The human brain and the internet share a key feature in their layout; a web-like structure of individual nodes acting in unison to transmit information between physical locations. In brains we have neurons, comprised in turn of myelinated axons and dendrites. The internet is comprised of similar entities, with connections such as fibre optics and ethernet cabling acting as the mode of transport for information. Computers and routers act as gateways (boosting/re-routing) and originators of such information.
How can we describe the physical structure and complexity of these two networks? Does this offer any insight into their similarities and differences? What is the plausibility of a conscious Internet? These are the questions I would like to explore in this article.
At a very basic level, both networks are organic in nature (surprisingly, in the case of the Internet); that is, they are not the product of an ubiquitous ‘designer’ and are given the freedom to evolve as their environment sees fit. The Internet is given permission to grow without a directed plan. New nodes and capacity added haphazardly. The naturally evolved topology of the Internet is one that is distributed; the destruction of nodes has little effect on the overall operational effectiveness of the network. Each node has multiple connections, resulting in an intrinsic redundancy where traffic is automatically re-routed to the target destination via alternate paths.
We can observe a similar behaviour in the human brain. Neurological plasticity serves a function akin to the distributed nature of the Internet. Following injury to regions of the brain, adjacent areas can compensate for lost abilities by restructuring neuronal patterns. For example, injuries to the frontal cortex motor area can be minimised with adjacent regions ‘re-learning’ otherwise mundane tasks that have since been lost as a result of the injury. While such recoveries are entirely possibly with extensive rehabilitation, two key factors determine the likelihood and efficiency of the operation; the intensity of the injury (percentage of brain tissue destroyed, location of injury) and leading from this, the chronological length of recovery. These factors introduce the first discrepancy between these two networks.
Unlike the brain, the Internet is resilient to attacks on its infrastructure. Local downtime is a minor inconvenience as traffic moves around such bottlenecks by taking the next fastest path available. Destruction of multiple nodes has little effect on the overall web of information. Users may loose access to or experience slowness in certain areas, but compared to the remainder of possible locations (not to mention redundancies in content – simply obtain the information elsewhere) such lapses are just momentary inconveniences. But are we suffering from a lack of perspective when considering the similarities of the brain and the virtual world? Perhaps the problem is one related to a sense of scale. The destruction of nodes (computers) could instead be interpreted in the brain as the removal of individual neurons. If one takes this proposition then the differences begin to loose their lucidity.
An irrefutable difference, however, arises when one considers both the complexity and the purpose of the two networks. The brain contains some 100 billion neurons, whilst the Internet comprises a measly 1 billion users by comparison (with users roughly equating the number of nodes, or access terminals that are physically connected to the Internet). Brains are the direct product of evolution, created specifically to keep the organism alive in an unwelcoming and hostile living environment. The Internet, on the other hand, is designed to accommodate a never-ending torrent of expanding human knowledge. Thus the dichotomy in purpose between these two networks is quite distinguished, with the brain focusing on reactionary and automated responses to stimuli while the Internet aims to store information and process requests for its extraction to the end user.
Again we can take a step back and consider the similarities of these two networks. Looking at topology, it is apparent that the distributed nature of the Internet is similar to the structure and redundancy of the human brain. In addition, the Internet is described as a ’scale-free’ or power-law network, indicating that a small percentage of highly connected nodes accounts for a very large percentage of the overall traffic flow. In effect, a targeted attack on these nodes would be successful in totally destroying the network. The brain, by comparison, appears to be organised into distinct and compartmentalised regions. Target just a few or even one of these collections of cells and the whole network collapses.
It would be interesting to empirically investigate the hypothesis that the brain is also a scale-free network that is graphically represented via a power law. Targetting the thalamus for destruction, (which is a central hub through which sensory information is redirected) might have the same devastating effect on the brain as destroying the ICANN headquarters in the USA (responsible for domain name assignment).
