On Christmas Eve, I was invited by Colleen and Katie to see
the limited showing of The Imitation Game. This biographically inspired film (directed
by Morten Tyldum and written by Graham Moore) of the tormented life of English
mathematician and cyberneticist Alan Turing served as a poignant epitaph on the
passage of this year. Morten Tyldum, a
47 year old Norwegian born director, provided ample space for the audience to enter
the crucible of Turing's unconventional childhood which served both as canvas
and oil for the artistic isolation of a man who saw what others cannot begin to
discern through the fog of consensus-imposed illusions. When Turing died just before his 42nd
birthday, the public his work served and the lives his efforts saved knew about
as much about him then as we do now:
basically nothing. Moore, 33, wrote
the screenplay for The Imitation Game in 2011 when it landed on the Black List of the best unproduced
scripts in Hollywood. His refrain
throughout the film is a gentle admonition long lost on most of humanity.
"Sometimes it is
the people no one imagines anything of who do the things that no one can
image."
Alan Turing's Bombe
- the German Enigma deciphering device - was a physical manifestation of his graduate
thesis postulate of "effective calculability". In contrast to preceding theoreticians,
mathematicians and philosophers, Turing sought to understand functions that
could be described through purely mechanical processes rather than seeking to reduce
observations to some generalizable set of assumptions. He spent as much time in his graduate work
describing conditions in which his approach did not work as he did
describing his primitive recursive models of machine deduction. He concludes his thesis with the following
observation.
"One would prefer
a non-constructive system of logic based on trans-finite induction rather
simpler than the system which we have described. In particular, it would seem that it should be
possible to eliminate the necessity of stating explicitly the validity of
definitions by primitive recursions, since this principle itself can be shown
to be valid by transfinite induction. … We have therefore to compromise between
simplicity and comprehensiveness."
Unless you cheat.
Which is precisely how the Bombe
succeeded in deciphering the German Enigma.
By introducing a deduced analog variable - weather forecasts and Hitler's
desire to have his ego reinforced by the chain of command - the code breakers at
Bletchley Park could figure out where and when the Germans were going to attack
supply lines and troop movements.
After the war, Turing continued to pursue his Turing
Machine, Oracle, and ACE computers relentlessly seeking to demonstrate the
power of primitive recursive logic to match the cognitive performance of most
humans. The ultimate enigma - can a
machine think like a human? - was entrapped in the more profound question: can humans think at all or have we reduced
ourselves to linear, recursive, efficient logic devoid of the capacity to
handle analog complexity with grace and comprehensiveness? Drawing from the theoretical work of Charles
Babbage (the progenitor of conditional logic computers in 1834) and Michael
Faraday (the progenitor of electromagnetic devices in 1831), Turing synthesized
the best deductive logic to place into electromechanical devices what the
physio-electromechanical neural network call the human brain does. And what he demonstrated is that we can,
indeed, build devices that out-think us if we choose to reduce thinking to the
speed of processing primitive recursive processes. He studied the work of Sir D'Arcy Wentworth
Thompson and sought to examine the logic of morphogenetics providing some of
the foundation for observations that underpin modern molecular biology,
genomics and the like.
It seems fitting that at the end of an entirely predictable
and predicted year - both mere confirmations of the sophomoric uselessness of
regression in human behaviors and interactions - we could reflect on the two
hundred years of logical machine pursuits and at least contemplate emancipation
from the mechanization of our hybridized species. In a year in which "fear" was
justification for police executions of citizens and the expansion of a
camera-on-every-cop surveillance state; "conservatism" was the façade
for wealth managers to rob athletes' wealth; "patriotism" was the
veneer used to justify the rise of Nazism and xenophobic Fascism from
Scandinavia to the halls of Congress; "consumerism" was the panacea
for a U.S. economy that still can't figure out what it means to constructively
deal with the big issues confronting the global economy; it seems fitting that The
Imitation Game is quietly inquiring into the nature of the humanized
machine or the mechanized human.
This year's come to an end.
I can place on one hand those moments in which I saw the fully humanized
human show up this year and have extra fingers.
Maybe it's my age - 47 - which is associated with perseverance,
integrity, discipline and mysticism that gives me pause. I find myself spending inordinate amounts of
time seeking to activate the humanized human I see in others who seem to
persist in varying degrees of primitive recursive mechanized states. But, in keeping with my year-end tradition, I
thought I'd do the one thing that I've relentlessly held for each year: my
expression of gratitude.
