Will Supercomputers Subdue the Human Race?

I refuse to accept the idea that we, humans, could soon build machines similar or, even worse, superior to us - machines that would think, understand, solve problems, have consciousness, experience pleasure and pain, feel emotions… and compete with us. In the domains of physiology, however, twenty-first-century science fiction seems to be much more hard science than bizarre fiction. Many futurologists are quite aggressive in their predictions and a few argue that computers not only will leave us behind us but they will also overpower us. Inventor Ray Kurzweil predicts that humans will be producing self-conscious robots by 2030 and that by 2046 computers we will outdo us. I hope not.

Software and hardware designers have generally programmed computer systems following standard logic, as created through time by brains that are identical to those of the designers. In other words, today's computer systems, however powerful they are, are just imitatators of our reasoning faculty, one of the top qualities of human beings.

Now some ambitious visionaries, who call themselves 'neuromorphic engineers', are targeting the design of computers, not to create machines operating as one of the qualities of the brain (that is, not as followers of the rules of logic) but as the owners of such quality ( that is, as the brain itself). Instead of imitating their properties, neuromorphic engineers hope to build devices that operate as ‘brains’.

According to Karlheinz Meier, a physicist at the University of Heidelberg and one of the leaders of the new branch of engineering, to achieve such ambitious goal the revolutionary machines should display at least three characteristics that our brain does have and current computers do not: (1) low power consumption, (2) fault tolerance, and (3) self-learning capability. While our brain consumes just twenty watts, any super -computer spends megawatts. While a faulty transistor can cripple a microprocessor, neurons repair themselves and, in selected brain regions, the nervous system may replace the dying ones. While intelligent computers must be programmed to learn, brains are self-learners by nature.

There are generous budgets and ambitious projects on neuromorphic engineering. There is going to be extraordinary progress both in robotics, in general, and in bioelectronics (the application of electronics in biological processes), in particular. Astounding developments in specialized equipment to support specific physiological functions—vision, hearing, mobility, artificial organs—will keep surprising us.

The list of Dr. Meier, however, is directional but not complete. It is obvious that our brains’ processing speed and data storage capacity cannot compete with the super-machines’ power in those areas. Life and consciousness, however, are well beyond the scope of today's science. I doubt that, between now and 2046, scientists will be able to create devices that simulate our sensitivity to pleasure and pain, or the emotions and feelings from there resulting.

It is good if this does not happen. Feelings encompass love and hatred, as well as altruism and greed. Those who watched "2001: A Space Odyssey ", the 1968 movie of film director Stanley Kubrick and novelist Arthur C. Clarke, might remember HAL, the computer that ‘plays’ in the movie, has emotions and, at some point, rebels against the ship’s crew and kills one of the travelers. In the same way as HAL wanted to take command of the spaceship, some futurists believe that robots will try to dominate the world, once they overpower us, that is, they will display, with more intensity, our hatred and greed—faults these that in modern humans seem to shade love and altruism.

HAL did not materialize in 2001 and I do not believe the 2046 super-machines will fall in love or jump joyfully when their sport team scores. (Will they have a favorite team?) Unless they are programmed to act so, they will never swear or shout if someone hits them hard enough to break a few of their integrated circuits. Consequently, I am confident that, if the computers of the future are unable to display such behaviors, much less will they want to take over the Planet.

Gustavo Estrada

Author of Inner Harmony through Mindfulness Meditation

Gustrada1@gmail.com

Mindfulness and Hearing Voices

Mindfulness is the permanent and impartial attention to our body, our sensations and our mental states. The habit of mindfulness, according to the Buddha, is the path that leads to the elimination of suffering and hence to the blossoming of inner harmony. Though some people seem to be mindful by nature, most of us must work on our faculty of awareness through the practice of meditation.

Psychologist Eleanor Longden, a researcher at the University of Leeds, England, was not acquainted with or interested in the Buddha’s teachings; she developed her mindfulness out of necessity. As reported by her, the careful observation of her auditory sensations and her mental states was the approach that helped her out of the annoying imaginary voices that tormented her for many years.

