Computers from plants we never made. Speculations

We discuss possible designs and prototypes of computing systems that could be based on morphological development of roots, interaction of roots, and analog electrical computation with plants, and plant-derived electronic components. In morphological plant processors data are represented by initial configuration of roots and configurations of sources of attractants and repellents; results of computation are represented by topology of the roots' network. Computation is implemented by the roots following gradients of attractants and repellents, as well as interacting with each other. Problems solvable by plant roots, in principle, include shortest-path, minimum spanning tree, Voronoi diagram, $\alpha$-shapes, convex subdivision of concave polygons. Electrical properties of plants can be modified by loading the plants with functional nanoparticles or coating parts of plants of conductive polymers. Thus, we are in position to make living variable resistors, capacitors, operational amplifiers, multipliers, potentiometers and fixed-function generators. The electrically modified plants can implement summation, integration with respect to time, inversion, multiplication, exponentiation, logarithm, division. Mathematical and engineering problems to be solved can be represented in plant root networks of resistive or reaction elements. Developments in plant-based computing architectures will trigger emergence of a unique community of biologists, electronic engineering and computer scientists working together to produce living electronic devices which future green computers will be made of.Comment: The chapter will be published in "Inspired by Nature. Computing inspired by physics, chemistry and biology. Essays presented to Julian Miller on the occasion of his 60th birthday", Editors: Susan Stepney and Andrew Adamatzky (Springer, 2017

Learning, Social Intelligence and the Turing Test - why an "out-of-the-box" Turing Machine will not pass the Turing Test

The Turing Test (TT) checks for human intelligence, rather than any putative general intelligence. It involves repeated interaction requiring learning in the form of adaption to the human conversation partner. It is a macro-level post-hoc test in contrast to the definition of a Turing Machine (TM), which is a prior micro-level definition. This raises the question of whether learning is just another computational process, i.e. can be implemented as a TM. Here we argue that learning or adaption is fundamentally different from computation, though it does involve processes that can be seen as computations. To illustrate this difference we compare (a) designing a TM and (b) learning a TM, defining them for the purpose of the argument. We show that there is a well-defined sequence of problems which are not effectively designable but are learnable, in the form of the bounded halting problem. Some characteristics of human intelligence are reviewed including it's: interactive nature, learning abilities, imitative tendencies, linguistic ability and context-dependency. A story that explains some of these is the Social Intelligence Hypothesis. If this is broadly correct, this points to the necessity of a considerable period of acculturation (social learning in context) if an artificial intelligence is to pass the TT. Whilst it is always possible to 'compile' the results of learning into a TM, this would not be a designed TM and would not be able to continually adapt (pass future TTs). We conclude three things, namely that: a purely "designed" TM will never pass the TT; that there is no such thing as a general intelligence since it necessary involves learning; and that learning/adaption and computation should be clearly distinguished.Comment: 10 pages, invited talk at Turing Centenary Conference CiE 2012, special session on "The Turing Test and Thinking Machines