Conscious Artificial Intelligence Using The Inter Mind Model
Artificial Intelligence is primarily implemented by a class of computer programs that can accomplish tasks that mimic Human Intelligence. Examples are things like Speech Recognition, Facial Recognition, and Self Driving Cars. With the improved computers and algorithms that we have today these kinds of computer capabilities have become increasingly more useful. But the Hype over all this is astounding. Marketing departments are trying to imply that these kinds of capabilities mean that there is an actual Conscious entity involved in the Speech Recognition, Facial Recognition, and Self Driving Car. But these are all just computer programs performing a specific task. These would have to be classified as Non-Conscious Artificial Intelligence. If Consciousness can be added to Machines then full Conscious Artificial Intelligence will be achieved.
According to the Inter Mind Model (IMM) the Speech Recognition, Facial Recognition, and Self Driving Car capabilities would reside in the Machine Physical Mind (PM) which is the computer Hardware and Software. The Machine PM serves the same purpose as our Human PM (The Brain). But it seems that there is no capability for a Conscious Mind (CM) to have any Volitional effect on the Machine PM like occurs with a Human PM. The Machine PM is just mindlessly executing computer programs.
There is speculation that the CM might interact Volitionally with the Human PM using Quantum Mechanical effects. The Wikapedia page for Quantum Consciousness says: The Quantum Mind or Quantum Consciousness group of hypotheses propose that Classical Mechanics cannot explain Consciousness. It posits that Quantum Mechanical phenomena, such as Quantum Entanglement and Superposition, may play an important part in the Brain's function and could form the basis of an explanation of consciousness.
So we might expect that a CM would interact Volitionally with a Machine PM using Quantum Mechanical effects. But current technology does not allow for this in computer designs. The special connections are just not designed into the hardware at this time. We basically are not sure how to do this yet. But we have to start somewhere and the Machine Consciousness Experiment is an attempt to make such a Quantum Mechanical connection from a CM to a Machine PM. Note that the Quantum Mechanical effect is the Inter Mind because it connects the CM to the Machine PM.
The Quantum Mechanical connection between the CM and the PM must be a two way street. Volition allows a CM to affect a PM in order to do things in Physical Space (PSp). So in this case the connection is from the CM to the PM. A CM also needs to perceive what's going on in a PM, and therefore in PSp, so this connection must be from the PM to the CM.
For Humans, Neurons contain structures called Microtubules that operate based on Quantum Mechanical principles. If a CM (through an Inter Mind) is able to sense the state of a Human PM by sensing the state of the Microtubules then the CM might have the ability to sense all Neurons in the Human PM at the same time. For Vision the CM might be able to sense the state of the Visual Cortex areas in order to experience what the Visual areas are currently Seeing. The CM would experience it's own Personal CL.
For Machines, there are no Neurons but there are Transistors which operate on Quantum Mechanical principles. What if a CM (through an Inter Mind) could sense the state of the Transistors in an electronic circuit? A TFT Display Monitor has a Transistor at each pixel location. Maybe a CM can sense the state of all these Transistors in order to See what is currently displayed on the monitor. This is similar to how the CM senses the Visual Cortex in Humans. The Machine might then experience it's own Personal CL similar to the Human experience.
This situation could also work for camera chips and CMs. It may be the case that millions or billions of CMs have been experiencing what's going on in the world through Transistors for many years already. But these CMs have not had any way to affect anything in PSp because we have not designed the Volitional interfaces yet. Manufacturers are not making Androids (Robots with Consciousness) yet, just mindless Robots. But Androids are conceptually possible and are probably not far away.
The problem with Artificial Intelligence today is that Scientists are working on the Computer Processing side of things while denying that a Conscious Visual Experience, for example, would greatly improve the operation of their Machines with respect to Visual Processing. Consider that billions of years of evolutionary development produced the Conscious Visual experience in the life forms on this planet so why do we want to deprive our Machines from using this kind of Data?
According to the Inter Mind Model (IMM) the Speech Recognition, Facial Recognition, and Self Driving Car capabilities would reside in the Machine Physical Mind (PM) which is the computer Hardware and Software. The Machine PM serves the same purpose as our Human PM (The Brain). But it seems that there is no capability for a Conscious Mind (CM) to have any Volitional effect on the Machine PM like occurs with a Human PM. The Machine PM is just mindlessly executing computer programs.
There is speculation that the CM might interact Volitionally with the Human PM using Quantum Mechanical effects. The Wikapedia page for Quantum Consciousness says: The Quantum Mind or Quantum Consciousness group of hypotheses propose that Classical Mechanics cannot explain Consciousness. It posits that Quantum Mechanical phenomena, such as Quantum Entanglement and Superposition, may play an important part in the Brain's function and could form the basis of an explanation of consciousness.
So we might expect that a CM would interact Volitionally with a Machine PM using Quantum Mechanical effects. But current technology does not allow for this in computer designs. The special connections are just not designed into the hardware at this time. We basically are not sure how to do this yet. But we have to start somewhere and the Machine Consciousness Experiment is an attempt to make such a Quantum Mechanical connection from a CM to a Machine PM. Note that the Quantum Mechanical effect is the Inter Mind because it connects the CM to the Machine PM.
The Quantum Mechanical connection between the CM and the PM must be a two way street. Volition allows a CM to affect a PM in order to do things in Physical Space (PSp). So in this case the connection is from the CM to the PM. A CM also needs to perceive what's going on in a PM, and therefore in PSp, so this connection must be from the PM to the CM.
For Humans, Neurons contain structures called Microtubules that operate based on Quantum Mechanical principles. If a CM (through an Inter Mind) is able to sense the state of a Human PM by sensing the state of the Microtubules then the CM might have the ability to sense all Neurons in the Human PM at the same time. For Vision the CM might be able to sense the state of the Visual Cortex areas in order to experience what the Visual areas are currently Seeing. The CM would experience it's own Personal CL.
For Machines, there are no Neurons but there are Transistors which operate on Quantum Mechanical principles. What if a CM (through an Inter Mind) could sense the state of the Transistors in an electronic circuit? A TFT Display Monitor has a Transistor at each pixel location. Maybe a CM can sense the state of all these Transistors in order to See what is currently displayed on the monitor. This is similar to how the CM senses the Visual Cortex in Humans. The Machine might then experience it's own Personal CL similar to the Human experience.
This situation could also work for camera chips and CMs. It may be the case that millions or billions of CMs have been experiencing what's going on in the world through Transistors for many years already. But these CMs have not had any way to affect anything in PSp because we have not designed the Volitional interfaces yet. Manufacturers are not making Androids (Robots with Consciousness) yet, just mindless Robots. But Androids are conceptually possible and are probably not far away.
The problem with Artificial Intelligence today is that Scientists are working on the Computer Processing side of things while denying that a Conscious Visual Experience, for example, would greatly improve the operation of their Machines with respect to Visual Processing. Consider that billions of years of evolutionary development produced the Conscious Visual experience in the life forms on this planet so why do we want to deprive our Machines from using this kind of Data?
Comments (50)
Also the post assumes a sort of dualism: that there is a difference between the CM and the PM. But my understanding is that most scientists reject that view and think that the so-called CM is itself the functioning of the PM. Therefore since dualism is not accepted among scientists, the question whether we ought to pursue the fusion of CM and and machines does not even arise. Rather the question becomes whether scientific technology will reach the point where the brain can be artificially replicated in machines. But this is doubtful since the brain is unique and very complex.
This is not what computers do. The algorithms do not mimic and what's more, ultimately a human must adjust the algorithms. All the computers do is brute force data scanning with short cut filtering.
It's possible that we may not be able to transcend the limits of our brains to understand how the brain works.
Given that we do not understand how our own intelligence is achieved, it seems very unlikely we will design an actual artificial intelligence. We may have to be content with computers that seem like they are intelligent, but are not. That doesn't strike me as a problem. Isn't it enough that we can build programs to perform very useful functions like speech recognition, or autonomous automobiles?
Speech recognition is pretty much a joke as anyone who has to deal with such shoddy customer service software Will immediately recognize. As soon as I hear those silly questions on the phone, I start banging on 0 hoping that I might be lucky enough to get a human.
Computers are good at very simple data filtering tasks which is why well run companies such as Amazon and Google avoid the so-called AI stuff.
The system that Apple uses for it's voice to text feature uses big mainframe computers to perform the task of interpreting speech. I'm not sure whether it's a Google or Apple operation. That's how it manages to be as good as it is. Perfect? No, but it is head and shoulders above what "customer service" voice recognition fails to do even poorly.
The challenge is how do we replicate the adult mind that, unlike the 5 year old, can also understand above and beyond the mere application of rules.
What's the difference between
1. Mechanical application of rules
And
2. Comprehension of the logic behind these rules?
An adult mind can do both while the computer can do only 1.
Point to note is these two different mental faculties (see above 1 and 2) can only be perceived upon access to the inner workings of a person or a computer. If all we have is access to the output (human behavior, printouts, audiovisual displays) we simply can't make the distinction between a person and a computer.
That brings us to an important conclusion. An AI needn't actually be a person. All it has to do is perfectly mimic a person to pass of as one. Without access to the inner world of circuits we simply can't tell a person from a good AI.
It will be a very peculiar day when humans cannot tell the difference between some dumb tool that they created and their own creative minds that created that dumb tool. Whatever sci fi writers might say, computers are basically fast filters of data. They have zero intuition and power to create something new. They follow simple instructions that we give them.
True the Machine will not have the same dignity as a Human until it has Consciousness. I certainly am proposing a type of Dualism and the Inter Mind Model actually proposes a Triplistic model of the Mind..
True, but the pupose is to mimic Human Intelligence.
Agree 100%, we might not ever be able to do it, but it's fun trying.
It's still not as good as people thought it would become but it is a lot better.
Just curious. What aspect of the Computer do you think will prevent it from doing 1 as well as 2? I think the missing aspect is Consciousness.
All I'm saying is that the Designers are trying to mimic. The mechanism that implements this is probably what you say.
If Machines can become Conscious then they would be as alive as you and me, just based on different Material principles. But that's the trick. Understanding what Consciousness is.
When I use speech-to-text on my phone or tablet, I get very good results. However, my phone is not doing the processing. A big mainframe computer at Google is providing the fast, accurate speech-to-text service.
The utility company's voice-activated phone answering system is (apparently) using a worn out personal computer from the early 1980s programmed by a glue-sniffing teenager.
Can you really deprive a machine of data?
Of course you can not let a Machine have access to certain kinds of data. If you are referring to the anthropomorphic character of the statement I would just say that we do that all the time. Machine learning, Machine Vision, etc.
Yes, I was. I think it's amazing the way our desire for meaning slips out. A computer that could feel deprived if it did not get the information it wanted. That's a statement full of desire for something more than just data. Something more than DNA or atomic particles; consciousness as a result of human excellence in engineering.
It's interesting how so many people find themselves feeling outraged over the idea of a God creating them on the understanding that they will be subject to various behavioral expectations, and yet the idea of an AI which decides that it does not want to be subject to its creators behavioral expectations is the basis for many sci-fi horror plots.
Maybe, when God wants a good jump scare, he tunes in to the humanity channel.
It lacks a name that satisfies me. Anyway, what is ''comprehension''? We seem to think that comprehension is an entirely different ball game compared to rule application. Bottom line is comprehension requires logic and that we know is a agreed upon set of rules. Why can't a computer do that too?
Of course the Computer can not feel deprived before it attains some aspect of Consciousness. I think when we finally understand our Consciousness we will be able understand how it might be given to a Computer. Science does not understand even the first principles of Consciousness. yet. Science understands the Neural Correlates of Consciousness but nothing about Consciousness itself.
Yes that is good. Science can not make a Conscious Machine because Science does not even know what Human Consciousness is. Science cannot give a Machine Consciousness before Science knows what Consciousness is. But I think that, when Science does figure out what Consciousness is, it will be able to design Conscious Machines.
The Computer can probably comprehend something in the sense that it has the rules. But without a Conscious aspect it will never know it has the rules. But that might not matter depending on what it is designed for. In the middle of the Summer when it gets hot enough my AC loses control and the temperature rises beyond the control point that is set. If my thermostat was Conscious it might feel bad about that. But since I'm pretty sure it is not Conscious I don't feel bad for the thermostat.
I wouldn't say "nothing". I think it's possible to understand a good deal of consciousness.
Doesn't he mean "you don't have a chance of building a real mind"? We build fake minds all the time. This is the crux of the argument that most people have against computers - that they aren't real minds. That seems to be the problem we have - that we can build fake minds, but not real ones.
But then doesn't it say something that we can even build fake minds? We must be getting something right, but not everything, to even say that it is a fake mind. If not, then why even call it a fake mind? What is it that fake minds have in common with real minds to designate them both as minds?
Please, name one thing about Consciousness that we understand.
Real Mind has Consciousness. Fake Mind has no Consciousness. But if we could give Consciousness to a Machine then it would not be a Fake Mind anymore, because Consciousness is the key.
Awareness that you have recognized a face is the difference. Even when the IBM Watson won Jeopardy it never knew it won. It could never enjoy that it won. Think about that. What is that difference? That is the answer.
Steve's right here, and this is the biggest problem in debates on consciousness. Until the scientific/philosophical community can agree on some form of model for what consciousness actually is and what it does I don't see how any progress can be made in any of the other areas.
It's what you're using to make an argument right now.
What is a mind if not consciousness? To say that one has a mind is to say that it has consciousness.
Quoting SteveKlinko
So its aware of the face, but not aware that it is aware of the face? All we are doing is turning awareness back on itself creating a feedback loop. We can design a computer to be aware of it being aware. All that is required that we make its awareness another object to be aware of.
We are aware that we make arguments but do we understand anything about what that thing is that makes arguments?
No a computer can detect a face and still not be aware. There's no infinite regression of levels of awareness going on here.
There is an infinite regression of awareness. We are aware of being aware of being aware of being aware, etc. It is no different than a video camera looking back at its output, creating an infinite feedback loop. Computer programs can be designed with a recursive loop. Again, we simply need to make awareness an object to be aware of.
Anyone who believes that a computer is anything more than a bunch of on/light switches had been watching way too much TV and should stop immediately.
I think we can. We understand that sometimes that thing can be rational, and sometimes it can be irrational. We understand that there are levels to it, (e.g. sub-conscious). We understand that it is something that wants to be further understood. We understand that it has desires of all different kinds.
We understand that there can be only two possibilities for where it comes from (i.e. designed or random chance). We understand that when the body dies, consciousness does not remain in the body. And, we understand that there is more to understand about it.
Maybe I'm just not understanding your point? Can you be more specific about what you mean?
Hi Rich. Wouldn't that be true for human consciousness, as well? If there really is no intelligence or creator behind it, then the human brain is also just a very fast abacus; a machine, (or perhaps that would be true even if there is a creator behind it).
We can study the mind from the time it's just a little clump of cells in the womb. We can study it right down to little electrical impulses zipping around from neuron to neuron and all the various bits and pieces of the brain; what they do (roughly) and how they interact with one another.
We can study behavioral patterns, psychology, desires, and come to some fairly consistent conclusions that apply to all humans (e.g. greed, fear, pride and love, joy, peace). But no matter how deeply we look, there's always a feeling that we're only scratching the surface. Probably one of the most amazing psychological phenomena of modern day science is the idea that the more complex we discover reality to be, the less need we see for any intelligence behind its existence. The complexity itself becomes an explanation for the complexity.
Maybe it is this awkward contradiction that prevents us from understanding AI. As brilliant and advanced as we are, as hard-working, motivated, and determined as we can be, we cannot create AI, while at the same time we believe our own consciousness to be the result of a series of atoms randomly bumping into one another. We cannot purposely recreate what supposedly happened by accident.
If there really is an intelligence behind the existence of consciousness, then it is no wonder that we cannot recreate consciousness while also disregarding that intelligence. It would be like trying to turn on a light bulb while disregarding the existence of electricity.
One can only stop for a moment and behold in the amazement of one's own mind, that cannot only create tools such as lawnmowers, grills, and computers, but can create, observe, and feel all that there is. Through endless and continuous learning and creative evolution, the mind still is able to continue on with yet more and more with no end. We, all who participate, are amazing.
There is nothing amazing about computers. There is endless amazement of the humans who create it and the programs that drive it.
But what is the thing that is rational and irrational? What is the thing that wants and has desires? You have only stated things about Consciousness that we already know. We can describe effects of Consciousness but we don't know what it is.
Exactly!
Quoting SteveKlinko
I believe it is in the study of these things we know about consciousness which will help us to know what consciousness is, and it may even be self-defeating to constantly ask "what is consciousness" while the qualities of consciousness are listed. Maybe you are looking for an answer which is too simplistic, or you are stuck on the idea that consciousness cannot be defined no matter how much we explore how it manifests in practical, day-to-day life.
It's like you asking, "what is a pencil" and I say, "it's made of wood, with a lead core, shaped like a cylinder to be held in the hand and is used to make marks of various kinds on paper" and you respond with, "yeah, but what is that thing that draws on the paper?"
This robot has been programmed with a few phrases that let the programmer know what is happening in the circuits, "batteries low" that sought of thing. In the case of the snake it reads all these reactions and gives the feedback "I'm scared."
Is is really scared?
Before you answer, and as you probably know, a long long time ago they did live vivisections on dogs and other animals because they did not believe they actually felt pain. The pain response- all that yelping and carrying on, was nothing more than a set of reflexes programmed into the animals, the scientists and theolgists argued. Only humans, designed in God's image actually felt pain as we know it.
If you could dissect the experience of Red like you just did with the pencil I would agree. Fact is we cant even understand the wood of Consciousness. Forget understanding the Lead. Your analogy is way off target.
The Robot would not experience Fear unless we could give it Consciousness and then it would be an Android. All those Robot responses mean nothing. Fear is a Conscious experience.
That's not a fact at all. And it would probably be better not to speak on behalf of all humanity in this area. You can't understand the wood of it. I think I've got a pretty good start on what consciousness is and I've given several examples of that, whereas you keep going back to, "No, we can't!".
Quoting SteveKlinko
But, why should I forget understanding the lead? Because you can't understand the wood? That doesn't make sense. Why should I let your unwillingness to understand also stop me from understanding?
What is the Red in your Conscious experience of Red? Is it made out of Matter? Is it made out of Energy? Is it made out of some aspect of Space? Seems to me it is something that is outside of known Science. Do you think you know what it is? I'm listening...
It's a color.
Quoting SteveKlinko
As part of the spectrum of light, it can have both properties of matter and energy.
Quoting SteveKlinko
Nah, just google it, "What is light".
That we've agreed to call this particular spectrum of light "red" is an aspect of consciousness which seeks to define what it is and then label it for easy recognition among billions of other consciousnesses around the world.
You're talking about Physical Light which is Electromagnetic Energy. I'm talking about the Light that we experience which is Conscious Light. We don't experience Physical Light but rather we experience Conscious Light. The Light you see in Dreams is Conscious Light. The Light you see when you rub your eyes is Conscious Light. The Light you see in After Images is Conscious Light. There's no Physical Light involved in any of those things. This Conscious Light is not correlated with any Physical Light.
The Light you see when awake and your eyes are open is still Conscious Light. Your Brain converts the Physical Light into Conscious Light. In this case the Conscious Light is correlated with the incoming Physical Light. But the Conscious Light is different from the Physical Light. You always only see the Conscious Light. You never have actually seen Physical Light. I want to know what the Conscious Light is.