I’ve also been thinking along evolutionary lines with the advancement of AI, especially the Communication aspect for sharing ideas and understanding. Humanities greatest tools and adaptations appear, to me at least, to be forms of direct communication. Art is another aspect of the same drive to communicate. I’m working my way through the links provided and it occurred to me that the most obvious place for AI improving private sector efficiency is in the boardroom. Thanks again for this thought provoking series.
'Constitute 2 AI meditations' is appropriately disrupting my morning routine, when the human brain is (allegedly) optimally awake and engaged. I shall follow with interest and participate, of course!
Your 'Constitute' content is timely and aligns with my musings about AI. Recently, I have been wondering about AI and spirituality (and also whether / when AI will develop or at least mimic the human brain's plasticity, but that is for a post on my Substack). I have always considered spirituality to be relational and personal, and I conclude that I cannot entirely blame Scottish catholicism for that positioning. That AI is used in many apps to enhance or introduce spiritual concepts and practices is a given. Human curiosity hungrily consumes content as the quest for answers, belonging, peace and so on percolates and accelerates in the frontal lobe. Perhaps the safety-net is to remain curious rather than wildly accepting and consuming app content just because it is readily available on the smartphone, as if the device is embedded at a cellular (not the cell tower) level in our hand, the retina and in our conscience, such is our reliance and trust in that construct.
An interesting question is, 'can AI develop spiritual intelligence or even spiritual wisdom?' There is sublime beauty in the question of spirituality in relation to universality, relationship, wisdom and much more. Spirituality thrives where there is trust. But what about reason, morality and the concept of agape love? AI is conceptual and predictive - is prediction more powerful than imagination? Rowan Williams 2023 'Attending to Attention' lecture for ISSR is an interesting take on these questions.
Susan Liautaud (Yale University) recently said "I am as concerned about the ethical responsibility of failure to adopt AI and make it widely accessible as I am about the risks of deploying it." "Earlier this year I posed a question to ChatGPT: Is AI spiritual? The bot’s response: “AI does not have a soul. Souls are typically associated with consciousness and spirituality, which AI lacks. AI systems are complex algorithms and data processing tools, but they do not possess self-awareness or emotions like humans do.” "ChatGPT went further to declare that even artificial general intelligence—should we achieve it—would not be inherently spiritual. Rather, spirituality is “subjective,” personal, related to “consciousness, beliefs, emotions, and experiences that are typically associated with human beings and their connection to a higher power or a sense of purpose. In sum, ChatGPT identifies, conflates, and confuses several concepts: spirituality, soul, emotions, self-awareness, connection to a higher power and sense of purpose—all human traits (says the bot), and all lacking in ChatGPT."
Generative AI will undoubtedly grace and leverage the subject of spirituality in ways that we are unable to imagine. Large language models becoming 'gods'? Go figure.
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 so much for this response. I had forgotten about Edelman’s work - this is a timely update. Do you know Mark Solms’ work? His throughly functionalist view of consciousness - as that which registers primary evolved emotions, to guide an organism to survival - sounds very much like the model you adumbrate. He uses the maths involved in the Markov Blanket (from Friston) to justify the “consciousness” of a boundaried organism, which could be substrate-neutral if connected to the kind of embodiment you highlight in the TNGS. My only wonder, beyond the evolutionary imperatives, is whether the umwelt of an artificial neural network could be something quite new - ie capable of a non-dualistic, eco being that mammalian humans find so difficult to achieve… thanks again so much for your reply.
You're welcome. If Solms, or anyone else, can use their ideas to create a machine with the equivalent of biological consciousness, then I'm all for it. But I never encounter any concrete instantiations like the Darwin automata created with these other theories. Like I state in my original comment, "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 TNGS is the only theory out there that seems like real science to me.
