with pharmaceuticals that they may no longer earn excessive profits from the sale of ARVs/drugs because there will be no need for drugs - we will have  vaccines.
• This prevention/immunization research will soon attract the most experienced, renowned and innovative scientists to come to Africa and collaborate with the Africa's elite to come up with solutions for the pandemics that have burdened our continent.

I personally see this as an open window of opportunity for the African countries to learn, share and discover the potential that collaborative efforts possesses. If all goes well, in time, children will no longer have to die from preventable diseases and deadly viruses of our generation will be eternally silenced...

Note: Some of you may have noted that I refer to Africa as if it is a single country because I believe that in these torrid socio-economic conditions we must be unified in order to solve the continent's unnecessary problems.

Will Artificial Intelligent systems be able to learn and distinguish between different emotions experienced by humans?

This question has troubled engineers, psychologists and mathematicians for ages and I hope that it will not continue to haunt their successors for generations to come.

Yet, despite this old-age knowledge gap in science, theoretical physicists find time to talk about the singularity and conclude hypothetical results – not concrete, raw evidence. While physicists meet at endless forums and conferences, the technological industry is advancing in the singularity race. It is not about which industry better, but the field that that has the most positive impact on society.

But how much of this concept of technological singularity is actually possible?

According to William Dembski (author of Intelligent Design), he argues that artificial intelligence cannot fully emulate human intelligence. Artificial intelligence is just complex computations...but what is human intelligence (is it computations or more than that)? In addition to this, experienced artificial intelligence scientists know that a computer cannot make a decision with incomplete information or a situation that requires it to choose the right frame of reference to solve a problem.

You confused? Not yet. Good.

William Dembski presents this scenario in support of his argument: A man goes into a bar and says,”I ‘d like a glass of water.” The bartender pulls out a gun and shouts,”Get out of here!” The man says “thank you” and leaves.(a)

This scenario could be explained this way: The man had hiccups that is why he asked for a glass of water. The bartender understood the problem and decides to frighten him with a gun causing the man’s hiccups to stop. Because the cure worked (no more hiccups), the man says thank you and leaves.(a)

Humans will understand this type of frame of reference of this situation, but a computer cannot make sense of it. Imagine the countless number of reference frames that might have the same effect.(a)

If you did not get it, here’s another example of frame of reference: The man is very thirsty that is why he needs a glass of water. The bartender is reminded of a bad thing that the thirsty man did. The bartender decides to chase him out of his bar by pulling out a gun. The thirsty man behaves in a sarcastic manner and says thank you and leaves the bar. A human being can understand this scenario, but a computer will not understand it.

Why would it not make sense to a computer? There are a lot of unknown factors, emotions involved and character differences exist in people. However, there are some AI systems that use “common sense ” to come to conclusions but computer scientists cannot fully explain this logic.

And in addition to this, since artificial intelligence is about computations – here is a challenge for mathematicians, psychologists and engineers: write an algorithm (function) to determine how someone is feeling (emotion) at a specific point in time.

Apart from William Dembski’s arguments, Raymond Kurzweil believes that humans will be able to merge human intelligence with non-biological intelligence – resulting in enhanced intelligence operation on the Internet and at the same time being able to achieve brain-to-brain communication through the Internet(b). Do you think it is possible?

I do not know but hopefully, by the end of this scientific research year, I will have formulated a standpoint.

Acknowledgements: (a),(b) Examples taken from Dr. David Passig,"Singularity - The accelerating pace of  change", Bar-llan University Isreal,'</www.passig.com/>', (a)-31,32 and (b)-29

                    

Opportunities to impact the world and problems that arise...

Well, it is interesting to know that most scientists make the most contribution to their fields when they are between 25 -35 years old. Taking this into account, we can all agree that our fathers and forefathers of modern science had opportunities to make such long lasting contributions to these fields. However, I think vital components are missing in our generation to realize these opportunities to impact the world.

You may disagree or agree with me - here is a list of obstacles that may stand in our way when we want to impact the world: creativity, globalization and motivation.

Let us look at creativity. We cannot argue the fact that educational institutions and systems are designed in such a way that they favor the industrial workforce of society - meaning that it gives people the reality that they exist to go to school, go to work and then kick the bucket. The exceptions are those who have followed their passions with the most minimal deviation - in effect going against the social trends of a successful life - these people are the history makers. To me, it feels like our systems have killed creativity in the general population while the others (system creators) continue to be creative. Think about the following questions for a while before you criticize my logic. How many people go into traditional science careers and eventually end up in the business or finance sector? How many engineers or physicists are refining ancient theories and how many are looking for different ways/methods to do something that already exists(something new)?I have a feeling more are applying than exploring. Why should performance artists spend more and more time not performing? How much freedom do you think Newton and Einstein had? Just because we have a foundation for science, many people tend to narrow their development to this foundation rather than exploring other types of foundations. The answer is simple. We sacrifice creativity for survival (we deny ourselves the opportunity to discover new things because dependency theories demand us to do repetitive work to earn money to survive).

Moving on to globalization (a form of dependency) - let us look at a few scenarios. The centralization of money and resources has resulted in every engineer, doctor and academic to collaborate and invent something incredible - which is good. But at the end of the day who benefits? The engineer's poor country or the rich country where the invention was made? Please do not misinterpret me! All I am advocating for is simple : the impact you are making - will it only be accessible to people with money or will it be accessible to anyone who needs it? Are we willing to sell our skills to rich foreign organizations for millions(for money) rather than use these skills to develop our own homes, communities and nations for peanuts? The game theory probably has an explanation for this. For clarity purposes, let me reiterate that I am not attacking globalization but posing an important question: What will we sacrifice in order to make an impact in society (will it be financial status or people who can derive the most from your innovation)?