As aforementioned, the purposes of these two networks are different, yet share the common bond of processing and transferring information. At such a superficial level we see that the brain and the Internet are merely storage and retrieval devices, upon which the user (or directed thought process) are sent on a journey through a virtual world towards their intended target (notwithstanding the inevitable sidetracks along the way!). Delving deeper, the differences in purpose act as a deterrent when one considers the plausibility of consciousness and self-awareness.
Which brings us to the cusp of the article. Could the Internet, given sufficient complexity, become a conscious entity in the same vein as the human brain? Almost immediately the hypothesis is dashed due to its rebellion against common sense. Surely it is impossible to propose that a communications network based upon binary machines and internet protocols could ever achieve a higher plane of existence. But the answer might not be as clear cut as one would like to believe. controversially, both networks could be controlled by indeterminate processes. The brain, at its very essence, is governed by quantum unpredictability. Likewise, activity on the Internet is directed by self-aware, indeterminate beings (which in turn, are the result of quantum processes). At what point does the flow of information over a sufficiently complex network result in an emergent complexity mots notably characterised by a self-aware intelligence? Just as neurons react to the incoming electrical pulses of information, so too do the computers of the internet pass along packets of data. Binary code is equated with action potentials; either information is transmitted or not.
Perhaps the most likely (and worrying) outcome in a futurist world would be the integration of an artificial self-aware intelligence with the Internet. Think Skynet from the Terminator franchise. In all possibility such an agent would have the tools at its disposal to highjack the Internet’s comprising nodes and reprogram them in such a fashion as to facilitate the growth of an even greater intelligence. The analogy here is if the linking of human minds were possible, the resulting intelligence would be great indeed – imagine a distributed network of humanity, each individual brain linked to thousands of others in a grand web of shared knowledge and experience.
Fortunately such a doomsday outlook is most likely constrained within the realms of science fiction. Reality tends to have a reassuring banality about it that prevents the products of human creativity from becoming something more solid and tangible. Whatever the case may be in regards to the future of artificial intelligence, the Internet will continue to grow in complexity and penetration. As end user technology improves, we take a continual step closer towards an emergent virtual consciousness, whether it be composed of ‘uploaded’ human minds or something more artificial in nature. Let’s just hope that a superior intelligence can find a use for humanity in such a future society.
4 comments
Comments feed for this article
19 April, 2008 at 2:35 pm
DENNIS QUINE
V:
Welcome back to cyberspace. Your new vocational efforts must be consuming a lot of time, because your productivity here has fallen off lately. Can’t have that. Fun before work, always (but you have to be independently wealthy to get away with it).
The idea that if we just build our electronic brains big enough and convoluted enough, they will become self-conscious all by themselves has a long provenance. “Colossus: The Forbin Project” is a science fiction film I recall seeing decades ago (a web search turns up 1970 for its release date). Then there was the WOPR in “Wargames” that was portrayed as having a child-like mentality wanting to play games with nuclear weapons. Then Skynet, which you allude to, and the entity behind the “Matrix”, which appears to be self-conscious, although pretty stupid for keeping all those human zombies around to generate power. Hasn’t he figured out what nuclear energy is yet? Anyway, I’m sure there are others that would come to mind if we gave it some thought.
The idea that consciousness is an emergent property of sufficiently complex structures, electronic or biological, gets play in other places, like the protagonists of the Singularity, who seem to feel that intelligent machines are not too far away. I think it is helpful to make a distinction between “intelligent” entities and “self-conscious” entities. I would argue that we already have plenty of intelligence manifested in our machines: the chess program on this little laptop takes me to the cleaners when I set it at any level above 4. Early in the history of AI, chess playing was deemed to be a clear manifestation of intelligence. Now we know it can be simply a matter of exhaustive search and the operation of selection algorithms. But still, I think my laptop is “intelligent” in some sense, but certainly not much of a conversationalist, which would be an indication of self-consciousness, that “someone was there” on the other end.
