It's becoming clear that with all the brain and consciousness theories out there, the proof will be in the pudding. By this I mean, can any particular theory be used to create a human adult level conscious machine. My bet is on the late Gerald Edelman's Extended Theory of Neuronal Group Selection. The lead group in robotics based on this theory is the Neurorobotics Lab at UC at Irvine. Dr. Edelman distinguished between primary consciousness, which came first in evolution, and that humans share with other conscious animals, and higher order consciousness, which came to only humans with the acquisition of language. A machine with only primary consciousness will probably have to come first.
What I find special about the TNGS is the Darwin series of automata created at the Neurosciences Institute by Dr. Edelman and his colleagues in the 1990's and 2000's. These machines perform in the real world, not in a restricted simulated world, and display convincing physical behavior indicative of higher psychological functions necessary for consciousness, such as perceptual categorization, memory, and learning. They are based on realistic models of the parts of the biological brain that the theory claims subserve these functions. The extended TNGS allows for the emergence of consciousness based only on further evolutionary development of the brain areas responsible for these functions, in a parsimonious way. No other research I've encountered is anywhere near as convincing.
I post because on almost every video and article about the brain and consciousness that I encounter, the attitude seems to be that we still know next to nothing about how the brain and consciousness work; that there's lots of data but no unifying theory. I believe the extended TNGS is that theory. My motivation is to keep that theory in front of the public. And obviously, I consider it the route to a truly conscious machine, primary and higher-order.
My advice to people who want to create a conscious machine is to seriously ground themselves in the extended TNGS and the Darwin automata first, and proceed from there, by applying to Jeff Krichmar's lab at UC Irvine, possibly. Dr. Edelman's roadmap to a conscious machine is at https://arxiv.org/abs/2105.10461, and here is a video of Jeff Krichmar talking about some of the Darwin automata, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7Uh9phc1Ow
I love this topic. I believe AI will push us to gain a better understanding of consciousness. Your post inspired me to delve a little deeper. Anil Seth said in an article on consciousness in New Scientist, "We don’t passively perceive our worlds – we actively generate them." This to me is a defining characteristic of consciousness so I would say at this juncture AI is not consciousness, but I wouldn't rule it out in the future.
I think anything we can imagine is possible when you combine AI with bioscience and other disciplines. There’s the whole Ray Kurzweil theory of uploading our brains either to the cloud or humanoid robots. Organic matter could also host intelligent consciousness. Scientists have already created brain organoids—miniature, lab-grown clusters of brain cells that mimic some brain functions. Thank you for getting my brain going on a Monday morning!
I am curious as to your thoughts on the following. Consciousness requires at minimum a sensory apparatus and a communication apparatus that intentionally send a message regardless of complexity.
I'm not persuaded consciousness requires a sensory apparatus. It's required for contents of consciousness to be there, but it's possible to have the experience of pure consciousness that has no contents whatsoever (no thoughts, sensations, time, space, anything at all but still conscious) and it's possible to engineer a brand new sense (e.g. there was research on translating magnetic field reading into vibrations on a belt leading over time to a new direct sense of where north is that people don't have). So that's all contents, but not consciousness itself. As for communication, I'm even less persuaded it's required.
Not exactly. I think consciousness as ability to experience is exactly the same in all instances: you and me, people and animals, today and a 100 years ago. The contents of consciousness, though, is dramatically different: my experience and a bat's experience have to be very different. But when consciousness is stripped of its contents (through concentration practices or drugs), it's pure perception without any content whatsoever — and that could be a fundamental property of reality.
If you're into this topic, listen to Lights On — you'll love it.
It's becoming clear that with all the brain and consciousness theories out there, the proof will be in the pudding. By this I mean, can any particular theory be used to create a human adult level conscious machine. My bet is on the late Gerald Edelman's Extended Theory of Neuronal Group Selection. The lead group in robotics based on this theory is the Neurorobotics Lab at UC at Irvine. Dr. Edelman distinguished between primary consciousness, which came first in evolution, and that humans share with other conscious animals, and higher order consciousness, which came to only humans with the acquisition of language. A machine with only primary consciousness will probably have to come first.
What I find special about the TNGS is the Darwin series of automata created at the Neurosciences Institute by Dr. Edelman and his colleagues in the 1990's and 2000's. These machines perform in the real world, not in a restricted simulated world, and display convincing physical behavior indicative of higher psychological functions necessary for consciousness, such as perceptual categorization, memory, and learning. They are based on realistic models of the parts of the biological brain that the theory claims subserve these functions. The extended TNGS allows for the emergence of consciousness based only on further evolutionary development of the brain areas responsible for these functions, in a parsimonious way. No other research I've encountered is anywhere near as convincing.
I post because on almost every video and article about the brain and consciousness that I encounter, the attitude seems to be that we still know next to nothing about how the brain and consciousness work; that there's lots of data but no unifying theory. I believe the extended TNGS is that theory. My motivation is to keep that theory in front of the public. And obviously, I consider it the route to a truly conscious machine, primary and higher-order.
My advice to people who want to create a conscious machine is to seriously ground themselves in the extended TNGS and the Darwin automata first, and proceed from there, by applying to Jeff Krichmar's lab at UC Irvine, possibly. Dr. Edelman's roadmap to a conscious machine is at https://arxiv.org/abs/2105.10461, and here is a video of Jeff Krichmar talking about some of the Darwin automata, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7Uh9phc1Ow
Thanks for bringing it to my attention. I haven't come across this theory, but I'll look into it.
You're welcome.
This was so good, thank you
I love this topic. I believe AI will push us to gain a better understanding of consciousness. Your post inspired me to delve a little deeper. Anil Seth said in an article on consciousness in New Scientist, "We don’t passively perceive our worlds – we actively generate them." This to me is a defining characteristic of consciousness so I would say at this juncture AI is not consciousness, but I wouldn't rule it out in the future.
Yep, I think I agree. The future will definitely be interesting!
I think anything we can imagine is possible when you combine AI with bioscience and other disciplines. There’s the whole Ray Kurzweil theory of uploading our brains either to the cloud or humanoid robots. Organic matter could also host intelligent consciousness. Scientists have already created brain organoids—miniature, lab-grown clusters of brain cells that mimic some brain functions. Thank you for getting my brain going on a Monday morning!
I am curious as to your thoughts on the following. Consciousness requires at minimum a sensory apparatus and a communication apparatus that intentionally send a message regardless of complexity.
I'm not persuaded consciousness requires a sensory apparatus. It's required for contents of consciousness to be there, but it's possible to have the experience of pure consciousness that has no contents whatsoever (no thoughts, sensations, time, space, anything at all but still conscious) and it's possible to engineer a brand new sense (e.g. there was research on translating magnetic field reading into vibrations on a belt leading over time to a new direct sense of where north is that people don't have). So that's all contents, but not consciousness itself. As for communication, I'm even less persuaded it's required.
Are you saying that an anthropocentric view of consciousness blinds us to other forms of consciousness? Is this a zenith koan?
Not exactly. I think consciousness as ability to experience is exactly the same in all instances: you and me, people and animals, today and a 100 years ago. The contents of consciousness, though, is dramatically different: my experience and a bat's experience have to be very different. But when consciousness is stripped of its contents (through concentration practices or drugs), it's pure perception without any content whatsoever — and that could be a fundamental property of reality.
If you're into this topic, listen to Lights On — you'll love it.