The third and final obstacle is motivation. What motivates people to take maximize on opportunities for development? We live in a world where most people propagate the idea of improving the wheel and not reinventing the wheel. So we are limited to improving the wheel because that is where all the benefits are centralized. What encourages people to reinvent the wheel nowadays? Do you think Henry Ford could have invented the Model-T Ford if he did not reinvent the wheel?

There are a lot opportunities to contribute to society. From the environmental, scientific, financial to even the social level. I think if we can answer why we want to make an impact in society then we are more likely to make the right decisions in assessing the pros and cons of every opportunity. Every decision affects people around you. So, let us take some time and think about the reasons why we would want to impact the world.

What questions do I have about the readings so far?

Frankly, there has been one question that has been tormenting me for this past week. Do not worry, it is not about any computing topic or physics - surprisingly enough, it comes from a field I regarded as an 'unnecessary' science. I always thought of this field as an 'easy-going industry' where people just sit and converse in very complex, freudish vocabulary and convince their clients that depression is so fatal that you need to spend thousands(if not millions) in order to be 'helped'. This is how far I will go for now. However, my question still retains its origins from this field. Thanks to Tafadzwa for inspiring this question concerning the Placebo effect.

If you do not know what the placebo effect is, too bad! If I were you, I would use the power of Google and find out. I know some of you are wondering what this question is, if you are not - then please kindly find another blog to read because this one is definitely not in your scope. If you are still here, here goes: "Can we heal our sicknesses and cure ourselves by simply thinking that we are getting better? Are psychological effects so powerful and effective that they can render biological killers(viruses) harmless? Is it possible to sickness-proof yourself using your mind? Is the human mind so deadly that it can initiate physical change?" All these questions funnel down to how powerful the human mind really is? Let us think about this for a moment.

If I can consciously convince myself(I'm sure psychology has a word to describe it) that there is nothing wrong with me even if I am suffering from a serious illness that looks likely to kill me; the placebo effect implies that  I can actually survive. Now, let us look at it from a proactive view. Imagine training your mind so that it is immune to infection or illnesses. I know many biologists and doctors will argue and fight with me for equating psychology to biology(two different fields). I mean if you can get better by just thinking that you feel better then why can't you think(convince yourself) that no infection/illness can enter your system. Just like in math(since almost everything can be expressed mathematically), if the theorem is true, then the converse is likely to be true. This does not end here...

What do psychologists and biologists have to say about martial arts masters who can focus their "Chi"(energy) onto a specific body parts that it resists the piercing forces of spears. Even more impressive, some people pull heavy vehicles with their skins, ears and other body parts. What makes them more superior - is it a biological or psychological quality? And these people who move objects with their minds...

Honestly, I do not know any of the answers to these questions. However, I do know one thing which is: WE ARE DECEIVING OURSELVES! I believe there is a world out there, where our thoughts will command the physical things in this world. The complicated math that we use every day to solve our problems is one example out of many.   


 

The most impactful reading...Artfificial intelligence working for humans.

The most interesting and enlightening article/paper I read was inspired by my goal to pursue maximum efficiency through the use of computers or (science and technology). Let me not lie, I was basically looking for a way to redirect my tasks/assignments to a capable, equipped system that would complete these tasks/assignments for me - giving me more time to sleep and watch more and more movies(Apparently, a solution already exists). So, if you ever heard of crowd sourcing then you have an idea of what I am talking about but better still - you will find out how clever math algorithms(functions) can help you get the best results through crowd sourcing.

So, let me give you a glimpse of what the human-artificial intelligence paper is about. Firstly, you need to know what crowd sourcing is(if you don't - it's  an easy concept to understand). Crowd sourcing is basically outsourcing your problems(tasks) to a crowd(masses). Now, let us put some details into context. Think about all those outstanding essays, thought-provoking African studies essays and those improbable further math questions. Imagine what a relief it would be if we outsourced all these problems to corporates, historians and engineers(or everyone in the world). Trust me I know. Now, given that you outsourced a further mathematics assignment - how would you manage the answers(responses) if they are all different; how valid or applicable are all the people's responses;how would you know which one is correct or incorrect and the questions never end. I hope we can all understand that all these tedious cross-checking tasks would require a great deal of manpower over a period of time. If you do not have manpower or the time - we switch to fast computers which are genetically-coded to reason  and make judgements based on logic(some math and stats).

Following our predicament above, computers(actually thousands of equations) are designed to solve our multitude of problems. You may be wondering how clustered computers help our limited human intellect. It's really not complex when they do it though. These networks of crowd sourcing applications will take your further math assignment and break it down into small, reduced percentage error parts. Each part will be directed to specific groups of people. Some groups will generate the answers, while another group checks for errors made by the thinkers. Somewhere along this route of people, you may find 10,000 people solving the problems, 12,000 people finding errors and 20,000 marking the final answers. Secondly, these computers decide who to delegate which task to based on previous tasks, work experience, individual completion success rates and motivation indexes. All of this is complied and the best solution(for each question in your f.math assignment) is presented to your Further Math teacher. How smoother could life be?

However, it is unfortunate that these crowd sourcing services are expensive and may be ''inaccessible'' to us(ALA students). Despite the monetary barrier, I found this form of artificial intelligence to be a very practical, cost effective alternative to people trying to reinvent the wheel over and over again(important repetitive work). If this field of AI gains acceptance and popularity over next few decades, people will no longer have to work for one boss/company nor go to a factory/building for work. The possibilities are endless and as for ALA students, entrepreneurial leadership teaches us to maximize our opportunities. Substitute computers for pupils and do the rest of the math!