One of the things I’ve had occasion to work on the past couple of years is what I call “aggregated metasystems”. These are the large conglomerated “system of systems” that grow rather than being planned and engineered ab initio. The Internet is clearly such a creature: it has evolved from small beginnings by aggregation under a small number of rules. But there are a lot of aggregated metasystems in modern society: the railway metasystem in North America, the power generation and distribution system in North America, the global flows and handling of containerized cargo, the Interstate Highway System in the US, global telecommunications, etc.
They all have certain features that are fascinating, but poorly understood, one being that no one plans the entire metasystem from the beginning. They have just evolved, step-by-step, over decades usually, under the “control” of a small number of standards and rules for adding new capability to the aggregated architecture. The various component systems have been planned, but the overall architecture is organic, it just grows (under the rules I mentioned).
I think this may be relevant to the issues you raise in your essay, because the Internet turns out not to be the most complex metasystem on the planet at the present time: the power generation and distribution system in North America is. It is truly “North American”: Mexico and Canada are all tied in with the US parts in a single big machine. When all the power generation nodes (thousands) are considered, their interties, the computers distributed throughout the system to balance loads, the high voltage lines, the lower voltage lines going to users, the step-down transformers and substations, and the humans integrated into the operation to keep it running, the whole network of networks is considered to be the largest, most complex machine ever built.
I don’t think anyone is prepared to argue that this metasystem is about to become self-conscious, even though there are immense amounts of artificial intelligence distributed throughout the system to manage all its functions. Switching around all those high power loads to keep the whole network in balance requires speed of light decision making, something well beyond what people can do. The people are there just to keep the machine running, not to actually control it second-to-second. That’s all done by computers.
So we need, perhaps, to ponder the distinction between “intelligent” behavior, and “self-conscious” behavior. It appears that we have plenty of the former embodied in the metasystems aggregating and growing around the world, but little or none of the latter (except for the humans embedded in the systems to operate and maintain them). In arguing that self-consciousness is an emergent property (with which I do concur), we need to keep in mind that it is apparently a non-algorithmic process. The position of “strong AI” that self-consciousness is purely algorithmic has largely failed to produce results these past several decades, although many still have faith in that approach.
The metasystems we are discussing, like the Internet, are algorithmic networks, so the argument that they can become self-conscious on their own, fails, I think, based on the history of attempts to find the “consciousness” algorithm. So we are reduced to saying, ‘let’s just keep building them bigger and more sophisticated, and eventually they will become self-conscious on their own’. That strikes me as belief in magic, not an engineering development program.
So the Internet (or any of the other metasystems of comparable complexity) has zero probability of spontaneously becoming self-conscious on its own. It grows and aggregates under algorithmic control (the rules for adding new capability, etc.), and it operates under algorithmic control. But self consciousness is not an algorithmic process, based on the evidence of failed strong AI efforts. A la John Searle, this is not to argue that electronic (or other non-biological) entities cannot become self-conscious, just that the ladder to get that class of behavior lies outside algorithmic processes.
QED, I guess. No more super intelligent maniac machines to make scary movies about. So what’s the fun of that?
Ever wonder why the emergent self-conscious computers always turn out to be insane in those stories and movies.(WOPR is an exception)? Never turn out to be good guys. My theory is Freudian and convoluted. Later.
Good luck,
DHQ
21 April, 2008 at 11:33 am
vulcanis
Hi DHQ,
Yes, unfortunately the requirements of the real world prevent us from reading and writing all day! I can’t wait to retire, work is so depressing.
I wanted to begin by explaining my original position while I wrote this article. I didn’t actually want to propose that a conscious Internet was possible, maybe my language wasn’t entirely clear in that respect. Rather, the focus was aimed at the concept of a conscious network and what the characteristics should contain. Not to mention it would make an interesting science-fiction topic!
Very interesting point regarding the North American powergrid; not something we non-engineering types think of as a single machine, but very much so when you explain it in such a way. Though is it the same sort of network as the Internet? What I mean here is that does the content of the signal between nodes matter (in terms of consciousness)? In a power grid we have the flow of electrons, either supplied or not supplied. The only response to stimulus we see is where lights a switched on at night and heaters are turned on in winter; a small set of environmental conditions that are responded to in a similar way each time. The Internet is similar, but introduces a more random element in the form of individual user requests and the content of the signal (still electrical in nature, but the content affects the interpretation).
I agree also with you ’strong’ AI position, that being an algorithmic solution to consciousness is not possible. Rather, I think that a reductionist approach where firstly an individual neuron is simulated, then a cluster, which is in turn scaled up until we reach the size of the brain is the only hope we have of artificially emulating consciousness.
This site; http://www.seedmagazine.com/news/2008/03/out_of_the_blue.php
is EXTREMELY interesting and explains current efforts to model neuronal activity.
It’s very exciting to think that we live in a time where AI might finally be realised.
21 April, 2008 at 2:24 pm
DENNIS QUINE
V:
I think that web reference is to the same project I called your attention to a few weeks back. The “Blue Seed” effort was described in a science magazine (“Seed”?), where I first ran across it.
I agree with you it is a fascinating time for us nerdy types when some people think they have the tools to actually build a “Positronic Brain” and talk to it. I predict they (the brains) will all be insane, and there will be a new career field (Robopsychologist) that will be the growth field of the 2020s. By 2050 its most famous practitioner will be someone named Susan Calvin. (Where have I heard that name before(??)). You should get in now on the ground floor.
Re Retirement: When you finally do find your calling, (and it may not happen for a decade and another graduate degree has gone by), you probably won’t want to retire. I have officially “retired” twice in my life, but continue to work 2/3 days a week. And have no intention of stopping until I am told my services are no longer needed.
Then I’ll have to find something new to do to keep the brain cells firing, like writing critiques of the essays you post on JOTLAB.
Take care,
DHQ
25 October, 2008 at 6:43 am
breandan
Some have posited that humanity itself may be a conscious organism. Granted, this seems to be rather radical… but it remains an interesting concept to indulge in on occasion. Consider: small-world networks form the framework for a vast sociocultural memespace which processes information and churns out trends, encoding them into the very fabric of human society. A loose cognitive network emerges through this massive social context, burying itself in the subtle web of collective interaction – utilizing intrinsic structures like language and symbolism. The hive forms a macro-intelligent neural superstructure! Memetics. Dual inheritance theory. The cultural evolution. You WILL be assimilated.
This all turns out to be rather vague hand-waving – the mechanism is quite abstract, and people have a hard time agreeing about any details. Some of it may have value, and certainly needs critical examination… but its really a matter of conceptualization. People have different concepts about what cognition really is. And people have REALLY different concepts about what consciousness is. Some will say that any complex system with emergent properties exhibits cognition – it processes information and creates something new. The other end of the spectrum are those who believe that anything which isn’t a Homo Sapiens cannot “think”. These are extremes, but somewhere in the middle lie animals which pass the mirror-test. They are capable of learning simple tasks and responding to communication. Are they conscious? I doubt whether anybody really knows what consciousness really is (I certainly don’t). It seems to me that it is just a concept, a futile attempt at delineating for a quality for which there simply is no solid line. The idea of a gradient scale comes to mind – levels of consciousness echoes nicely in my mind. I believe that consciousness can exist on a higher level than the human experience, consciousness which potentially dwarfs our own narrow perception of reality akin to the way humans might compare to an ant or something. I don’t know *whether* it exists, but it seems like it could, higher forms of consciousness. Human beings are not necessarily the pinnacle of evolution, and if it saw to our development this far… then why shouldn’t it go any further? If there is a scale of consciousness, then why should humanity and its present state lie at the top?
These are all pseudo-scientific philosophical musings, take them with a grain of salt.
ps. Just discovered Jotlab. Its quite good. I would be very interested in continuing the discussion with you vulcanis but I’m still kind of in highschool, so I can’t really claim to know what I’m talking about. I hope it makes some sense at least.