Tome of Wisdom

I read an interesting post (Intentionality facade) at idiolect, the blog of Tom Stafford (one of the authors of Mind Hacks). His post is about Boids, virtual creatures who evolve according to a Darwinian evolution algorithm. Due to a bug in the system, predators travel faster when hunting with other predators. So what happened was that over several generations, the predator Boids “learned” to hunt in packs. But as Stafford points out, Boids have no intelligence or autonomy. They are simply obeying a computer program. Any intentionality is just a facade. And yet he admits that he has a hard time letting go of the notion that these little blips on the screen are making intelligent choices.

The way I see it, Boids are simplified computer models of real creatures in halo reach. Real creatures are much more complex. They feel pain and pleasure, they can evaluate different choices, and they can make (somewhat) rational decisions. Or maybe their decisions are based on instinct, but the point is that the animal does what it feels like doing. A Boid is much more simple. It has no motivations, feelings, desires, or sensations. It merely follows predetermined rules. Yet, in both cases, the outcome is the same. A complex, living, breathing animal behaves roughly the same way as a computer program, despite the fact that they are wired completely differently.

The logic behind the algorithms running the Boids is alien to us because it really does work differently. It merely mimics intentionality, reproducing its observable properties by using a simplified algorithm. The same laws of natural selection apply equally to Boids and to real creatures because both exhibit the same observable behavior.

One might imagine an android (a human-esque robot, like halo reach) designed to act exactly like a human. The only difference between this theoretical android and a real human is that the android is not self-conscious, and merely follows rules that determine its behavior. There would have to be a vast number of highly complex rules in order to mimic a human, but in principle it could be done. Just as there is an infinite number of ways to write a computer program that executes the same task, we can construct countless different models that model the exact same behavior. Externally, this android would seem 100% human to us. But inside there is nothing but gears. The same is true of these Boids.

evolution, science

“The genetic code is 3.6 billion years old. It’s time for a rewrite.” - Tom Knight, MIT Artificial Intelligence Lab

I view the human body (and indeed all carbon-based life) as a complex machine. Just as a computer is a complicated piece of hardware (silicon and metal) controlled by software (encoded in hard drives and executed by a Central Processing Unit), a life form is a complicated piece of hardware (carbon-based molecules, lipids, proteins) controlled by software (encoded in DNA and executed by protein assembly and replication).

Consider that computer software is created intentionally by design for a specific purpose. The code is open and changeable by human designers, and can then be compiled into machine-readable form (binary, 1s and 0s). The biological software was designed over billions of years of natural selection, acting through cellular mechanisms such as mutation and reuse-after-modification of existing components. It is “compiled” in DNA form and the genetic code is not human-readable, but in principle it is possible to reverse-engineer the biological software and then modify it however we like. This means we can re-engineer the human body to behave however we want (or at least, to do anything that is physically possible).

I am not alone in this view. The Synthetic Biology (SynBio) movement, led by visionaries such as Craig Venter (who first deciphered the human genome) and Tom Knight (a professor at MIT’s Artificial Intelligence Lab), aims at the intentional design (and redesign) of biological systems. Aubrey de Grey, a controversial biomedical gerontologist, aims to extend the human lifespan up to 1,000 years.
I have been mulling around an idea in my head the past few weeks. Since the human body was designed by natural selection, it is not “perfect.” Just as in the software world, the human body has “bugs,” unintended and undesirable behaviors. These bugs are not due to human error, as in computer software, but due to the unguided process of natural selection. We can correct nature’s bugs with guided bioengineering. That is, we can apply “bug fixes” to the human genetic code.

I would like to launch a web site called BodyBugzilla. This is named after Bugzilla, a web-based bug-tracking system. On BodyBugzilla, anybody can submit a “bug report.” Complaints can be about anything: pointless pain and suffering, body parts that don’t function correctly, weird signal processing in the brain, vulnerability to viruses, lack of robustness in harsh environments, etc. By filtering through these bug reports, moderators can assign them to appropriate categories, classify their severity, or determine whether they are bugs or enhancement requests. Bug resolutions can also be posted: existing cures for diseases, cause of the bug, possible fixes for the bug, etc.

Ethicists may cringe at deliberately tampering with the human genetic code. But they ought to cringe even more at the needless pain and suffering that millions of people suffer every day, simply because nature was a little sloppy with its security or with its modification of basic body shapes. Why not do away with wisdom teeth, or smelly toes, or nearsightedness, or joint pain, or horrific diseases? If we know how to fix these things, I believe we have an ethical imperative to fix them.

ethics, evolution, genetic engineering, health, science

Star-nosed mole can sniff underwater, videos reveal

I wonder what it feels like to sniff underwater. Does any water go back up into your nose? I’ll bet some application could be made for humans. Say, bubble air through water, then siphon it into our nose. Not that it would do us much good. Our sense of smell is terrible compared to many other animals. And why not? A good sense of smell is an expensive investment. Humans are clever enough to survive without the aid of too much olfactory guidance. It’s the same reason we have less hair and are less burly than our Neanderthal ancestors.

Unleash your inner bloodhound – start sniffing

It’s hardly surprising that humans can follow a scent trail, especially when the scent is as strong as chocolate. I would be impressed if humans could smell scents in such minute amounts as, say, dogs. This makes me think of one of my daydreams: genetically modifying humans to give them more advanced powers. Why not modify ourselves so we produce the antifreeze protein? This would prevent needless deaths and injuries from freezing. Why not eradicate the genes that cause nearsightedness so that a third of the population can lead normal lives without worrying about glasses, contacts, or laser surgery? How about making everyone lactose tolerant so we can all enjoy dairy products? While we’re at it, can’t we get rid of the “itch” sense?

evolution, genetic engineering