As earlier noted, the health care crisis is a complex, troubling riddle, but a solution is at hand. It is this: Follow the science for solutions, wherever that leads. This sounds simple and many would indicate that it is not. The interface between science and politics alone brings grounds for confusion and negotiation. There are those that would indicate that to commit resources and efforts to viable solutions, we must adapt to complexities and preferences at every turn.
The problem is, nature is not sitting around the negotiation table. What passes for compromise and negotiation often ends up in wholesale slaughter of the underlying science. Let me use a recent example, that of the use of the Prostate-Specific Antigen, the longstanding test for prostate cancer. This test is commonly referred to as the PSA test. Otis Brawley in his 2011 book, "How We Do Harm", outlines parameters of the issue from a politically-powerful position, that of the medical community, including many venerable institutions and much of government itself. Issues with regard to PSA and prostate cancer policy are as found in the Brawley book unless indicated otherwise.
I will use this situation as an example of what happens when we do not follow the science in question, with notes as to how I believe the issue of pancreatic cancer might otherwise be handled.
PSA has been used for decade as the gold standard for identifying whether a man has prostate cancer. Much work has been done in this period to learn of the effectiveness of the test. Last Fall, the official recommendation to use the test in the United States for prostate cancer screening was rescinded. The test, it was declared, has the potential to be dangerous. The initial reaction of one health professional, when he heard of the announcement was, "how can a blood test be dangerous?" Herein is the story.
The problem is that the PSA test has been found to be imperfect in that it can be used to identify a prostate cancer, but it is a poor measure of whether the person has the kind of prostate cancer that will kill. Technically, PSA will point to a "malignancy", but it will not provide information on whether the cancer is "indolent" or not. Indolent prostate cancer, as it is explained, will not kill a person. It will not spread to other organs in the body.
The question of danger is raised in an unexpected way. With information provided by the PSA test alone, doctors would be inclined to carry out cancer therapy. They would not know simply from the PSA score if the pancreas in question had an indolent tumor or not. Based on the PSA information, hey would go ahead with cancer therapies, which of themselves are highly damaging to the body if not dangerous in their own right. Related actions would involve surgical procedures, chemotherapy, radiation, administration of other cancer drugs, etc. Since such procedures may make the cancer worse and may bring other unintended consequences, and since the sue of such would have been triggered by the test, the test itself is now labeled as being dangerous. After extensive review of the issue at this level, the official suggestion was recently made to not use the test. It does not seem to have been disallowed.
A cursory review of research articles on PubMed, the comprehensive government-sponsored biological and medical research database, shows over 2,800 publications under "pancreatic cancer tests". Not mentioned in the Brawley book, these articles make reference to many such tests. Perhaps, the PSA's use could be supplemented by them. By the same token, they could conceivably be used to replace that test, given its documented incompleteness.
The point here is clear, though not outlined in Brawley. Chronic diseases do not appear out of nowhere. They may surprise individuals and clinicians when they present themselves -- this is often the case. There is little effort to catch chronic diseases in their early stages. Brawley, for example, mentions that prostate cancer is particularly problematic because the prostate gland is located in the center of the body and is difficult to see. This is central to the point; diagnosis is still carried out at a very visual, tactile level. It would be tempting to compare such diagnosis to auto mechanics if it weren't for the fact that that field converted to digital, data-driven evaluation decades ago. What is needed in this and other cases is data, data, and more data, along with the best available interpretive support, ideally from the people most knowledgeable about the subjects at hand.
Cancers and other chronic diseases do not surprise the body. In every case, the body will have created such disorders. Stimulated by natural processes gone awry, life-giving processes express themselves slightly akimbo, perhaps resulting in genetic abnormalities, maybe resulting in incomplete or unresponsive proteins within the system. Understanding functions of inflammatory and immune systems point to underlying conditions that foment chronic disorders. Cancer is the result of runaway cell growth and associated malfunctions with regard to cellular respiration, the means by which the body generates energy and controls growth at the most basis levels. Contrary to popular belief, chronic diseases, including cancers, are based in lifestyle and environmental malfunctions. Toxins are a big factor here.
Brawley mentions one more factor that calls attention to a wide gap between our treatment of pancreatic cancer challenges and their resolution. He mentions in one section of the book that prevailing definitions of prostate cancer date to the work of pathologists in Germany in the 1840s. He mentions this as a "problem", and adds his opinion that "we need a 2012 genetic definition of prostate cancer" (237-238). Well, yes, and we need to give updated tests a chance. There is obviously a "kink in the hose" with regard to knowledge of the pancreas and related disorders. This is the problem we call attention to. When knowledge is available, it should be evaluated by qualified, committed parties, and it should be used.