I’ve also been thinking along evolutionary lines with the advancement of AI, especially the Communication aspect for sharing ideas and understanding. Humanities greatest tools and adaptations appear, to me at least, to be forms of direct communication. Art is another aspect of the same drive to communicate. I’m working my way through the links provided and it occurred to me that the most obvious place for AI improving private sector efficiency is in the boardroom. Thanks again for this thought provoking series.
Thanks DC. Communication could be a usecase for AI’s improvement of our lives - have you heard of the Habermas Machine? https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2024/oct/17/ai-mediation-tool-may-help-reduce-culture-war-rifts-say-researchers H used to speak of “communicative action” as the binding force of social order for us talking monkeys… but not always easy to achieve. Perhaps Buddhafied AI could help out?
Hey, Pat
'Constitute 2 AI meditations' is appropriately disrupting my morning routine, when the human brain is (allegedly) optimally awake and engaged. I shall follow with interest and participate, of course!
Your 'Constitute' content is timely and aligns with my musings about AI. Recently, I have been wondering about AI and spirituality (and also whether / when AI will develop or at least mimic the human brain's plasticity, but that is for a post on my Substack). I have always considered spirituality to be relational and personal, and I conclude that I cannot entirely blame Scottish catholicism for that positioning. That AI is used in many apps to enhance or introduce spiritual concepts and practices is a given. Human curiosity hungrily consumes content as the quest for answers, belonging, peace and so on percolates and accelerates in the frontal lobe. Perhaps the safety-net is to remain curious rather than wildly accepting and consuming app content just because it is readily available on the smartphone, as if the device is embedded at a cellular (not the cell tower) level in our hand, the retina and in our conscience, such is our reliance and trust in that construct.
An interesting question is, 'can AI develop spiritual intelligence or even spiritual wisdom?' There is sublime beauty in the question of spirituality in relation to universality, relationship, wisdom and much more. Spirituality thrives where there is trust. But what about reason, morality and the concept of agape love? AI is conceptual and predictive - is prediction more powerful than imagination? Rowan Williams 2023 'Attending to Attention' lecture for ISSR is an interesting take on these questions.
Susan Liautaud (Yale University) recently said "I am as concerned about the ethical responsibility of failure to adopt AI and make it widely accessible as I am about the risks of deploying it." "Earlier this year I posed a question to ChatGPT: Is AI spiritual? The bot’s response: “AI does not have a soul. Souls are typically associated with consciousness and spirituality, which AI lacks. AI systems are complex algorithms and data processing tools, but they do not possess self-awareness or emotions like humans do.” "ChatGPT went further to declare that even artificial general intelligence—should we achieve it—would not be inherently spiritual. Rather, spirituality is “subjective,” personal, related to “consciousness, beliefs, emotions, and experiences that are typically associated with human beings and their connection to a higher power or a sense of purpose. In sum, ChatGPT identifies, conflates, and confuses several concepts: spirituality, soul, emotions, self-awareness, connection to a higher power and sense of purpose—all human traits (says the bot), and all lacking in ChatGPT."
Generative AI will undoubtedly grace and leverage the subject of spirituality in ways that we are unable to imagine. Large language models becoming 'gods'? Go figure.
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 so much for this response. I had forgotten about Edelman’s work - this is a timely update. Do you know Mark Solms’ work? His throughly functionalist view of consciousness - as that which registers primary evolved emotions, to guide an organism to survival - sounds very much like the model you adumbrate. He uses the maths involved in the Markov Blanket (from Friston) to justify the “consciousness” of a boundaried organism, which could be substrate-neutral if connected to the kind of embodiment you highlight in the TNGS. My only wonder, beyond the evolutionary imperatives, is whether the umwelt of an artificial neural network could be something quite new - ie capable of a non-dualistic, eco being that mammalian humans find so difficult to achieve… thanks again so much for your reply.
You're welcome. If Solms, or anyone else, can use their ideas to create a machine with the equivalent of biological consciousness, then I'm all for it. But I never encounter any concrete instantiations like the Darwin automata created with these other theories. Like I state in my original comment, "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 TNGS is the only theory out there that seems like real science to me.