THE COMPUTER,THE EYE,THE SOUL

By fortunate coincidence, three unusual new books on robots are available
in this month of September. Two come from the University of Illinob
Press, one from the University of Washington Press. The last, titled Of
lMolecules and Men, originated as the fifth in the series of John Danz Lec-
trlres, delivered on the University of Washington campus at Seattle by
Sir Francis Crick, British biochemist and co-discouerer of the spiral stair-
way pattern of DNA, the nucleic acid since proclaimed us a prime mover
in inheritance. The text below is excerpted from Of Molecules and Men.

By SIR FRANCIS CRICK

H OWEVER we compare a com-
   puter with the brain, we find
   that even the most complex of

today's computers are far, far simpler
than the human brain. This can easily
be shown by counting up the number
of elements in the two. There are about
a thousand times more nerve cells in
the brain than there are elements in
even our largest computers. Again, the
brain has an enormous advantage in that
it is packed into a small space and works
on very little power. However, modern
computers are getting rather smaller in
physical size because of the increasing
use of transistors and of printed circuits.
Although it will not be possible in the
near future to make elements as small as
neurons, at least the difference in size
is not as apparent as it was a few years
ago.

It is most important to realize that
modern computers are based on quite
a different system of operation from any-
thing we can see in the brain. Such
computers work on a binary system and
tie extremely accurate. Our brains, on
the other hand, show no signs of work-
ing on a binary system, and in addition
tie very inaccurate. However, the brain
& able to work with the loss of quite a
fair number of its nerve cells (every day
Borne die as we grow older) and is pre-
t-ably made to be inaccurate in order
`that the loss of one particular element
?will not upset the functioning of the
brain as a whole. Computers, on the oth-
er hand, are usually designed in such
a way that, as far as possible, all their
elements function satisfactorily.

The great advantage a computer has
over the brain is that its basic rate of

SRI September 3, 1966

working is very much quicker. Its "pulse
rate" is on the order of a thousand times
faster than the corresponding rate of
sending signals in the brain. Conse-
quently, even a rather small computer
can undertake a task that the brain can-
not tackle in any reasonable time. On
the other hand, the brain is a multiple-
input device. Over a million nerve fibers
go from the eye to the brain, and many
of these can be carrying signals at the
same time, Thus the elements of the
brain act to some extent in parallel,
whereas much of the'working of com-
puters occurs in series. A computer is
made in such a way that it can concen-
trate on doing one particular job at a
time, or at the most a small number of
different jobs. It is for these reasons that
computers can do straight calculations
more rapidly than we can with our
brains, whereas our brains can do cer-
tain complex jobs, like the recognition
of a friend's face, surprisingly quickly.

It is amusing to note the sort of things
modern computers can do. One, for ex-
ample, has been programed to play
checkers. This is a type of program in
which the machine evaluates each game
after it has been played and then adjusts
the strategy of play to optimize chances
of winning. For a time, it was even able
to beat the man who wrote the program.
Several people have written programs
that allow a computer to play chess,
which is a far more difficult game. So
far such machines can play only very
average chess.

Programs are also actively being writ-
ten for teaching purposes. One of these,
for example, will give a young medical
doctor a problem, instruct him what
(imaginary) tests to carry out, cross-ex-
amine him on what he has done, and

criticize his diagnosis, telling him some-
times to try again, or to go back and
examine different sorts of evidence.
A very amusing program written re-
cently simulates the behavior of a psy-
chiatrist talking to a patient. The great
advantage of this situation is that the
"patient" is not supposed to ask the "psy-
chiatrist" a question, whereas the "psy-
chiatrist" can always initiate a new topic
if he does not wish to continue along the
lines of the previous one. Below is an
example of an exchange that occurred
between a real person and an IBM com-
puter, following instructions written by
Joseph Weizenbaum, visiting associate
professor of electrical engineering at the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
The interview took place by typewriter.
The  "patient'`-a "distraught young
lady"-typed out what she wished to say
in lower-case letters, and then pressed
a button twice, whereupon the machine
replied, also by typewriter, but in up-
per-case letters. According to the Har-
card Review, the conversation went as
follows:

men are all alike

IN WHAT WAY

they're always bugging us about
something or other

CAN YOU THINK OF A SPECIFIC
EXAMPLE

well, my boy friend made me come
here

YOUR BOY FRIEND MADE YOU
COME HERE

he noticed that i'm depressed much
of the time

53


I Ahl SORRY TO HEAR YOU ARE
DEPRESSED

he's right. i am nnhappy

DO YOU THINK COMING HERE
WILL HELP YOU NOT TO BE
UNHAPPY

i need snme help, that much is clenr

WHAT WOULD IT MEAN TO YOU
IF YOU GOT SOME HELP

TELL ME hIORE AROVT YOUR
FAhlILY

my mother tdws care ctf me

WHO ELSE Ilr; YOUR FAhlILY
TAKES CARE OF YOU

my father

YOUR FATHER

you are like my fatlrrr in sonw ways

WHAT RESEhIBLANCF: DO YOU
SEE

you arc not wry ;\ggrc4sivr but i
don't think you want mc to notice
that

WHAT MAKES YOU THINK I Ah%
NOT VERY AGGRESSIVE

WHY DO YOU THINK I DON'T
ARGUE WITH YOU

you are afraid of me

DOES IT PLEASE YOU `I'0 BE-
LIEVE I AM AFRAID Ok. YOU

it pleases mv fatlwr to think i am
afraid of i;im

WHAT El.SE COMES 7-o MIND
WHEN YOU Tllf~K OF YOCJR
FATHER

bdlit5

N OTICE that at olte point the "pa-
tient" used the word "like." This was
probably a cue for the machine to say,
"WHAT RESEMBLAXCE DO YOU SEE." 13y
use of such simple clues and other tricks,
it is possible to make a dialogue that
sounds reasonably convincing, using a
simple program. There is even specula-
tion that it mily be possible to provide a
service for emotionally disturbed people,
so that they can have someone "sympa-
thetic" to talk'to. However, people who
have spoken with such a computer find
it an emotionally unnerving experience,

54

partly because of the somewhat superior
attitude of the machine, which is apt to
ignore what oue has said and simply ask
a new question from time to time. Nev-
ertheless, it is dear that with ingenuity
it will be possible to extend this type of
programing in a number of directions.
I THINK the really striking thing that
will come from the use of computers
will occur when they reach a very high
degree of sophistication and one can
have a computer behind a screen with
which one could cwrrl' on ;I conversa-
tion. The standard q~Iestio1~ this possi-
bility raises is, "Wow will one find out
that one is talking to a computer and not
to a real person? Would the computer,
if questioned, say that it was conscious
and describe what it meant by this?"
Of course the computer might have
to be "educated," but then so do human
beings. There are many people who be-
lieve that it will never be possible to
simulate :I ltttm:ln being in this ~i\y,
but those who work on computers tend
to think that we shall see this develop-
ment in our lifetime.

Even if we do not, I am sure that in-
teraction with computers will become a
common part of everyday life. After all,
we can easily get the computer to type
out what it has said, and then get some
actor to read it. It would be quite possi-
ble to have a television program in
which people spoke to the computer;
their words would simply he typed down
and passed to the computer by some
intermediary; the machine would then
reply on the tt, pewritrr, and an actor
would read out what the machint~ had
said. I prophesv that before long there
will be a television program of this kind
and that it will be a sensation, provided,
of course, that the program is written
with sufficient ingenuity.

In fact, I think writing programs of
this sort will become a new literary oc-
cupation. We mav have a program for,
say, literary criticism, which woutd cer-
tainly be great fun to devise. Alterna-
tively, someone might try to write a
program for a seduction scene. Before
long, I can well imagine, people will put
two machines together and see how they
talk to each other. It would lx verl
amusing to get thr seduction program
to talk to the psychiatrist program!