And unlike year's past in which I recite a long list of
those who have lit the beacons that I've used to navigate the year, I've chosen
a diversion for this year. I want you to
know about a few people who are, in my estimation, evidencing humanity in human
form. These are individuals who, like
Turing, Faraday, Thompson and others could contribute in relative anonymity
unless they're called out for their contributions. So here goes.
Jack Chopin was introduced to me by my dearest friend and
colleague Bob Kendall (who enjoys my deepest gratitude each year). Jack has a degenerative condition which has
made activities of daily living exceedingly difficult for him and his wife
Diana. Jack has lost what most of us take
entirely for granted - the dexterity that comes from fully functioning
myoneural junctions. But together with his
brother in law Ron, he decided to do something only analogue humans do. He developed and deployed a simple device
which allowed him to feed himself.
That's interesting. But what
makes Jack great is the fact that he, Ron, and Diana didn't just make the E-Z
Eat for himself - they set up an enterprise to make these devices for
others. Machines solve linear logic
problems. Humans have the audacity to
realize that the known experience of one is common to unknown others and by
addressing the challenge faced by one, the lives of others can be made
quantifiably better. Take a look at this video.
Julio De Laffitte - Rio de Janeiro born uber-Australian -
saw the government of Queensland and New South Wales entering into
conversations about how to survive tough economic times. He participated in events where
"leadership" was cowardly discussing ways to shrink and diminish the
assets around which growth and development would be possible. He knew that the sclerotic smallness of thought
would harm the country he loved and chose as his home. So, he decided to act - not react. He decided to charter a voyage - a great
metaphor for a country colonized by those born on the waves - to Antarctica
where, on the 26th of January (Australia Day commemorating the 1788 arrival of
the First Fleet) about 100 visionaries who care for the future of Australia and
the world will spend several days dedicated to manifesting a future that works
for everyone. Machines are designed to
solve problems based on the algorithm with which they've been coded. Humans have the audacity see the dysfunction
of the algorithm and engage the ecosystem with intrepid enterprise.
We The People will benefit greatly from choosing to learn
from the Faraday - Babbage - Turing - Chopin - De Laffitte proposition: to see
the self-evident nature of the universe we can apprehend and then engage it for
the benefit of ALL - neither individual nor collective - but an entirely
integrated whole. And for those who thus
engage, the passage of the year is an illusion of little consequence. Because this impulse is timeless,
dimensionless, persistent, generative and infinitely orthogonal.
Here's to a New Day, again.
Beautiful essay David -- i once gave a workshop in the library at Bletchley Park. I will put a composition together for you.
ReplyDelete(As I'd commented elsewhere last night) Appreciating some relatively perennial themes running through David Martin's approach, such as (re)humanization, I'm struck this New Year's Eve with chords of agreement between David's final blog offering of the year, and something I'd written when half the age I am now. (from an essay, "Integrity") “Previously, the entire spectrum segment basis in use were represented and explicit to the tool user. In digitalization the relations of the units are functionally abstracted from the continuum their relevance is dependent on. These shifts impact our motivational modeling to the degree that our behaviors have become automatic. A change in our consensus-awareness, however, always precedes any technological implementation or reflection of our mutual choices. User and used, technician and technique, may need to strike a more viable balance if these roles are not to be disproportionately reversed in ways that cancel the effectiveness of both. The activities and activations of human beings are not mechanistic nor ultimately mechanizable. Despite behaviorist proofs to the contrary we are not, nor is our environment, automized. There’s no autonomy beyond interdependence.”
ReplyDeleteAppreciating some relatively perennial themes running through your approach, such as (re)humanization, I'm struck this New Year's Eve with chords of agreement between this final blog offering of the year, and something I'd written when half the age I am now. (from an essay, "Integrity") “Previously, the entire spectrum segment basis in use were represented and explicit to the tool user. In digitalization the relations of the units are functionally abstracted from the continuum their relevance is dependent on. These shifts impact our motivational modeling to the degree that our behaviors have become automatic. A change in our consensus-awareness, however, always precedes any technological implementation or reflection of our mutual choices. User and used, technician and technique, may need to strike a more viable balance if these roles are not to be disproportionately reversed in ways that cancel the effectiveness of both. The activities and activations of human beings are not mechanistic nor ultimately mechanizable. Despite behaviorist proofs to the contrary we are not, nor is our environment, automized. There’s no autonomy beyond interdependence.”
ReplyDelete