Chris Brauer Media Project [BLOG]

Research into media literacy is the study of the human ability to "access, analyse, evaluate and communicate messages in a variety of forms". In an internetworked digitally intermediated world, how media literate do you have to be to translate human potential into actual results? Are these skills universal or dependent on cultural and/or social context? Can media literacy skills promote individual abilities to contribute to and draw out of a networked collective intelligence, defined by technologist and philosopher Pierre Levy as "a universally distributed intelligence that is enhanced, coordinated, and mobilized in real time"?

The central focus of these emerging areas of research is the impact of grid computing for the human brain (our know-how repositories) connecting with our inter-networked information collections (our know-about repositories) to open possibilities and improve our lives. The premise is that we require a new framework for understanding literacy in an increasingly digitally intermediated world and that establishing this framework will provide a foundation for individual abilities to access the wealth and depth of knowledge digitally stored (the collective intelligence) and accessible through human/computer interfaces. My draft PhD central research hypothesis is: "There is a teachable media literacy skill-set that promotes collective intelligence."

Any questions/thoughts?

This is the second post on the Chris Brauer Media Project for this topic. The first post can be found through this wormhole

Labels: collective_intelligence, sociology

The following is a completely personal, unscientific and subjective list not to be confused with anything official of any kind. However it can be viewed as unofficially correct if you ask someone like me.

Also: It is subject to change at anytime subject to the opinions of the author, which shift unreliably on whimsy. The current list weights traditional pub charm too highly as a result of my recent arrival on the jolly old isle.

10. The George, London Bridge - MAP
9. Churchill Arms, Notting Hill Gate - MAP
8. The Star Tavern, Knightsbridge - MAP
7. The Waterway, Little Venice- MAP
6. Fitzroy Tavern, Bloomsbury - MAP
5. The Narrowboat, Islington - MAP
4. The Angel, Soho - MAP
3. The Black Horse, Soho - MAP
2. Dove, Hammersmith - MAP
1. Three Kings, Clerkenwell - MAP

Labels: london

Can we ever create a machine that is indistinguishable from a human? Discussions on this topic, already a classic 20th century philosophical and scientific polarizer, promises to be one of the most inspired debates of the 21st century.

The tools necessary to enter into a discourse on this subject at first appear daunting and plentiful. Knowledge of the cognitive sciences, logic theory, proof theory, mathematics and physics would be a good starting point. Follow that-up with an informed firm positioning on the nature/nature discussion, skillful application of formal theories of computation, comfort with design of functioning machines to implement formally specified computations, and knowledge of the philosophical foundations of asyntactic, representational view of the relation of mind to reality, embodied by for example Wittgenstein's Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, and the opposed neuroscientist intuition that artificial intelligence can be created by modeling the brain, fuzzy logic neural nets working a process of computation not akin to formal deduction. Not stopping there, the social sciences will cry out for among others the inclusion of perspectives of epistemology (Foucault), Chomskian linguistics, and notions of refiguring the body that reject the subjugation of the body to a tool, or machine, at the disposal of consciousness.

Phew! While probing these philosophical avenues can be immensely rewarding they require a certain dedication of subject, an immersion into artificial intelligence as a field of study. This can be thought of more broadly as the study of the science of intelligence that has been a fascination of philosophers from Plato to Hobbes and Leibniz. But this daunting topic is actually accessible to anyone with a healthy curiosity about what makes us human.

The central question is whether mind and intelligence can be defined through a functionalist approach regarding mental processes as discreetly specifiable procedures and mental states as defined by their causal relations with sensory input, motor behavior and other mental states. In other words are our minds nothing more than sophisticated computers that can be simulated in machines? Can machines understand and have cognitive states because such understanding is actually a functional mental process that can be theoretically simulated.

Let's look at a couple of recent examples that have gained some notoriety. Perhaps the most famous example of man vs machine is the 1997 chess match between high-performance computer Deep Blue and reigning World Chess Champion Garry Kasparov. With a dramatic victory in Game 6 Deep Blue took the match 3.5-2.5 and afterwards Kasparov was quoted as saying the machine had "played like God" while its inventors at IBM downplayed there machine capabilities as being stunning at solving chess problems but "less intelligent than even the stupidest human".

So while they took completely different approaches to the game -- Kasparov evaluating two or three positions per second, Deep Blue looking at 200 million per second -- the matches were extremely competitive. And it raises the question of whether Deep Blue actually understands chess. While it primarily uses brute force to evaluate moves it has also been programmed with about 6,000 co-efficients (if-then statements like if your king is in check then protect it) as a kind of grandmaster rule book it is likely that Deep Blue could pass a Chess Turing Test by combining programmable rules with brute force computing.

In asking the question "Can Machines Think?" Alan Turing (Nazi codebreaker, creator of Turing Machines, et al) created an "imitation game" where an interrogator is connected to one person and one machine via a terminal with a soundproof wall in between so both counterparts cannot be seen. The task is to find out which is the machine and which is the human, only by asking questions to each. If the machine can fool the interrogator (the interrogator cannot accurately tell the difference), according to Turing it is intelligent. This test remains relevant in studies of artificial intelligence and The Loebner Prize is an ongoing formal instantiation of the Turing Test (TT) that promises a Gold Medal to any machine that 'passes' the test. None have come close so far but each year the respondents score higher and higher. And we can see by the previous example that as Kasparov felt he was playing God it is unlikely he would have been able to distinguish Deep Blue from a human opponent and thus the machine exhibited chess intelligence, indistinguishable from human chess intelligence.