This is where the reference to Blacksmith Fork River comes in. As we are broadcasting this message from Northern Utah, in the American West, we look to our own heritage. I have called attention to the work and life of Marriner Eccles in particular. Once he picked up where his father had left off with his untimely death about a century ago, Marriner organized a series of successes there were momentous and unexpected. Yesterday, I created a YouTube presentation of just under an hour where I describe Marriner's career and some of his gifts to us, his beneficiaries. You may want to review that when you have the time.
The point I wish to make now relates to two events in Marriner Eccles' life that demonstrate his dedication to solutions where distractions may otherwise exist. As he began his career, recently having returned from a foreign religious mission, he was working on a family-related business, a hydroelectric project on the Blacksmith Fork River. This is what most would declare is a large stream in an equally small canyon in Northern Utah, near a community named Hyrum. While there at work, he got word of his father's unexpected and untimely death. This sets a serious of events into motion that were both challenging and emotionally taxing. The net result was that Marriner was able to apply his talents and efforts toward the continuation of the family enterprises as outlined to some degree in the video presentation.
About twenty years later, Marriner got another call. This time, he was asked by the Roosevelt Administration to forgo his business interests for the time being to go to Washington, DC, to help the American government to deal with the ravages of the Great Depression. He had offered up suggestions as to how the economy might be put on track -- resulting in about two decades of public service in which he oversaw works projects funding and related administration. Basically, he was a principal in establishing Keynesian economics before Keynes publish his version of the idea. Also, he was a very powerful and influential Chairman of the Federal Reserve System.
The point here, however, relates to what Marriner was doing when he got the call to go to Washington. As it turns out, he was managing the epic project to build the Hoover Dam in Black Canyon on the Nevada-Arizona border. His position was as Chairman of the Six Companies that was building the dam, which ultimately was constructed with two years to spare on the contract.
How did Marriner go from little Blacksmith Fork Canyon to Hoover Dam? Without reciting the detailed history, we can see that the path was a straightforward one. As water runs downstream, Marriner's knowledge of such matters grew over time to a mastery of impressive aspects of hydrology, engineering, construction, finance, and administration. Locals may note that the Blacksmith Fork feeds the Bear River, then the Great Salt Lake, not the Colorado, which winds to the Pacific Ocean. Apart from this technicality, we can see an abiding commitment to the realities of nature that led downstream from one canyon to the other.
This is how nature works. It works in streams, in tree-like patterns. Although there is an element of randomness in individual cases, nature follows patterns generally. It is in the understanding of these patterns, how they relate to one another, what causes elements to follow one path if not another, that we can learn to work with nature. The point of science and related policy is that we need to adapt to it fundamentally, not the other way around. As mentioned earlier, nature does not present itself to the negotiation table.
In our modern world, we spend blissful evenings watching our favorite television shows in high definition while listening to endless recitations of side effects from various pharmaceutical preparations. Interestingly, such lists often begin with terms like "death" and "strokes" and "seizures", recited with blazing speed. Is this the future that was intended for our day? Is this a future that is necessary at all? We cannot chop, slice, and dice away at nature without unintended consequences.
Side effects of pharmaceutical products reflect one aspect of the problem. We have a disjointed approach to the science of health. Dealing with incomplete understanding of or respect for natural flows within the body and in our environment, we end up with shortsighted, stilted results. Although nature itself does not, cannot sit around the negotiation table, it must be the elephant in the room. We need to use methods and tools that call attention to important natural connections. We need to commit to chains of thought that reflect scientific realities and commit to follow them wherever they lead. When we try to turn nature on its head, to impose our will, or simply decide to forget, natural phenomena are still there, ready to "whack us on the head".
Tuesday, April 16, 2013
Monday, April 15, 2013
Following the requirements of nature, wherever they lead
Wonderful conference last week in integrative health and the state of Utah, but it laid bare an important finding. Knowledge of our health needs is very thin on the ground. This is not to say that people do not know there is a problem with regard to health. On this point there is unanimity; change is clearly warranted and in the wind.
There are two major problems with regard to knowledge and lack thereof in this case. First, everyone does not know specifically what needs to be done, scientifically-speaking. Knowledge of the relationships between health and contributors to and detractors from general well-being are not widely understood. More about that later. The second issue was considered in more detail in the sessions. Something needs to be done socially, political, and economically, but at what level? With what specific objectives? With what level of reform in mind?
Given my MBA background, experience in venture capital and entrepreneurism, etc., and generally conservative background, it may come as some surprise that I have made a lifelong study of revolution. The nature and requirements of revolution have always interested me, dating to the time when as a child I would visit my local library with my little red wagon, loading up books to read, if not devour in their entirety. "Squanto and the Pilgrims" as an essay on revolution and upheaval? His fellow natives probably would have thought so. I have always been attracted to the stories of revolution -- economic, social, political, religious, cultural. This is one factor to be sure in my original choice to go into venture capital early in my career. I was so fortunate to have studied such developments at UCSD with the oversight of the politicians and economists of the International Relations and Pacific Studies program there.
Revolution represents the clash of interests in the raw. In a revolution, a new order takes hold, ushering out the authority structures and the economic fabric of the old order, replacing it with a new one. We Americans understand such a development well, at least in our early history as a state, given that we served to open a revolutionary, worldwide Pandora's box in that regard.
Reform was an underlying theme of the integrative health conference at the University of Utah, but there was little confidence on how such a development should take place, whether it should happen in the context of current relationships or whether a new order was in order. There were voices for either extreme and for various scenarios in between.
This sets up a problematic couplet. Scientific realities with regard to an assessment of the problem must be better understood even while political and economic alignments are in flux. Often, participants in the program referred to the repetitive nature of their meetings. An underlying theme of the current meetings was that in the estimation of participants as well as leaders, prior meetings had reiterated themes of reform several times over with no resolution and negligible progress. The question presented over and over was how to break such a cycle, how and where to exert some form of leadership that would make a difference, particularly with regard to scientific possibilities.
How to address two moving targets? We must reduce them down to one, an intrinsically stable one. Based on my understanding of successful reform efforts, even revolutions, there is a clear path for the movement, though a potentially painful one. It is this: As nature is an intractable force, the source of our bounty and our woes, we should make an intractable commitment to follow what nature tells us needs to be done. We have oh, so many examples of when nature and scientific reality have been ignored in the interests of political and economic prerogatives that are harmful and short-sighted. As nature expresses itself to us in various forms of data, the acquisition and use of data in its various forms should be paramount in our efforts for reform and change.
The point here is that we be willing to follow the path laid out by nature, scientific findings, and ongoing collections of data wherever it leads. Only such a commitment will generate longstanding results. Only such a commitment will bring health in its various forms and economic and ecological stability. All of our educational, cultural, and civic resources need to be brought to the fore in support of such a commitment, which will surely have far-reaching economic and political implications. Some commercial opportunities will present themselves and others will wither up and die. Organizations, public and private, that have come to support the underlying conditions for disease and imbalance will thus lose influence and will need to convert their missions to those that are better in alignment with the health-oriented needs of the people.
Thus there will be a need for entrepreneurship and leadership in both public and private sectors. In Utah, we have a stellar history in this regard, most particularly with respect to the work of David Eccles as continued on by his son, Marriner. This history is directly applicable to our situation in Utah in our time. For a time, Marriner stood alone. In the end, he changed the world that we now enjoy in many ways and on many levels. I will record a presentation later today that outlines this history from my memory, particularly as it applies to leadership in public/private reform, even bordering on the revolutionary. Utahns see the Eccles name everywhere they look, but there is little knowledge of the history. Take ahold of your seats, the Eccles story is "Lord of the Rings"-esque.
There are two major problems with regard to knowledge and lack thereof in this case. First, everyone does not know specifically what needs to be done, scientifically-speaking. Knowledge of the relationships between health and contributors to and detractors from general well-being are not widely understood. More about that later. The second issue was considered in more detail in the sessions. Something needs to be done socially, political, and economically, but at what level? With what specific objectives? With what level of reform in mind?
Given my MBA background, experience in venture capital and entrepreneurism, etc., and generally conservative background, it may come as some surprise that I have made a lifelong study of revolution. The nature and requirements of revolution have always interested me, dating to the time when as a child I would visit my local library with my little red wagon, loading up books to read, if not devour in their entirety. "Squanto and the Pilgrims" as an essay on revolution and upheaval? His fellow natives probably would have thought so. I have always been attracted to the stories of revolution -- economic, social, political, religious, cultural. This is one factor to be sure in my original choice to go into venture capital early in my career. I was so fortunate to have studied such developments at UCSD with the oversight of the politicians and economists of the International Relations and Pacific Studies program there.
Revolution represents the clash of interests in the raw. In a revolution, a new order takes hold, ushering out the authority structures and the economic fabric of the old order, replacing it with a new one. We Americans understand such a development well, at least in our early history as a state, given that we served to open a revolutionary, worldwide Pandora's box in that regard.
Reform was an underlying theme of the integrative health conference at the University of Utah, but there was little confidence on how such a development should take place, whether it should happen in the context of current relationships or whether a new order was in order. There were voices for either extreme and for various scenarios in between.
This sets up a problematic couplet. Scientific realities with regard to an assessment of the problem must be better understood even while political and economic alignments are in flux. Often, participants in the program referred to the repetitive nature of their meetings. An underlying theme of the current meetings was that in the estimation of participants as well as leaders, prior meetings had reiterated themes of reform several times over with no resolution and negligible progress. The question presented over and over was how to break such a cycle, how and where to exert some form of leadership that would make a difference, particularly with regard to scientific possibilities.
