A most profound video game: a good cognitive aid for research at the frontier of life and mind

Published by

on

I don’t get to play video games much (does so-called reality count?) but here’s one I came across which is pretty special: Baba is You (also described here). Here‘s a tiny sample that gives a flavor of how it works:

What’s cool about this puzzle game (besides the fact that it’s challenging and fun) is that it gets you to break a number of mental categories and think more continuously and fluidly about topics relevant to the understanding of life and mind. Among other things, it dissolves barriers between data and algorithm, between a cognitive system and its contents, and gets you to think differently. People often ask me what kind of preparation they need to join our lab; I think I’ll put this game on that list. It’s a good introduction to the relevant mental flexibility, especially given our latest directions. Hofstadter’s incredible, classic GEB is another such.

The first, most basic thing here is that it erases the distinction between objects and rules, between things and informational messages. Some of the objects in this world have meanings, besides physical properties like location and impenetrability. Moreover, some of those meanings determine the physics of the world and how things will act once you change the positioning of the words relative to each other. Move the objects to make up new sentences, and you change how the world works and what’s possible to do. This of course brings up fascinating issues of semiotics, and forces you to think about the definitions and mechanics of: messages, observers, interpretation, rules, and many other metaphysical topics. How do you know if an object in the “real” world is just a thing or information? Is there a binary distinction? Can shapes and patterns be agents themselves?

How might this play out in the physical world and what is the status of the laws of physics? Can anything you do in the Universe change the laws of physics themselves? Well, where do those laws of physics come from? If they come from some aspect of the Universe itself, then they should be changeable from within, at least in principle. If they do not, what happened to the concept of Universe with a capital U – where else is there for them to originate from? How about the laws of biology – some of those are definitely changeable from within, because biological information (molecular, bioelectrical, etc.) can influence how molecular pathways, cells, organs, and organisms interpret biological information and how subsequent evolution will play out – an essentially self-referential dynamic.

The dichotomy between object and message is seen for example in classic cannibalism studies by McConnell (download the archive of hard-to-find papers here), in which trained planaria were eaten by naive hosts and conferred behavioral information. In that case, the chemical engrams of the donor were food, but also memories to be interpreted by the tissues of the host and used to guide behavior. More broadly, memory engrams composed of mRNA, proteins, or whatever substrate, are both physical objects to some levels of organization (e.g., the molecular) and a cognitive medium to others (the organism).

What about the distinction between software and the machine – between data and hardware? The game breaks that binary framing, which is good, because the notion of a active data (like our self-sorting arrays), and indeed agential memories, are powerful areas for development in the emerging field of Diverse Intelligence. The notion of a continuum between passive information patterns (thoughts) and active cognitive agents (thinkers) is hard for many to grasp, and playing a game like this may provide an intuitive understanding of the framework – in a way that reading scientific papers may not.

Another remarkable thing about this game is that one of the tokens in this world which the player can manipulate is “YOU”, which refers to the player themselves; consistently with the rest of the game mechanics, it enables a kind of meta-plasticity: composing new sentences containing this token changes your abilities and your relationship to the rest of the universe. This is a powerful way to begin to think about biological systems in which your actions (via development, metamorphosis, etc.) radically change your form and function, as well as the space within which you act, the goals you pursue, and the preferences you hold. This has many implications not only for cognition and the notion of Selfhood but also for an extension of game theory in which the actions of a player change the number of players and the preferences of the player (enabling a kind of dynamic, morphing payoff matrix).

This is not just a game; this is a virtual reality mental prosthesis – an active, dynamic, engaging set of visceral intuition pumps. This will facilitate entry into an important aspect of an emerging multi-discipliary field of science at the intersection between developmental biology, computer science, and cognitive science.

I can imagine at least three ways to move forward and extend, based on my TAME framework:

  1. Implement our polycomputing framework – the notion of multiple observers who interpret (and hack) physical features of the world in their own way, This could be a multi-player dynamic or done via biologically-inspired NPCs who also have ways of reading the objects in the environment for their own purposes. This could get the player used to thinking from an observer-focused, perspective-centered view and become accustomed to shifting meaning frames as needed.
  2. Lean harder into autonomous agency and implement a spectrum of intelligence where the text messages have their own goals related to information passing, interpretability, adoption by larger cognitive systems, etc.
  3. Implement multi-scale dynamics, enabling nested agents within agents and the ability of objects and messages to virtualize and generate others along the hierarchy:

There’s also plenty of opportunity to involve AI in this kind of virtual world. Thank you to Victor Schetinger for pointing me to these links:

  • This paper on evolutionary optimization of Baba Is You agents
  • This paper showing that Baba Is You is undecidable
  • This Baba is You code for a simulator in C++ with reinforcement learning

Featured image by Midjourney.

8 responses to “A most profound video game: a good cognitive aid for research at the frontier of life and mind”

  1. Teja Avatar

    Sounds cool, thank you, Mike. 🙂

  2. NiCo Tymmesa Avatar

    Looks & sounds very intriguing. It reminds a little of my fav game of all time… Boulder Dash!

