Hi Erik. Nice article. I have debated with David Chalmers specifically on my reductio ad absurdum that demonstrates computation cannot generate consciousness *unless* one subscribes to a particularly vicious form of panpsychism. For a summary, see. Bishop, J.M., Cf. "Artificial Intelligence is stupid ..": <https://lnkd.in/e-MxHXYq>.
For an early rejoinder to DC. see Bishop, J.M., (2002), Counterfactuals Can’t Count: a rejoinder to David Chalmers, Consciousness & Cognition: 11(4), pp. 642-652.
.. or better still, check out the later paper, Bishop, J.M. (2009), Why robots can’t feel pain, Mind and Machines: 19(4), pp. 507-516. <https://tinyurl.com/3j28euxx>
"consciousness isn’t reducible to whatever the brain is doing, because the “functions and structures” of scientific explanation don’t tell you what a red wine tastes like on the tongue, or an ice cube" — I think consciousness *is* a brain function (and a pretty useful one at that). The phrase "don’t tell you what a red wine tastes" is like asking "do we have free will. The question itself is misleading and — following Uncle Ludwig — we should leave the dead-end room the way we came in.
In the case of free will: We do not *have* free will. We *are* free will (because we are not fully predictable). The closer a potential course of action is to multiple 'equivalent' choices, the more 'close options' we get in our attention/consciousness function, which we know we have, the more we experience choice and freedom. What in the end triggers one or the other of these 'close options' is unpredictable. We *label* that experience 'free will'. Free will is a 'label'.
These discussions could do with a heavy dose of later Wittgenstein (just to keep us sane).
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
Curious if you've seen the TV show Mrs. Davis. It offers a much more whimsical take on the disembodied, ubiquitous AI idea. At least it doesn't take itself so seriously.
Hi Erik. Nice article. I have debated with David Chalmers specifically on my reductio ad absurdum that demonstrates computation cannot generate consciousness *unless* one subscribes to a particularly vicious form of panpsychism. For a summary, see. Bishop, J.M., Cf. "Artificial Intelligence is stupid ..": <https://lnkd.in/e-MxHXYq>.
For an early rejoinder to DC. see Bishop, J.M., (2002), Counterfactuals Can’t Count: a rejoinder to David Chalmers, Consciousness & Cognition: 11(4), pp. 642-652.
.. or better still, check out the later paper, Bishop, J.M. (2009), Why robots can’t feel pain, Mind and Machines: 19(4), pp. 507-516. <https://tinyurl.com/3j28euxx>
"consciousness isn’t reducible to whatever the brain is doing, because the “functions and structures” of scientific explanation don’t tell you what a red wine tastes like on the tongue, or an ice cube" — I think consciousness *is* a brain function (and a pretty useful one at that). The phrase "don’t tell you what a red wine tastes" is like asking "do we have free will. The question itself is misleading and — following Uncle Ludwig — we should leave the dead-end room the way we came in.
In the case of free will: We do not *have* free will. We *are* free will (because we are not fully predictable). The closer a potential course of action is to multiple 'equivalent' choices, the more 'close options' we get in our attention/consciousness function, which we know we have, the more we experience choice and freedom. What in the end triggers one or the other of these 'close options' is unpredictable. We *label* that experience 'free will'. Free will is a 'label'.
These discussions could do with a heavy dose of later Wittgenstein (just to keep us sane).
Hi Chad, thanks for your message. I have not! But I will check it out and let you know what I think.
Erik
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
Hi Grant,
Thanks for the link. I'll check it out.
Curious if you've seen the TV show Mrs. Davis. It offers a much more whimsical take on the disembodied, ubiquitous AI idea. At least it doesn't take itself so seriously.