And if you are just thinking to yourself, "yes, while that is chess, particularly suited to that kind of simulation", researchers in South Korea are working as this is written on robots that address the "essence" of man and have developed a series of artificial chromosomes that will allow robots to feel lusty, and could eventually lead to them reproducing out of a feeling of desire. The italics in the previous sentences are mine because the reality is that these robots are also just working out a combinations of rules and brute force in establishing emotions and feelings through computer code.

In Minds, Brains and Programs, a seminal essay in the field of artificial intelligence, John Searle discarded the Turing Test as a reliable method of assessing intelligence or cognitive understanding by creating an ingenious thought experiment, his Chinese Room analogy, in which an English speaker, knowing no Chinese, blindly follows a set of rules to always give the right answer in Chinese to questions posed in that language. Searle argues that the English speaker can clearly be shown not to understand Chinese even though an outside observer would not be able to differentiate between his responses and those of a fluent Chinese speaker. Hence the Chinese Room argument suggests that just passing a Turing Test does not show understanding and is thus not a good evaluator for artificial intelligence (technically Strong AI).

Few in the discussion of artificial intelligence will deny that it is likely that we will be able to create machines that can pass the Turing Test or even the Total Turing Test (TTT includes sight and thus includes robotics ... imagine the same experiment as the one described in the TT but this time remove the soundproof wall and also allow the interrogator to ask the subjects to physically act out as rerquested, playing golf for example and speaking about it afterwards).

So this extends the debate further into what additional (if any) qualities are part of the human mind. The most typically cited qualities are subjective rather than objective qualities, like free will and sentience as well as 'qualia' like the sound of Beethoven, the sound of waves crashing on a beach (those simulators never quite reproduce it), or the smell of home cooking. So while a machine might smell home cooking and identify it as home cooking, does it really understand what that means?

It is a debate that it unlikely to be resolved conclusively anytime soon. But it is of interest to all of us humans to recognize that as technology, robotics and computing advances so too will opportunities for artificial intelligence. Decide for yourself if there is to be any difference between man and machines and if so how will you tell the difference?

For those interested in further readings or information on more detailed concepts of artificial intelligence email me at blog at chrisbrauer.com. In the meantime the following represents a good starting point for anyone interested in introductory reading on the topic:

The Emperor's New Mind - Roger Penrose
The Philosophy of Artificial Intelligence - Ed. Margaret Boden (including Searle and Turing)
Views into the Chinese Room - Ed. John Preston and Mark Bishop

Labels: computing, science

In the style of the new journalists who were new when Tom Wolfe was new. Also in the style of the new new journalists.

Shibuya maybe. But there are few places in the world where you can hear the humming throb of humanity like Leicester Square on a dry Saturday night. Too often cheated by the cheesy bars and chain stores that bob and weave in the corners, this square is not defined by what lies within, but in the possibilities without.

Venture beyond its perimeter and be rewarded with the scent of New Labour Britain. London in the 21st century. One of the world's great cities exposed with delight. Overexposures alive. Listen in for a moment as a couple navigates through the puddly winding streets.

Two girls in their early twenties skip by hand-in-hand, flush with early evening fever: "Did you know skipping was the most efficient ways to get around," one asks the other with a laugh.

An asian couple in polo shirts and khaki pants hold each other's hands tight as they head down one of the steamier alleys where the hint of suggestion hangs in the air and behind shaded glass. Hold each other tight like they are getting ready for lift-off.

The Blues Bar behind Liberty's isn't a secret any more if it ever was one. People line-up almost every night. Two men in line are trying to describe London. Describe the now.

"It's more like the 'after-just-now' that we need to see. See it's like it's all this postmodern space."
"How do you mean," says the Irishman.
"You know like the structure of the language of the streets. Every perspective different. No truths. Just post-time."
The Irishman looked at him strangely.
"You know like those bricks you work with," he continued. "The bricks disappear. There is no bricks as such. The brick isn't real. It's like that here. See all the different truths?"
The Irishman looked at his friend intently for a moment.
He says with a smile: "Till the fucking big brick comes around the back and cracks you in the head. You sure know it's real with a fucking big bruise on your head," he says with a whince, smiling and rubbing the back of his neck. The bouncer waves them into the not-so-secret Blues Bar.

A man turns the corner out of the tube, leading his friends by about 10 steps. "Zooooooo Bar!" he exclaims with obvious relief, hands aloft, awaiting a tower of hands. The hands arrive, relief all around for this crew of five. "Finally," several say with a smile. It's like a feeling that natural laws are somehow enhanced in London limits. Gravity. Thermodynamic entropy. Light. Time. Space. All working in a kind of metaphysical symphony, like a gust of wind on a ski hill knocking a man over as he tries to put on his gloves. Sometimes just making to your destination in London seems enough, like the night is already a success.

"Success!" That what I'm after, the woman says from the doorway of a peep show cabaret. "I feel like the world don't owe you nothin' 'cept a chance to be here. I'll take it from there."
The man in the street stands bleary eyed nodding his head. "The Golden Path" by the Chemical Brothers leaks out of the club. "I've got some hydrochloric ..." and the rest is drowned out by the swirling wind cutting across from Noho, the new territories north of Oxford Street.

Labels: london