How to address two moving targets? We must reduce them down to one, an intrinsically stable one. Based on my understanding of successful reform efforts, even revolutions, there is a clear path for the movement, though a potentially painful one. It is this: As nature is an intractable force, the source of our bounty and our woes, we should make an intractable commitment to follow what nature tells us needs to be done. We have oh, so many examples of when nature and scientific reality have been ignored in the interests of political and economic prerogatives that are harmful and short-sighted. As nature expresses itself to us in various forms of data, the acquisition and use of data in its various forms should be paramount in our efforts for reform and change.
The point here is that we be willing to follow the path laid out by nature, scientific findings, and ongoing collections of data wherever it leads. Only such a commitment will generate longstanding results. Only such a commitment will bring health in its various forms and economic and ecological stability. All of our educational, cultural, and civic resources need to be brought to the fore in support of such a commitment, which will surely have far-reaching economic and political implications. Some commercial opportunities will present themselves and others will wither up and die. Organizations, public and private, that have come to support the underlying conditions for disease and imbalance will thus lose influence and will need to convert their missions to those that are better in alignment with the health-oriented needs of the people.
Thus there will be a need for entrepreneurship and leadership in both public and private sectors. In Utah, we have a stellar history in this regard, most particularly with respect to the work of David Eccles as continued on by his son, Marriner. This history is directly applicable to our situation in Utah in our time. For a time, Marriner stood alone. In the end, he changed the world that we now enjoy in many ways and on many levels. I will record a presentation later today that outlines this history from my memory, particularly as it applies to leadership in public/private reform, even bordering on the revolutionary. Utahns see the Eccles name everywhere they look, but there is little knowledge of the history. Take ahold of your seats, the Eccles story is "Lord of the Rings"-esque.
Friday, April 12, 2013
Good questions, bad questions, good thoughts, bad thoughts
Last evening, Glenda Christianens, who is, as it turns out, the "Good Nurse, Glenda", provided a great example of healthful behavior in the integrative health conference at the University of Utah. This is the "cancel, cancel" technique. When a non-serviceable idea crosses your mind, you use this phrase, understandable to us all in this techno-centric world, to get rid of it.
you
What runs through out minds is so important to our health; this is now widely understood. We harbor concerns for our health and this alone is problematic. I was on a glorious walk on the Utah bench this morning and I was thinking about thoughts (yes, for we cognitive psychology neophytes, that indeed is what meta cognition is). I was walking past the offices of basically all things medical in the research park, which reminded me of all of the things we have to worry about in our health, particularly when things get creaky and stiff.
Should we worry about our heart, the condition of our veins and arteries, etc? To be sure, we need data and in some cases, only data will do. On a walk, however, we are better off thinking about the kinds of things that walks bring to mind, things that do not come to mind while driving a car. This many be anything, of course, but we are best off thinking of the loves of our lives and people and conditions we are grateful for.
Since on a walk you must decide where to go, your mind is well-occupied with questions such as whether you can make it to the top of the hill in the fifteen minutes you have left. If you are more fortunate than that and have all the time in the world, you may wonder whether you can make the crest of that hill to sit under a tree and doze for a while. Such are questions well worthy of consideration.
Worrying about your heart, your arteries, whether you have some kind of noxious problem, without data -- bad idea. Get data and get better.
Worrying about your heart, your arteries, whether you have some kind of noxious problem, without data -- bad idea. Get data and get better.
And, by the way, what a glorious day we are having already.
Regards,
Ken
The singularity that matters
If you have been following certain developments over the last half-century or so, you will have seen a pattern. The pattern relates to computing, to the capabilities of electronic computers in particular.
The issue started with the work of Alonzo Church and Alan Turing, who simultaneously published the conceptual groundings for modern computing, before electronic computing systems were developed. In that era, a "computer" was considered to be a person. "Computer" was a job title, as in a forester or a shop-keeper. "Computing" served as the basis for a technical career, that of adding up numbers for the most part, but without a machine to assist in the process. There were some mechanical devices for very big jobs. In our day, such a work description may seem odd. Nonetheless, it is an artifact of an earlier time. Much of what we do now to earn a living will surely seem strange to our own descendants.
The idea brought forth by Church and Turing, respectively from Princeton and Cambridge, was couched in complex, arcane languages of mathematics and logic. The concept is simple, though. As long as a logical process could be found to loop through itself multiple times, to repeat itself, the result could represent the kind of reasoning and decision-making that we as humans carry out. Such repetition would allow for a cycle of reasoning, error-correcting, and learning. In this, computers could be used to model much of human behavior.
During and after World War II, when computing machines were brought into use, such guidelines showed great promise. Indeed, they have been embraced by all sectors of society in incremental steps. Computerization of computational tasks started slowly, with the famous "glass temples" of mainframe systems owned by large organizations. Smaller, but powerful new systems become available over time in many stages, until the world is now awash with computing devices of one kind or another, a testament to their usefulness for many things.
a tr
The development mentioned earlier, the one begun by the works of Church and Turing, is referred to as the "Singularity". Computer scientists make the claim that computing devices are eventually going to take over the task of thinking, releasing us from much of this function, given that they will at some time demonstrate their cognitive, or thought-producing superiority over humans. Looking forward to the Singularity has been a tradition of many computer scientists since the time when Turing mentioned the possibility of such a development. Computers are not only judged to be superior in collating and sorting and facilitating communications on a large scale, a point that is not in dispute. Their potential, according to proponents of the eventual Singularity, is to even take over in the production of new thoughts where we haven't even gone.
Whether or not the career of being a human "computer" was fulfilling, we are not going back there to be sure. Much has been written about a shift in reasoning power from people to machines, which is also the theme of many artistic works, movies, and literature. The Singularity is a staple of much science fiction. Similar to predictions of the end of the world, there have been many forecasts of the Singularity, when it will come and what its eventual implications will be. Concern for and promotion of the Singularity has been the basis of much federal research and development funding, particularly in the defense arena. If the end of the world -- or at least of someone's version of the world -- is to be ushered in by computers with unbounded power, at least we can rest assured that they will be ours. Actually, some Singularity prediction artifacts are wrapped up in catastrophic finality, the end of the world as stimulated by rogue computing devices of various kinds. In such fictional accounts, machines often act contrary to the interests of their creators once they establish a level of superiority thought-wise and in terms of control. By these accounts, a tragedy faces humanity to the degree that we are not ready for the Singularity.
It is interesting, of course, that government and other interests are almost frantically working to bring the Singularity about in spite of such risks.
Singularity predictions, many of which are long past due, tend to extend ever further into the horizon. While the Singularity was considered to be imminent within only a year or two in the 1950s through to the 1970s, the 1980s , and beyond, predictions extended the date ever further into the future. By the end of the Twentieth Century, predictions had been extended to 2050 or so. In our day, it is difficult to understand when the Singularity is expected, as predictions are not so often provided with associated dates. The temptation is surely there by Singularity prophets to make explicit predictions, but with popular knowledge being ubiquitous is it is in our time, it is surely more difficult to back out of predictions that clearly did not happen.
Nonetheless, the implications of the Singularity are presented as being increasingly stark and frightening, even as predicted dates extend over the horizon or disappear altogether. This is not to say that automation is not inherently beneficial and that some aspects of intelligence as a characteristic of computing devices are not not available and desirable. The problem is the idea that computers will out-think us. Proponents of artificial intelligence say that we are creating machines that are inherently, evolutionarially superior to us. As a result, we will become, relatively-speaking, stupid.
As can readily be discerned, there is much evidence that the human race does not need a Singularity to behave stupidly. Individually and severally, we can generate more than a few irrational thoughts and counterproductive behaviors. Funding an impending Singularity would stand up alongside other well-documented acts of insanity of which we are aware.
Rather than trying to build machines to out-think us, couldn't we concentrate on leveraging the power of computers to use existing knowledge in improved ways? We have pretty good brains. We have stores of knowledge in various forms that lie unused, to the detriment of all of us. Why don't we work to utilize, if not maximize, the fruits of human creative output and thought? In this vein, let us consider another potential form of singularity. How about a singularity in which all of the best knowledge, supported and guided by viable flow of data, was available for our evaluation and use? What if an idea, once documented and verified, were immediately available when it was needed?
By this, I don't mean just that knowledge that happens to be available at a particular time and place. That wouldn't be much of a singularity, now, would it? We should at least take a page from the Singularity-ists. We should think big. Why not a form of singularity where the knowledge would rush to the scene once the context of a problem or situation presented itself. In the impending "Internet of things", data will be available from many new sources. Health is an important part of this. What if you were to get a blood test, or weigh yourself, or order a meal at a restaurant, an impending event with potentially important consequences? Would you want to do the right thing, the smart thing, with the results of the test? If we are truly able to arrange for a singularity of knowledge of this kind, such knowledge would also incorporate the best-tasting, most desirable options, given your condition and preferences. Now we are talking! Taste THAT ice cream (this will make sense a little later).
Is this possible? Our message is that it is. Would it be the "death" of commerce? Yes, much of it, as there is a great deal of profiteering going on. There will be substantial opportunities for purveyors of the "good stuff", however. Commerce is based on providing "goods" and services, not "bads" and services. Disease, for example is bad; there is nothing good about it. Knowledge can and will get rid of it.
Now, of course, the question arises as to whether the Singularity of such computer scientists and other futurists are so rhapsodic about can or will occur. They just did well in the Jeopardy challenge. I do not have the energy or time to take on that question right now, but I have one observation. About ten years ago I was at an artificial intelligence conference, a defense-sponsored affair, where exhibitors asked me to type in a question to one of their systems. I put in, "Is the ice cream good?" Several of the people were eating ice cream at the time. The exhibitors dutifully told me that the machine could not taste the ice cream. At the time, and even now, I thought the advice was more than a little condescending.
I happen to know that there are electronic taste and smell sensors on the market that are more than able to discern between the chemical and sensory characteristics of basically anything, including ice cream. I think that that is beside the point, however. I find it hard to believe that computers will be able to replace us in the thinking department as long as it is our senses and our priorities that hold sway. Can we at least work on achieving the singularity of which I write prior to the Singularity, if we need such a thing at all?
The issue started with the work of Alonzo Church and Alan Turing, who simultaneously published the conceptual groundings for modern computing, before electronic computing systems were developed. In that era, a "computer" was considered to be a person. "Computer" was a job title, as in a forester or a shop-keeper. "Computing" served as the basis for a technical career, that of adding up numbers for the most part, but without a machine to assist in the process. There were some mechanical devices for very big jobs. In our day, such a work description may seem odd. Nonetheless, it is an artifact of an earlier time. Much of what we do now to earn a living will surely seem strange to our own descendants.
The idea brought forth by Church and Turing, respectively from Princeton and Cambridge, was couched in complex, arcane languages of mathematics and logic. The concept is simple, though. As long as a logical process could be found to loop through itself multiple times, to repeat itself, the result could represent the kind of reasoning and decision-making that we as humans carry out. Such repetition would allow for a cycle of reasoning, error-correcting, and learning. In this, computers could be used to model much of human behavior.
During and after World War II, when computing machines were brought into use, such guidelines showed great promise. Indeed, they have been embraced by all sectors of society in incremental steps. Computerization of computational tasks started slowly, with the famous "glass temples" of mainframe systems owned by large organizations. Smaller, but powerful new systems become available over time in many stages, until the world is now awash with computing devices of one kind or another, a testament to their usefulness for many things.
a tr
The development mentioned earlier, the one begun by the works of Church and Turing, is referred to as the "Singularity". Computer scientists make the claim that computing devices are eventually going to take over the task of thinking, releasing us from much of this function, given that they will at some time demonstrate their cognitive, or thought-producing superiority over humans. Looking forward to the Singularity has been a tradition of many computer scientists since the time when Turing mentioned the possibility of such a development. Computers are not only judged to be superior in collating and sorting and facilitating communications on a large scale, a point that is not in dispute. Their potential, according to proponents of the eventual Singularity, is to even take over in the production of new thoughts where we haven't even gone.
Whether or not the career of being a human "computer" was fulfilling, we are not going back there to be sure. Much has been written about a shift in reasoning power from people to machines, which is also the theme of many artistic works, movies, and literature. The Singularity is a staple of much science fiction. Similar to predictions of the end of the world, there have been many forecasts of the Singularity, when it will come and what its eventual implications will be. Concern for and promotion of the Singularity has been the basis of much federal research and development funding, particularly in the defense arena. If the end of the world -- or at least of someone's version of the world -- is to be ushered in by computers with unbounded power, at least we can rest assured that they will be ours. Actually, some Singularity prediction artifacts are wrapped up in catastrophic finality, the end of the world as stimulated by rogue computing devices of various kinds. In such fictional accounts, machines often act contrary to the interests of their creators once they establish a level of superiority thought-wise and in terms of control. By these accounts, a tragedy faces humanity to the degree that we are not ready for the Singularity.
It is interesting, of course, that government and other interests are almost frantically working to bring the Singularity about in spite of such risks.
Singularity predictions, many of which are long past due, tend to extend ever further into the horizon. While the Singularity was considered to be imminent within only a year or two in the 1950s through to the 1970s, the 1980s , and beyond, predictions extended the date ever further into the future. By the end of the Twentieth Century, predictions had been extended to 2050 or so. In our day, it is difficult to understand when the Singularity is expected, as predictions are not so often provided with associated dates. The temptation is surely there by Singularity prophets to make explicit predictions, but with popular knowledge being ubiquitous is it is in our time, it is surely more difficult to back out of predictions that clearly did not happen.
Nonetheless, the implications of the Singularity are presented as being increasingly stark and frightening, even as predicted dates extend over the horizon or disappear altogether. This is not to say that automation is not inherently beneficial and that some aspects of intelligence as a characteristic of computing devices are not not available and desirable. The problem is the idea that computers will out-think us. Proponents of artificial intelligence say that we are creating machines that are inherently, evolutionarially superior to us. As a result, we will become, relatively-speaking, stupid.
As can readily be discerned, there is much evidence that the human race does not need a Singularity to behave stupidly. Individually and severally, we can generate more than a few irrational thoughts and counterproductive behaviors. Funding an impending Singularity would stand up alongside other well-documented acts of insanity of which we are aware.
