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 sophisticated language (especially math and logic). 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
Oh funny human me, my brain got stuck on what I thought was an error of using the term “metaphor” instead of “similie”—a distinction I learned when helping my daughter with her English class homework in 5th grade. Then I read footnote #4 and laughed at myself for my error of assuming it was an error. Oh humans.
This piece is a treat. No AI could write this well. I could feel human warmth coming from my screen 😄
I'm convinced AI can never be conscious because consciousness is not a function of intelligence. It is function of a living being who fought for survival for millions of years.
My cat is conscious of herself. She knows she is different from other cats and from me and when she is hungry she knows it I is her hunger. She doesn't have abstract thinking but it is not the same.
"My dad loves rocks" is the strongest evidence. "My" indicates a separation between oneself and others. "Dad" indicates relationship and care. "Loves" is about her feelings and dads feeling. It is an indication of theory of mind - allowance that the dad's mind is separate and he loves rocks whereas "I" may not.
AI has none of that. It can create a metaphor "dad rocks" but cannot ever say "my dad".
Came here for footnote 4!
This post (and lots of others!) makes me want to hang with your family 😍.
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 sophisticated language (especially math and logic). 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
Oh funny human me, my brain got stuck on what I thought was an error of using the term “metaphor” instead of “similie”—a distinction I learned when helping my daughter with her English class homework in 5th grade. Then I read footnote #4 and laughed at myself for my error of assuming it was an error. Oh humans.
This piece is a treat. No AI could write this well. I could feel human warmth coming from my screen 😄
I'm convinced AI can never be conscious because consciousness is not a function of intelligence. It is function of a living being who fought for survival for millions of years.
My cat is conscious of herself. She knows she is different from other cats and from me and when she is hungry she knows it I is her hunger. She doesn't have abstract thinking but it is not the same.
"My dad loves rocks" is the strongest evidence. "My" indicates a separation between oneself and others. "Dad" indicates relationship and care. "Loves" is about her feelings and dads feeling. It is an indication of theory of mind - allowance that the dad's mind is separate and he loves rocks whereas "I" may not.
AI has none of that. It can create a metaphor "dad rocks" but cannot ever say "my dad".
100% human written ;-)
But I use AI responsibility in my writing..