Leaving aside all these fancier appli-
cations, we have to renlizo, as has al-
ready been stressed by il number of peo-
ple, that- machines are going to take on
many of the functions of human beings.
It is going to bt-: quite disturbing for iis
to as&ate with machines. There XC
people-Fred Hoyle, for example-who
believe that ma&ines will aventu;~ll~
take control of our civilization. Even if
that does not `happen, it could be argued
that what will arise is a symbiosis be-
tween madiines and men, in which the

main functiott of the melI will he to re-
produce and to tend the machines. I
mvseff doubt whether we shall reach
quite such a stage; nevertheless, I am
convinced that during our own lifetime
we will come to associate with very com-
plicated and sophisticated machines, and
it is going to be quite upsetting.

I think the people who are most dis-
turbed by this sort of thing are those
who believe in some sense in the soul.
What is never very clear is what is
meant by "the soul," but one of its at-
tributes appears to be that it can asso-
ciate with the body but is separate from
the body, and, in particular, that it can
in some circumstances exist separately
from the body and especially, so many
people think, after death.

One difficulty about the soul is to
know when it originated in evolution.
Most people would agree that all human
beings have souls (though no doubt
there are a few eccentrics who think
that they are denied to women), but it
is not at all clear whether a chimpanzee
or a dog can have one. It is noticeable
that philosophers who keep dogs, and
are fond of them, are more inclined to
attribute sonls to dogs than are those
who are not animal lovers. And if a dog,
why not a worm?

To take another familiar difficulty:
Does a baby have a soul? And if so, does
it have the soul before birth, and at what
moment does it get the soul? It seems
hardly likely that the unfertilized egg
has a soul in the sense of which we are
talking. Of course, there are standard
religious answers to some of these ques-
tions; but they appear to me to be arhi-
trary nonseuse.
I MYSELF, like many scientists, be-
lieve that the soul is imaginary and that
what we call our minds is simply a way
of talking about the functions of our
brains. The real &f&&y comes from
the vividness of our experience of COII-
sciousness, and even that to some extent
is a matter of degree, since we can be
conscious to various extents, either when
we are half awake or when we are sleep-
walking. I also find it disturbing that we
dream every night and retain so little of
our dreams, Recent work has shown
quite  conclusively  that everybody
dreams each night for quite eonsidera-
ble periods and that most of these
dreams are forgotten imless one is
awakened while they arc going on.

Of course it is not true that mankind
is evoIving at the moment only by natur-
al selection. Ever since man was able to
~~)rn~n~l~ii~~~tc and form societies, an-
other form of evolution has been taking
place-social evolution, which is very'
much faster and in man)' ways more ef-
fect&e. Xevertheless, much in our na-
ture has evolved under the pressure of
natural selection alone, and these pres-


sures still exist today. Natural selection
being a slow process and civilization
being fairly recent, it follows that a lot
of our behavior was evolved in a period
when human beings acted rather differ-
ently from the way they act today. For
example, much of our aggressiveness
probably springs from behavior selected
when man was living in small groups,
probably in constant competition with
each other. The same is probably true
of much of our sexual behavior and ex-
plains many of the difficulties and dil-
emmas that we find in our marriage laws
and in our sex laws in general.

I think it is difficult to overemphasize
the importance of teaching natural selec-
tion, both in schools and in universities,
so that every member of our culture has
a clear and firm grasp of the principle
involved. It is, I think, one of the scan-
dals of the United States that there still
are statutes on the law books of certain
Southern states which formally forbid
the teaching of evolution in schools.

: P ERSONALLY, I would go further. I
,think it regrettable that there is so much
Lreligious teaching. True, the situation in
"the United States is nothing like as bad
&s it is in Great Britain, where religious
$nstruetion, I am sorry to say, is com-
`pulsory in all scl~ools supported by
public money. Since much of this instruc-
`tion, from the point of view of most
educated men,  is utter nonsense, it
`seems to me particularly distressing that
`this should be the one compulsory sub-
ject of British education.
Nor, ullfortunately, are many British
universities much better in this pnrticu-
dar matter. Many of them have inherit-
ed a religious tradition, but this does
not easily explain the tremendous insti-
tutional support given to religion by
such a body as Cambridge University,
and the colleges that forms a part of it.
The fact that many of the senior mem-
bers of the university believe that what
is taught and propagated in this way is
really beneath contempt intellectually is
not apparently enough to prevent the
continuation of these ancient practices.
Of course, if a university is founded by
a number of private people, there is no
reason why those people should not
propagate their religious beliefs if they
wish to do so, but it is quite another
matter when a university is public.
SRI September 3, 1966