Rather than trying to build machines to out-think us, couldn't we concentrate on leveraging the power of computers to use existing knowledge in improved ways? We have pretty good brains. We have stores of knowledge in various forms that lie unused, to the detriment of all of us. Why don't we work to utilize, if not maximize, the fruits of human creative output and thought? In this vein, let us consider another potential form of singularity. How about a singularity in which all of the best knowledge, supported and guided by viable flow of data, was available for our evaluation and use? What if an idea, once documented and verified, were immediately available when it was needed?
By this, I don't mean just that knowledge that happens to be available at a particular time and place. That wouldn't be much of a singularity, now, would it? We should at least take a page from the Singularity-ists. We should think big. Why not a form of singularity where the knowledge would rush to the scene once the context of a problem or situation presented itself. In the impending "Internet of things", data will be available from many new sources. Health is an important part of this. What if you were to get a blood test, or weigh yourself, or order a meal at a restaurant, an impending event with potentially important consequences? Would you want to do the right thing, the smart thing, with the results of the test? If we are truly able to arrange for a singularity of knowledge of this kind, such knowledge would also incorporate the best-tasting, most desirable options, given your condition and preferences. Now we are talking! Taste THAT ice cream (this will make sense a little later).
Is this possible? Our message is that it is. Would it be the "death" of commerce? Yes, much of it, as there is a great deal of profiteering going on. There will be substantial opportunities for purveyors of the "good stuff", however. Commerce is based on providing "goods" and services, not "bads" and services. Disease, for example is bad; there is nothing good about it. Knowledge can and will get rid of it.
Now, of course, the question arises as to whether the Singularity of such computer scientists and other futurists are so rhapsodic about can or will occur. They just did well in the Jeopardy challenge. I do not have the energy or time to take on that question right now, but I have one observation. About ten years ago I was at an artificial intelligence conference, a defense-sponsored affair, where exhibitors asked me to type in a question to one of their systems. I put in, "Is the ice cream good?" Several of the people were eating ice cream at the time. The exhibitors dutifully told me that the machine could not taste the ice cream. At the time, and even now, I thought the advice was more than a little condescending.
I happen to know that there are electronic taste and smell sensors on the market that are more than able to discern between the chemical and sensory characteristics of basically anything, including ice cream. I think that that is beside the point, however. I find it hard to believe that computers will be able to replace us in the thinking department as long as it is our senses and our priorities that hold sway. Can we at least work on achieving the singularity of which I write prior to the Singularity, if we need such a thing at all?
Thursday, April 11, 2013
Classification is what we do
By our nature, to the degree that we are knowledgeable, we classify. This can be easily demonstrated by trying to not classify. Say something, anything. Gossip. Say that so-and-so is a *%^##@! Ah hah!! You have classified! Talk about how you are going to get to or from your home after this session. By selecting a route and establishing a plan, you have classified. With each choice, you are faced with subsequent choices. Such options to lead to others. Understanding of such relationships is the beginning of knowledge. The more detailed such knowledge becomes, the more nuanced and useful it is.
My mentor, Dr. Dell Allen, made a presentation at a local university at my request. Though retired, he had devoted much of his professorial career to the understanding of classification. The presentation was titled "Classification, the Superscience". His point was that unless and until you classified something, you really didn't understand it. He asked the roughly ninety students present how many of them had learned about classification, about taxonomies of their subject areas. The answer was that none of them had learned anything about this important task either in their major areas of study or their general studies.
Without classification, you have chaos. I created a small series of guidelines on the subject as available on the web. The thing is, knowledge and classification are very closely related. As an example, scientists that study thought processes use the example of a person's entry into a fast food store. How is it that one knows how to make use of such a facility? Once you step inside, how do you know to go to the counter? How do you know which part of the counter to go up to? How do you know how an order is made? How do you know what to do once you have ordered? There are many hidden issues that are so deeply embedded in the situation that you don't even give them a thought.
Expertise in large part lies in the ability to recognize a situation in the first place. Place a novice in a meadow in the mountains and he or she will notice conditions on a very elementary level when compared to a forester or an plant ecologist or a geologist. Each of them sees a very different situation, though situated in the same meadow. Understanding of the situation in each case is couched in classification.
This is not just a passive issue, but active as well. The degree to which you can comprehend the implications of a situation you find yourself defines your use as a care giver. In some cases, recognition patterns may demand certain actions as a means of averting danger and disaster. Conditions in a mountain meadow may presage an earthquake, a fire, many kinds of weather-related threats, snakebites, altercations and battles, and biological risks. By the same token, they mean nothing more than the outline of a beautiful summer day, to be enjoyed and remembered.
