I’ve recently had an interesing discussion about cualitative properties of things. We discussed whether Haiku, those 3-verse minimalist Japanese poems have “something special” or that “special scent” is actually a product of our mind and how we experience the reading of a Haiku.

Qualia are a term used to describe the subjective quality of conscious experience: for example, the reddish color of a rose, or the blue one in the sky. One thing is the word blue and another one is the “sensation of blue” we experiment internally in our mind. Even more, recent neuroscience experiments tend to confirm different people have really different sensations when perceiving the same phenomena. So when both you and me are seeing at the “blue” in the sky, we could be experiencing different “blues” in our minds. Even more, in the extreme case, it may happen that my favorite color was “blue” and yours “red”, but inside our minds we were experiencing the same “color” sensation (and calling the same sensation by different names).

This also applies to every sensation or experience: Is sugar “sweet” or are we who perceive them as such and “make it” sweet? The question about whether qualities are on things or in our minds is not a trivial one; it’s a philosophical debate still unsolved. At the end of past century (oops! :S) I read a book on artificial intelligence which also treated this topic:

Phenol-thio-urea is a substance that tastes intensely bitter to about 75 percent of people and is more or less tasteless to the rest. Is phenol-thio-urea bitter? This is an awkward question for someone who naively believes that a statement like ‘Sugar is sweet’ says something about sugar itself as opposed to the effect that sugar has on us. There is worse to come, though. A person’s response to phenol-thio-urea is genetically determined. This means that if those who find it bitter are – let’s imagine – prevented from having offspring, the substance will become tasteless to one and all after the passage of maybe a dozen generations (like blue eyes could be extinguished if people with blue eyes each generation were prevented from reproducing). Thus, the phenol-thio-urea would be a substance which changes from tasting bitter to most people to be a universally tasteless substance, all this without any change in the chemical or physical properties of the phenol-thio-urea.

Jack Copeland – Artificial Intelligence: a philosophical introduction, Ed. Wiley-Blackwell

So, in other words, there are two opposing schools of thought:

1. A red flower, is “not really red”. It simply reflects a wavelength and we “see it red” (or gray-reddish if you happen to be daltonic). If you think that way, you or point of view is such of a physicalist: things are the way they are, and we have a subjective experience when observing them. That’s all.
2. When we see a red flower, that flower “is really red”. The red color comes from a wavelength, but this is something external to our mind that it is on the plant and is part of its physical properties. In this case you are on the school of anti-physicalist, also called dualist.

Considering the above, I think I’m “mostly physicalist”, buy with some objections, since it might happen that some qualia have both mental and physical properties. This philosophical question is far from trivial, as it leads to deeper ones: Do two people have the same internal experience when observing the same phenomena? (reasearch seems to point “no, we don’t”) Will “intelligent machines” in the future have “qualia” experiences?

So what, Do haiku have some special quality (quale) by themselves? Or are they just ink drops on paper (or pixels in your computer screen) and the sensation we have when reading them exist just in our mind? (You can apply question this to every human art, word or creation). Again, this is not a trivial question, because even from the point of view of semiotic and linguistic, a haiku will be more than “ink drops” or “pixels”.

And finally, a Haiku by Yosa Buson (C. XVIII):

autumn rain;
walking in water
on grass

Of all the videos put in the PlayStation Store web, the most attracting to me was the trailer of EyePet.

Eyepet, is, of course, a virtual pet. It only exists within your TV and your PS3. You can touch it (her?), stroke it, change its look, hairdress, etc. or just create some toy for it (by drawing it on a card) and see how she plays with it.

In a previous post about the singularity, I wrote that one of the signs of the coming of singularity is the mix of real and virtual things, like this example.

In short, EyePet es a very interesting experiment of augmented reality (I’ll write about some day). I suggest you to watch the video.

One of its prophets is Ray Kurzweil, inventor of Kurzweil sound synthetizers among other things.

Metaverses, Virtual HyperRealities, Nanomachines integrated within our minds, expanding and connecting it, making mental backups, etc. are just some of the Kurzweil’s predictions, who also warns the skepticals: The Singularity is called that way because, beyond some point (which could have already happened), technology evolves in an exponential way, which contradicts our intuition which works in a lineal fashion. As an example, if after 5 years we could make 10 times faster computers, after 10 years we could create 100 times faster (not just 20 times faster) ones. This makes Singularity something chaotic and unpredictable.

If you are interested in this topic, have a look on this video:

Why don’t we use Markov’s chains to implement several learning parts of an AI software? I’ve always thought human-machine interaction (a relatively new field which offers big promises) can borrow much of Markov’s ideas for its application.

When we learn our mother tongue, in some way, or neurons learn to expect that after a words sequence only a reduced sets of words can follow. And, in some manner, this is what I’m going o do next.

I prepared Anthea (someday I will introduce it to you) so she learn and replicate Peppys, and order her to read this post. Anthea obeyed and read the page. Later, after a while analyzing it (like someone who assimilates new ideas and concepts), she printed on the screen:

ORDER: 1

li.suoaohsol ctose hron gh dl eosdnmsmiipa ws thihaslswteee so ctiglmseltss.down der as bjeo,pcoit nics itwir ,endmaete.rr adegd tlar wnlm. pei?hs net hyidlondnun tmnihteiidtynrk,wo rdht gid s ah h oseed yravi hi castrl na em i unbiho ocotnne m m gneibdt,oa oi otrl ae d waheelsswntd ed eurch l a yon iol o eeegaieheio ttdbnan t aa gnrhin t rt r-honen,n f cieao bt o1hnt,o v, edwy,shapatsa t ?,oi,aard s dtate 1iraa y ki a ths ykmo o tddom ewa a hyc thenn?hit sesei,lddnw,g b e ewi:rn nwysny fa dea glit n o i ei tl lttrr aaa

They were only unconnected letters. Meaningless symbols emerging of a sea of white noise, waiting to be combined and associated with others, to mean something.

But Anthea kept on learning…
ORDER: 3

sin the ithaved so sate, whips togenesir difes our wich so. prommorde, sin he cand alle so be; ablef this de the th eas onve is my wast my to. hip to hountrouble he to day, by lord, accome henewice cand amove the king pontly, whouble it at be an thice, alk tich i froungin the com it th, betoon to to to how much meme how tow tall the ithe he other the ans hey ding mesir to sir card anow me ladmiralkingdo ge thim siral, a goothe hound sir as ithe i sir hand an to care accome and upost hound of an, but my fir goes’s which thich in trom it we hat th encell my pre

Now Anthea resembles a baby mumbling his/her first phonemes. I dare to say even 1 or 2 years old kids have a similar speech. And Anthea kept learning…

ORDER: 5

Up, and this day, as troubled, a very did speak to bedding to; but I by water some we part with his day, it sending the prince, being to; but the hall keepe him, and resolves to ther, which he was quite command I observed above, and come, as he, but wherein harman. we taken of it; but they sandwich, in cromwell’s bedding to; but I did spent. teddiman; vice-admirals and and I in the reports so, and to settle he was this day take of the way talk of the fleete, first, his de without her remedy the being come towne.

For a moment it seemed she was drunk. She was able to create large words, but the syntax and grammar were much incoherent still. Maybe I should wait a little longer for the learning process to complete.

Discouraged, I exit my laboratory, but like in a B sci-fi movie, I forgot to turn the computer off. When I came back, this is what I found:
ORDER: 10

Up, and sat at the office, where a good dinner at the cost of one Mr. Osbaston, who lost a wager to sir W. Barkeley, and Sir R. Ford, a good while since and now it is spent. The wager was that ten of our ships should not have a fight with ten of the fight in the night fell among the chief of the fleete to be ordered in the relation of the enemy’s before michaelmas. Here was other very good company, and merry, and at last in come Mr. Buckeworth, a very fine gentleman, and professed great resolution of friendship with him and reconciliation, and resolves to make it good as well as he can, to go forth), and no notice taken of my lord sandwich’s business of the lotterys,…

Well, it’s not SkyNet (yet), but…

I entered Stealth, because it seemed the less bad and I always loved everything related to Artificial Intelligence.

I have to say it surprised me a little, despite of being the typical action movie and a little predictable:

In a near future, stealth fighter jets are really high-technological (and expensive) weapons. An elite division formed by three pilots (2 guys and a girl), suddenly have to fly with a new member: A fighter jet with Artificial Intelligence that it’s capable of pilot itself. During a mission, a lightning hit the jet and its behaviour becomes unpredictable and potentially dangerous.

Spoiler ▼

The movie script is certainly simple, but, on the other hand, it’s action-packed to avoid the public getting bored. The takes from the jet cabin, the electronic gadgets and all the stuff sorrounding them makes the movie entertaining.
Spoiler!!!… ▼

Anyway, nice movie, but just that.