Neurobiology: The Consciousness of Organoids, Biocomputers and Artificial Intelligence

Neurobiology: The Consciousness of Organoids, Biocomputers and Artificial Intelligence

Stephen David 02/03/2023 2
Neurobiology: The Consciousness of Organoids, Biocomputers and Artificial Intelligence

There is a recent article, Calm Down. There is No Conscious A.I., making the case that recent advances in artificial intelligence do not make them conscious, since the models do not have feelings, subjective experience and so on. There is another recent article, Scientists Are Growing Mini Brains in the Lab. Are They ... Conscious?, discussing likelihoods for the consciousness of brain Organoids and the ethics.

The debates on consciousness have intensified in recent weeks with the launch of large language models by tech firms. The models have shown a high level of coherence in several regards. This ability to do advanced level cognitive tasks in the domain of humans has made them induce fascination for the possibility of their consciousness.

Across fields, consciousness is closely related to subjective experience, to know why there is the I, experiencing something, cold, heat and so forth. There are questions about the necessity of this subjective experience, if information processing can be done without it.

It is generally agreed that machines do not have subjective experiences, hence are not conscious. The problem with this definition of consciousness [in alliance with subjective experience] is that subjective experience is not always available for humans, across states.

During deep sleep, in a coma, or under general anesthesia, as states of consciousness, subjective experience is absent or close to, yet consciousness is not absolutely ruled out for individuals in those states.

Subjective experience has to be known, to complete what it is. There is no subjective experience in a vacuum. For individuals across situations, there is the experience, given by the mind, there is also the I, given by the mind.

The cold room is a situation, the experience of cold is from the mind, to know that this is I experiencing this, is also from the mind. There could be cold, the experience, but detachment. There could also be cold, the mind might be wandering, there may not be the experience and the self may seem elsewhere.

It is not always certain that the cold in the room that is reacted to, is always subjective. Someone else could be shivering, that sight is seen or the muttering is heard and may result in making adjustments even though there was no subjective experience of it.

There are those who sometimes say it did not feel like them in a situation. This means that there was the situation, the experience, the sense of self that was not at the destination in the mind, to feel like the person was there. All these stages involve knowing.

The center stage of the mind is knowing. This is also the center stage of consciousness. To know. It has to be known to be defined. It is what is known that becomes what anything is. If subjective experience is not known to a certain degree, then it does not accompany experience. If the experience is not known to a certain degree, then the situation is not qualified.

Consciousness can be expressed as the rate at which any system can know, with a maximum rate of 1. Whatever can know is conscious, even if the rating is really low.

Knowing is also what defines intelligence, it is what is known that becomes processed. There is no intelligence without knowing. There is no consciousness without knowing. Though intelligence processes information for certain outcomes, consciousness exceeds intelligence because it involves broader parameters.

All emotions and feelings have to be known. They are not simply about intelligence. Sleep, appetite, thirst has to be known. This is different from intelligence at math or in seeking prey, though processing may be similar.

AI does not experience emotions or feelings, but it can know what they are, it can define them and can make recommendations. Just the same way that without the subjective experience of cold, precautions can be taken. Organoid intelligence can carry out their tasks in the dish, like they know, to an extent, without the subjective experience.

The mind is where consciousness and intelligence are based. The mind, conceptually, is composed of quantities and properties. It is what is acquired in a moment that defines what is experienced. The sense of self is also a property of the mind. 

AI, biocomputers and organoids have low ratings of consciousness. The sense of self, or subjective experience is not a necessity.

Share this article

Leave your comments

Post comment as a guest

0
terms and condition.
  • Grant Castillou

    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 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

  • Grant Castillou

    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 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

Share this article

Stephen David

Research in Theoretical Neuroscience
 
Save
Cookies user prefences
We use cookies to ensure you to get the best experience on our website. If you decline the use of cookies, this website may not function as expected.
Accept all
Decline all
Read more
Analytics
Tools used to analyze the data to measure the effectiveness of a website and to understand how it works.
Google Analytics
Accept
Decline