It was an ordinary day when Eleanor, leaving a college class, heard for the first time a voice, coming out of nowhere, that clearly said, "She is leaving the building." The terrified girl ran home and, as she arrived, heard the voice again, "She is opening the door." The drama, which soon after included a repertoire of phrases, unknown narrators, hallucinations, doctors, psychiatrists, hospitalizations, medication and, sadly, the social stigma of schizophrenia, lasted several years.

 

Thanks to the continued support from a few people and, in particular, from a fair-minded doctor, Eleanor began to understand that the voices resulted from traumatic events in her life and were subtle guides to see into her emotional problems. The realization that the voices would facilitate her healing brought her to the careful attention to the signs that both these voices and her mental states were communicating.

Ten years after the first 'spooky' messages, Eleanor earned with honors a degree in psychology, soon followed by an also lauded master's degree. Now, when she stills hear voices, the psychologist is completing a PhD in Leeds.

Until recently, medical science attributed hallucinations to unknown genetic factors that condemned their victims to schizophrenia or predisposed them to such grievance. This verdict is changing.

Psychologist Longden is now an activist of a group that promotes the natural acceptance of the ‘noisy inner voices’. According to her, "a high proportion of the 1.5 million people who are diagnosed each year with schizophrenia are not victims of chemical imbalances or genetic mutations; rather they are exhibiting a complex response to abuse, loss, neglect or other past trauma."

The occurrence of hallucinations is much more common than we recognize. Our brain has embedded the neural design to generate such experiences; our dreams confirm this statement. Perhaps the children's imaginary friends are more 'real' than what we adults think. Likewise, this 'natural anomaly' could eventually explain the apparitions of sacred prophets, virgins, angels and ghosts that devout people often report. Soon we will know much more about these mysteries.

Returning to schizophrenia as such, even in its extreme cases, as the well-documented experiences of Dr. John F. Nash, it is in the blunt acceptance of the 'unreality' of visions—what a paradox!—that healing starts. (Do you remember "A Beautiful Mind,” the movie?) The 1994 Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences expressed it frankly in an interview, “I would be sweeping the delusions under a rug and they were able to come out later on, and could be triggered, and I would move very quickly to accepting it again. A delusional state of mind is like living a dream. Well I knew where I was.”

"Society has a long way to go before fully shakes the stigma associated with schizophrenia," says the future Dr. Longden. "One place to start is by asking not 'what's wrong with you?' but rather 'what's happened to you?'" She concludes, "Treating 'voices' like a symptom rather than an experience can only worsen the condition."

Only every individual —not her analyst—can observe and draw reliable conclusions from what is happening within her life. Mindfulness is personal. The professional's role is helping, not judging. In these matters, the patient-therapist interaction is likely to be imprecise. The 'expert' compares the collected data with her diagnostic manuals and extrapolates cloudy symptoms to verdicts that most patients tend to consider definite. Their suffering, already severe, becomes more intense and the determination to look keenly and impartially to their mental states becomes hardest to pin down... Precisely when it is most needed.

 

Gustavo Estrada
Autor de ‘Inner Harmony through Mindfulness Meditation’

gustrada1@gmail.com



Which God do you deny?

I do not deny or defend the existence of God. My agnostic approach to the Divinity, which I expressed in a recent article, generated quite a variety of reactions. The notes at the extremes, from radical atheists or ardent believers, were both much more intolerant than open-minded. Out of the received comments, I assigned the gold medal to someone who defined agnostic as "an atheist who does not want to come out." Does this mean that I feel comfortable in my skeptical seclusion? I do not think so; it is not comfort but realism. It is impossible to accept or reject something that is confusing.

Agnosticism claims that human understanding has no access to notions such as the Divinity that are beyond direct experience and the scientific method. Many thinkers agree. Mythologist Joseph Campbell defines God as "a metaphor for that which transcends all levels of intellectual thought.”

The difficulty with the notion of God is that, due to its abstract nature, every religion has its own version of Him, and its followers eventually develop their own personal profile of their Creator. (Every devotee, of course, considers other faiths’ gods as fictitious and mythological). Likewise, atheists should also have an accurate idea of ​​the god they are rejecting; before denying something we should have a representation of it—you cannot say ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to a puzzling question.

There should not be such confusion. Dictionaries generally have only one entry on the ‘Almighty God’: "the Supreme Being worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe.” The interpretation of God, however, is dynamic. As belief systems disseminates to other societies or they are enforced on them, they change the mores of the conquered culture but, in the process, the newly converted also adjust the invading religion to their own habits. Consequentially, there are many versions of every creed.

