I loved everything about this post. I'm a computer science professor currently lecturing computability theory so this discussion is somewhat adjacent to my classes, and I'm sure my students will love it. Incidentally, I wrote a very light-hearted post on the philosophical interpretation of the Turing test that I think echoes some of the early foundations of omputational functionalism. It's way more superficial that this article, though. I'd love to have your opinion.
Interesting article. I have myself spent a lot of time thinking about this issue. I come from theoretical computer science. I have written two substack on the subjects that are talked about in this article. They shed a different light on this issue. The difference of approach is interesting I think.
On the more philosophical point of "free will" and the links between consciousness and quantum mechanics (interestingly I am talking about observations as dual aspect of free will) :
Suzi, you have a real knack for tackling complex topics in a highly engaging way.
I have zero theoretical background---and, frankly, limited day-to-day interest---in neuroscience or the study of consciousness.
So it's a testament to your writing that I read this deep dive in one sitting and enjoyed it!
I certainly didn't suddenly become an expert on computational functionalism, but I do have a newfound appreciation of the premises and arguments involved. So thank you!
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
In my view this is not the standard view on consciousness. Epiphenomenalism imply that we simply cannot know what physical systems are conscient:
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/nY7oAdy5odfGqE7mQ/freedom-under-naturalistic-dualism
In any case, your post is fantastic.
I loved everything about this post. I'm a computer science professor currently lecturing computability theory so this discussion is somewhat adjacent to my classes, and I'm sure my students will love it. Incidentally, I wrote a very light-hearted post on the philosophical interpretation of the Turing test that I think echoes some of the early foundations of omputational functionalism. It's way more superficial that this article, though. I'd love to have your opinion.
https://blog.apiad.net/p/can-machines-think
Interesting article. I have myself spent a lot of time thinking about this issue. I come from theoretical computer science. I have written two substack on the subjects that are talked about in this article. They shed a different light on this issue. The difference of approach is interesting I think.
On the computability theory angle :
https://spearoflugh.substack.com/p/mathematical-necessity-nature-and
On the more philosophical point of "free will" and the links between consciousness and quantum mechanics (interestingly I am talking about observations as dual aspect of free will) :
https://spearoflugh.substack.com/p/free-will-and-observation
Love this series!
Stephen Wolfram would say certainly, considering the entire universe, even multiverse, is computational:
https://writings.stephenwolfram.com/2021/11/the-concept-of-the-ruliad/
As I read that I was reminded of the quote “There's a fine line between genius and insanity.”
This is also relevant: https://www.consc.net/papers/qualia.html
Suzi, you have a real knack for tackling complex topics in a highly engaging way.
I have zero theoretical background---and, frankly, limited day-to-day interest---in neuroscience or the study of consciousness.
So it's a testament to your writing that I read this deep dive in one sitting and enjoyed it!
I certainly didn't suddenly become an expert on computational functionalism, but I do have a newfound appreciation of the premises and arguments involved. So thank you!
Such a lovely essay. Thank you. I will be a while chasing all this down and contemplating 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