The business of the university has
been well stated by Lord Annan, the
Provost of King's College,, Cambridge,
as "intellect, intellect, intellect." What-
ever other functions the university may
have, there is no place for the support
of half-truths and falsehoods. It is re-
markable that so many intellectuals are
hypocritical about this matter, and either
shrug their shoulders and say they are
not personally involved, or feel that it is
a matter of no importance.

One should perhaps state clearly why
questions like this are important. When
our culture was firmly based on Chris-
tian beliefs and practices, answers were
provided to many fundamental ques-
tions, and it was not thought necessary
that science should do more than dot
the i's and cross the l's for those an-
swers. The position is quite different
today. Today we know that everything
we knew yesterday about questions of
this type is almost certainly untrue.
T HE intellectual should be concerned
with questions such as "What are we?'
and "Why are we here?' and "Why does
the world work in this particular way?"
It is remarkable to me that there is not
more urgency to answer questions of
this kind. I think this situation can only
spring from the fact that most people
believe either that these questions have
been answered already, in some way or
another, or, alternatively, that the an-
swers are perhaps too difficult to under-
stand. It would be a much healthier
state of affairs if, instead of competing
in an arms race, the United States and
Russia competed in a knowledge race;
if it were to be regarded as a matter of
national prestige that we could under-
stand the nature of life, for example,
rather than mounting enormous ad
costly space programs to go to Mars, al-
though 1 would be the first to agree that
going to Mars may perhaps help US a
little way toward answering the ques-
tion of the nature of life.

Once one has become adjusted to the
idea that we are here because we have
evolved from simple chemical com-
pounds by a process of natural selec-
tion, it is remarkable how many of the
problems of the modern world take on
a completely new light. It is for this
reason important that science in gener-
al, and natural selection in particular,
should become the basis on which we
are to build the new culture.

C. P. Snow was quite right when he
said there were two cultures. (I do not
wish to argue here whether there are
two, or three, or four, but simply that
there is more than one.) The mistake
he made, in my view, was to underesti-
mate the difference between them.

The old, or literary cultwe, which
was based originally on Christian values,
is clearly dying, whereas the new culture,

the scientific one, based on scientific
values, is still in an early, stage of de-
velopment, although growmg with great
rapidity. It is not possible to see one's
way clearly in the modern worId unless
one grasps this division between these
two euItures and the fact that one is
slowly dying and the other, although
primitive, is bursting into life.
F OR this reason I believe that all uni-
versity students should be taught a sub-
ject that might be called "The Map of
Science." This would not only describe
the broad nature of all the various
sciences and the way they are related
to each other (with a few selected illus-
trations from each to bring life to the
description), but would also show how
developed each science is and which
areas are relatively understudied.

Such a course would clearly demon-
strate that while, say, mechanics or op-
tics are very well explored, much of bi-
ology is still almost virgin territory. It
would encourage students to consider
questions to which we do loot yet know
the answer, but which we think there
is a hope of answering within the next
three-score years.

Now there are some questions that
affect us far more personally than oth-
ers, and among these the working of the
brain certainly ranks high. It can be
confidently stated that our present
knowledge of the brain is so primitive-
approximately at the stage of the four
humors in medicine or of bleeding in
therapy (What is psychoanalysis but
mental bleeding?)-that when we do
have fuller knowledge our whole pit
ture is bound to change radically. Much
that is now culturally acceptable will
then seem to be nonsense. People with
training in the arts still feel that in spite
of the alterations made in their lives by
technology-by the internal combustion
engine, by penicillin, by the Bomb-
modern science has little to do with
what concerns them most deeply. As
far as today's science is concerned this
is partly true, but ?omorrow's science is
going to knock their culture right out
from under them.

55