Christians and Muslims worship one single God but their numerous branches have remarkable differences in their saints and angels as well as in their beliefs and rituals. Hindus are amazing:  They can be monotheists, polytheists, atheists or agnostics. What brings Hinduism together is their principle of unity in all existence. Could such principle correspond to the God of other faiths? The Hindu spiritual leader Mata Amritanandamayi Devi says, "God is pure Consciousness that dwells within everything.”

There is no possibility of agreement on what Divinity is. Some definitions are less rigid. For architect Frank Lloyd Wright, God is "the great mysterious motivator of what we call nature"; for novelist Leo Tolstoy, "that infinite All of which man knows himself to be a finite part”; for philosopher Baruch Spinoza, "the orderly harmony of what exists”; for biologist Stuart Kauffman," the ceaseless creativity of the universe.” You have to accept, atheist friends, these interpretations are rich points of view.

If we are to argue about the notion of God, we must first delimit the subject to discuss. (Right up front, agnostics, say, "we pass"). Religious wars start out of non-sense because the God of each cult is ‘the only and absolute truth’ for His followers.

Religions originated both from our curiosity about the remote start of everything (where did we come from? how did all this start?) and from the fear of our uncertain end (where will we go when we turn off the engine?).

According to cosmologist Alexander Vilenkin, among many other scientists, before the big bang that supposedly started the universe, there was nothing—neither matter nor energy nor space nor time. With apologies to the atheists, for me to accept such statement is an act of supreme faith. (The math involved is beyond my brain’s skills.) Musing over so huge mystery, American science journalist Steve Nadis suggests that, while the universe itself may have resulted from nothing— explain, please!— the laws of physics had to be in place beforehand “to govern the something-from-nothing moment that gave rise to our universe and the eternal inflation that followed”. These laws of physics, I add, could well be another definition of God, quite different from all the previous ones.

 

Gustavo Estrada

Author of 'INNER HARMONY through Mindfulness Meditation'

Suffering and Fanaticism

Cravings and aversions are mental conditionings recorded in our brain, without us noticing or authorizing them, that activate automatically in response to certain stimuli. Known as harmful mental formations in Buddhist terminology, they generate abnormal needs or threats. Cravings are demanding mental formations that trigger desires for something we lack. Aversions are rejecting mental formations that make us wanting less or nothing at all of something we have and dislike. Whether we are greedy or resentful, the associated cravings and aversions are fetters that enchain us to suffering.

Cravings and aversions are not the only chains that enslave us. The adherence to biased opinions is a similar fetter that also shackles us to suffering. Opinions are the broad range of prejudiced beliefs and bigoted views that lack backing from positive knowledge. We attach to opinions in a subtle way that makes them a sort of mental possessions.

As opposed to material goods, nobody can take our opinions away; even so, we defend them passionately: The more fervent our belief, the harsher our defense. The problem with opinions—religious, political, racial or sectarian of any kind—is that they put up a cloud that obscures our understanding, and alters reason, speech and behavior.

Basic appetites (for food, water or sex) come from biological needs; sound fears to dangers that may hurt us (guns, predators, disasters, etc.) are neuronal coded mechanisms that protect our survival. Opinions, on the other hand, do not satisfy any vital requirement. There is no such thing as a natural opinion that we develop by genetic design or we acquire as a biological protection. Once a bias takes over our mind, however, we find interesting any thought that agrees with our prejudice and we experience aversion to any opinion that contradicts ours.

In the first case, we somehow crave for the company of those who share our opinions. In the second one, the holder of clashing opinions becomes a repulsive person. Since the underrating of our belief system and the association with anything unpleasant cause us discomfort, our biased opinions will unavoidably bring us suffering.    

Opinionated people cannot recognize their contradictions or fallacies; their mental framework obfuscates their vision. They consider the color of the glass through which they see the world as the right one; you cannot explain ‘green’ to somebody who sees only ‘yellow’; his or her reaction will always be: “I do not understand how you cannot see the yellowness of my point of view.”

