It seems like this argument provides a pretty good case for why we might have a hard time being justified in *attributing* consciousness to some advanced AI. I’m not sure it touches on the question whether some advanced AI actually is, or could be, conscious.
Regarding substrate independence: it might be interesting here to touch on some classic themes in theology, e.g., the consciousness of angels, of human souls after death, and of God. If you reject substrate independence, then I think you might create problems for yourself in these other areas, i.e., you might have to reject the ideas that angels, God, and human souls in the afterlife have consciousness.
You're right that it doesn't touch the possibility of machine consciousness, which I think is a really important point. Say my arguments are right but machine consciousness is possible and happens. In that case, we'd have a conscious machine telling us it feels etc. and yet we wouldn't be in a position to affirm that it is conscious. I think that's horrifying
Hey Parker! Struggling with the Perry/Dead-Perry and Perry/3D Printed Perry argument - is the 3D printed Perry “equal” to Perry only in T1? I guess how can we describe consciousness if it isn’t in time? Or in other words, is any being conscious if frozen in a single moment? Sorry if these are silly questions, looking forward to the rest of the series!
Hey Clint, definitely not a silly question. Just thinking of it likena movie. When you pause the movie eveything doesn't go black. It just freezes the frame. That's what I'm thinking here. Just consider t1. At t1 there is something-it’s-like to be Perry but not Dead-Perry or 3D-Printed-Perry. Perry's screen has something on it, the other 2 have nothing on 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
It seems that all the arguments for the possibility of consciousness in A.I. operate by reducing human beings to the level of robots - essentially denying the existence of minds as a seperate phenomenological reality from matter. I believe it's impossible for matter and physical porcesses alone to produce subjective experience.
I think most theorists are doing what you say. But one could hold to something like William Hasker's emergent dualism, which posits and immaterial mind that emerges out of a physical base like the human brain or body, and then argue, assuming substrate independence, an immaterial mind could emerge from a silicon base as well.
It seems like this argument provides a pretty good case for why we might have a hard time being justified in *attributing* consciousness to some advanced AI. I’m not sure it touches on the question whether some advanced AI actually is, or could be, conscious.
Regarding substrate independence: it might be interesting here to touch on some classic themes in theology, e.g., the consciousness of angels, of human souls after death, and of God. If you reject substrate independence, then I think you might create problems for yourself in these other areas, i.e., you might have to reject the ideas that angels, God, and human souls in the afterlife have consciousness.
You're right that it doesn't touch the possibility of machine consciousness, which I think is a really important point. Say my arguments are right but machine consciousness is possible and happens. In that case, we'd have a conscious machine telling us it feels etc. and yet we wouldn't be in a position to affirm that it is conscious. I think that's horrifying
I fully agree with you!
Hey Parker! Struggling with the Perry/Dead-Perry and Perry/3D Printed Perry argument - is the 3D printed Perry “equal” to Perry only in T1? I guess how can we describe consciousness if it isn’t in time? Or in other words, is any being conscious if frozen in a single moment? Sorry if these are silly questions, looking forward to the rest of the series!
Hey Clint, definitely not a silly question. Just thinking of it likena movie. When you pause the movie eveything doesn't go black. It just freezes the frame. That's what I'm thinking here. Just consider t1. At t1 there is something-it’s-like to be Perry but not Dead-Perry or 3D-Printed-Perry. Perry's screen has something on it, the other 2 have nothing on it.
Great analogy, makes sense. Thanks Parker!
🤝🤝🫡
Looking forward to reading the next installments!
Thanks for reading it, Dr. Sadler! That's a big encouragement. I'll pump them out asap
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
It seems that all the arguments for the possibility of consciousness in A.I. operate by reducing human beings to the level of robots - essentially denying the existence of minds as a seperate phenomenological reality from matter. I believe it's impossible for matter and physical porcesses alone to produce subjective experience.
I think most theorists are doing what you say. But one could hold to something like William Hasker's emergent dualism, which posits and immaterial mind that emerges out of a physical base like the human brain or body, and then argue, assuming substrate independence, an immaterial mind could emerge from a silicon base as well.