The classification challenge is firmly embedded in questions of health and disease. Classification occurs at untold levels of importance, including the need to classify whoever is doing the classifying. In many health questionnaires, people are asked "has a doctor told you that you have diabetes"? Much of the importance of the answer can only be understood by dissecting further the nature of any doctor in question. Of course, you will want to know if it is a medical doctor or not. This is important to know, a consideration independent of many other facts. It may not always be the case that a medical doctor is the best source of medical classification, as a PhD virologist or immunologist may have more valid insights in a particular case. If the person was a medical doctor, was that person a specialist or a general practitioner? Was he or she particularly well-versed in diabetes and as related conditions? What data was used? Importantly, what data was not used? Was the doctor acting in a clinical capacity or was the comment made "at the opera" or in the context of another kind of social event?
This is how knowledge, at how least deep knowledge, is gained, continually burrowing down into greater levels of detail and specificity. In the intersection between science and society, there needs to be an effective match between such representations of reality and reality itself. If this is not the case, we will continue to bump up into physical and natural realities, to our discomfort and danger. This leads to the question of regulation. There are those that say that regulation it is inappropriate and counterproductive. What is called regulation in a political context may be an ugly affair, but that is because it is done poorly, not being informed of the detailed requirements of our situation.
Ask any scientist, particularly the naturalists and biologists. They will say that life itself and regulation are not too far afield from one another. We need to make a better go of it. Father Adam is reported in the beginnings of Genesis in the Bible to have been an ardent classifier, taking it upon himself to provide names for every living thing. An understanding of the ever-more-detailed task of classification lays bare an important factor, the need to classify not just names, but everything else that is of concern to the natural world.
My mentor, Dr. Dell Allen, made a presentation at a local university at my request. Though retired, he had devoted much of his professorial career to the understanding of classification. The presentation was titled "Classification, the Superscience". His point was that unless and until you classified something, you really didn't understand it. He asked the roughly ninety students present how many of them had learned about classification, about taxonomies of their subject areas. The answer was that none of them had learned anything about this important task either in their major areas of study or their general studies.
Without classification, you have chaos. I created a small series of guidelines on the subject as available on the web. The thing is, knowledge and classification are very closely related. As an example, scientists that study thought processes use the example of a person's entry into a fast food store. How is it that one knows how to make use of such a facility? Once you step inside, how do you know to go to the counter? How do you know which part of the counter to go up to? How do you know how an order is made? How do you know what to do once you have ordered? There are many hidden issues that are so deeply embedded in the situation that you don't even give them a thought.
Expertise in large part lies in the ability to recognize a situation in the first place. Place a novice in a meadow in the mountains and he or she will notice conditions on a very elementary level when compared to a forester or an plant ecologist or a geologist. Each of them sees a very different situation, though situated in the same meadow. Understanding of the situation in each case is couched in classification.
This is not just a passive issue, but active as well. The degree to which you can comprehend the implications of a situation you find yourself defines your use as a care giver. In some cases, recognition patterns may demand certain actions as a means of averting danger and disaster. Conditions in a mountain meadow may presage an earthquake, a fire, many kinds of weather-related threats, snakebites, altercations and battles, and biological risks. By the same token, they mean nothing more than the outline of a beautiful summer day, to be enjoyed and remembered.
The classification challenge is firmly embedded in questions of health and disease. Classification occurs at untold levels of importance, including the need to classify whoever is doing the classifying. In many health questionnaires, people are asked "has a doctor told you that you have diabetes"? Much of the importance of the answer can only be understood by dissecting further the nature of any doctor in question. Of course, you will want to know if it is a medical doctor or not. This is important to know, a consideration independent of many other facts. It may not always be the case that a medical doctor is the best source of medical classification, as a PhD virologist or immunologist may have more valid insights in a particular case. If the person was a medical doctor, was that person a specialist or a general practitioner? Was he or she particularly well-versed in diabetes and as related conditions? What data was used? Importantly, what data was not used? Was the doctor acting in a clinical capacity or was the comment made "at the opera" or in the context of another kind of social event?
This is how knowledge, at how least deep knowledge, is gained, continually burrowing down into greater levels of detail and specificity. In the intersection between science and society, there needs to be an effective match between such representations of reality and reality itself. If this is not the case, we will continue to bump up into physical and natural realities, to our discomfort and danger. This leads to the question of regulation. There are those that say that regulation it is inappropriate and counterproductive. What is called regulation in a political context may be an ugly affair, but that is because it is done poorly, not being informed of the detailed requirements of our situation.
Ask any scientist, particularly the naturalists and biologists. They will say that life itself and regulation are not too far afield from one another. We need to make a better go of it. Father Adam is reported in the beginnings of Genesis in the Bible to have been an ardent classifier, taking it upon himself to provide names for every living thing. An understanding of the ever-more-detailed task of classification lays bare an important factor, the need to classify not just names, but everything else that is of concern to the natural world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)