Biased opinions are pervasive, harmful mental formations with a negative impact on the outcome of our thinking. Biased views deteriorate the quality of our conclusions more destructively than misread information or weak reasoning resources. Says German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer (parenthesis added):  “The discovery of truth is prevented more effectively, not by the false appearance things present and which mislead into error(misinformation), not directly by weakness of the reasoning powers (lack of common sense) but by preconceived opinion, by prejudice”.

When we search for accuracy and reliability, the damaging influence of wrong data or deficient logic fades when compared with the distortions that biased views create. A careful review of the proceedings of an evaluation, by third parties or by the same person who did the analysis, will always detect any faults in data or logic. This is not so when we reach conclusions based on or supported by biased views. When this happens, we are unable to either recognize our own errors or accept third party’s correcting advice. We consider right only those opinions that coincide with our point of view.

People seldom change opinion; the more biased the opinion, the more difficult the modification. This resistance is particularly evident in the arena of religious or political beliefs. It is not so in hard sciences. Scientific viewpoints change as knowledge progresses and investigators develop and validate new theories, which outdate previous accepted models.    

People with opposing opinions will always have different pictures of the same reality; they see the world exclusively through the mental eyes of their own opinions. Unquestionably, biased views, not wrong data or faulty analysis, are the worst barrier to the truth in any field of knowledge. And what is worst: Besides leading to suffering, biased views are the roots of fanaticism and, consequently, violence.

 

 

 

Gustavo Estrada

Author of "Inner Harmony"

gustrada1@gmail.com

 

 

 

What is Inner Harmony?

Inner harmony is an internal state that permits us to be at peace and act confidently even in the face of difficulties. Inner harmony is not being in a good mood all the time; it is not ceasing to experience problems or the emotions associated with them. Inner harmony is neither the permanent show of a smiling face, nor the constant display of an optimistic posture. Instead, inner harmony is an evenness of the mind that, when troubles do arise, prompts our skills toward corrective actions, if they exist, or submits us serenely to the acceptance of reality, if problems actually have no solution.

Inner harmony is a worthy state of being—the ideal state—where most everybody would like to dwell. When we are enjoying inner harmony, we are living well. The paradox is, however, that we cannot move to such a wonderful state directly; we cannot take a particular sequence of steps that lead us there; we cannot produce inner harmony in a straight line.

Inner harmony is more the spontaneous result of a way of living than an intended, planned goal. People may look for things such as money, friends or academic degrees; these pursuits, though they may bring success, do not necessarily lead to inner harmony. While inner harmony is quite different from success, the two qualities do not exclude each other. People enjoying inner harmony might be successful—they might have money, friends and academic degrees—but those things come to them naturally and they do not get frustrated if such effects do not arrive. To the eyes of others, they are successful; to themselves they are at peace with whatever happens in their lives. Inner harmony, which is personal and intimate, cannot come from outside; this would make it outer harmony.

We should not seek inner harmony; when we are chasing inner harmony, we are losing it. If we should not hunt inner harmony, how do we get to experience it? How do we fulfill a yearning that we should not pursue? Instead of running after inner harmony, we have to direct our actions toward eliminating suffering, the opposite of inner harmony. Since suffering means anguish, agony, anxiety, desperation, pain, affliction, and a few more states or experiences, the word needs to be delimited.

Suffering is the set of negative feelings generated by cravings for what we lack, and aversions to what imaginarily or actually surrounds us.  Since cravings and aversions are the originators of suffering, it is these maladies what we have to eradicate from our lives.

We can compare inner harmony to silence. Both occurrences come from the absence of certain disruptions; they are not the outcome of specific actions. When there is noise in the environment and we are longing for quietness, we work on the sources of the distressing sounds: we turn off loudspeakers, end chattering and still motions. When the noise sources settle down, silence comes about.

Similarly, we cannot design or produce inner harmony; there are no instructions to build it. Instead, if we wish to experience inner harmony, we should work on the sources of the mental noise and shut them down; we must attack and destroy the roots of suffering. Cravings and aversions are the sources of the distressing sounds; they are like loudspeakers the stridencies of which break off inner harmony; we must turn off the sound system if we want to stop the noise. When we eliminate cravings and aversions, the suffering they are producing disappears; then inner harmony spontaneously blossoms.

 

Gustavo Estrada

Author of Inner Harmony through Mindfulness Meditation