  3. Benjamin L Avatar
    Benjamin L

    Speaking of, I did an internship many years ago at a psychology lab where I worked (uselessly, as an intern) on a project involving video games. Basically, the lab studies emotions, and most ways of inducing emotion in the lab require the participant to be passive, such as being told an infuriating story or watching a sad video. But in real life, emotions are about actively helping you achieve allostasis, so they experimented with using a video game to induce emotions. Here’s a poster: https://cos.northeastern.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Shayna-Peterzell-RISE-2016.pdf

  4. George Pence Avatar
    George Pence

    This was both awesome and unexpected to see you mention Baba is You and how it has parallels with your research. Definitely a great game and one of the best puzzle games I’ve ever played.

    Just in case you happen to want to check out some other unique puzzle games, I highly recommend both The Witness and Outer Wilds.

  5. Brett Hitchner Avatar
    Brett Hitchner

    Re: the non-duality of thoughts and thinkers, are you familiar with Alan Watts’ musings on nouns, verbs, and grammatical illusions? Here are some excerpts from this talk (which you may also enjoy as a whole):

    https://alanwatts.org/transcripts/the-tao-of-philosophy-7/

    “Supposing I say “the lightning flashes.” Surely, the flashing is the same as the lightning. There is not one thing called lightning and another called flashing. The lightning is the flashing. “It is raining.” What is this “it” that is raining? The raining.”

    “The grammatical illusion is that all verbs have to have subjects. Can you imagine anything more weird than the idea that a verb, or an action, or an event, must be set into motion by a noun? That is to say, a non-event, or thing. Now what’s the difference between a thing and an event? I can’t, for the life of me, tell.”

    “We say this is a fist. That’s a noun. What happens to it when I open my hand? This thing has unaccountably disappeared. So I should have called it a fisting. And this is a handing. It may also be a pointing. So we could devise a language, such as that of the Nootka Indians, where there are no nouns, there are only verbs. Chinese is very close to that. I think the superimposition of noun and verb on the Chinese language is a western invention. I can’t think of any Chinese word for a noun. But all those languages of Indo-European origin have nouns and verbs in them, they have agents and operations. And that’s one of the basic snags. When we divide the world into operations and agents, doers and doings, then we ask such silly questions as, “Who knows? Who does it? What does it?” When the what that is supposed to do it is the same as the doing!”

    And here is a similar excerpt from this talk:

    https://alanwatts.org/transcripts/not-what-should-be-but-what-is/

    “What you took to be the thinker of thoughts is just one of the thoughts. What you took to be the feeler of the feelings…was just one of the feelings. What you took to be the experiencer of experience was just part of the experience. So there isn’t any thinker of thoughts, feeler of feelings. We get into that bind because we have a grammatical rule that verbs have to have subjects. And the funny thing about that is that verbs are processes and subjects and nouns, which are supposed to be things. How does a noun start a verb? How does a thing put a process into action? Obviously it can’t. But we always insist that there is this subject called the knower. And without a knower there can’t be knowing. Well that’s just a grammatical rule. It isn’t the rule of nature. In nature there’s just knowing, like you’re feeling it. And I have to say you are feeling it, as if you were somehow different from the feeling. When I say, “I am feeling,” what I mean is: there is feeling here. When I say, “You are feeling,” I mean: there is feeling there. I have to say, even, “There is feeling.” What a cumbersome language we have! Chinese is easier because you don’t have to put all that in. Why, you can say things twice as fast in Chinese as you can in any other language.”

    1. jing sheng Avatar
      jing sheng

      David Bohm discuss grammar rules
      “Indigenous science also holds that there is no separation between individual and society, between matter and spirit, between each one of us and the whole of nature.The physicist David Bohm has spoken of what he calls the implicate, or enfolded, order (an order in which the whole is enfolded within each part) as being a deeper physical reality than the surface, or explicate, order that is immediately perceived by our senses.In a similar way, members of the Gourd Society wear a necklace of mescal beads in which each bead symbolizes the cosmos and reminds them that within each object is enfolded the whole. Today a symbol is generally understood to stand for something and is not seen as possessing a numinous power of its own. The mescal bead, however, is no mere symbol. For those who wear it, it really does enfold the universe and bring them into direct contact with all creation.In modern physics the essential stuff of the universe cannot be reduced to billiard-ball atoms but exists as relationships and fluctuations at the boundary of what we call matter and energy.Indigenous science teaches that all that exists is an expression of relationships, alliances, and balances between what, for lack of better words, we could call energies, powers, or spirits.Several leading-edge thinkers in physics suggest that nature is not a collection of objects in interaction but is a flux of processes.The whole notion of flux and process is fundamental to the Indigenous science of Turtle Island.
      Algonkian-speaking peoples, such as the Cheyenne, Cree, Ojibwaj, Mic Maq, and Blackfoot, all share a strongly verb-based family of languages that reflects this direct experience.Some physicians question our current medical models and suggest that healing involves the whole person—body, mind and spirit.Native healers have never fragmented their vision of health, for it is regarded as emerging out of the whole of nature and is one with the processes of renewal.Ecologists stress that we must attend to the basic interconnectedness of nature and to the sensitivity and complexity of natural systems.This has always been the approach of Indigenous peoples.
      The traditional Thanksgiving Address of the Iroquois people, for example, specifically acknowledges the wholeness that is inherent within all of life.Scientists have alerted us to the fragility and sensitivity of our planet.It is the tradition of the Iroquois people that in arriving at a decision they consider its implications right down to the seventh generation that comes after them. ”

  6. […] is correct and whatever intelligence lies beyond will eventually amend the laws of our universe, as in this game I dreamed of once, so that our actions can actually expand and change the possibilities in our […]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *