This is the FEELING I get, that most of this debate starts from these premises: that the brain & the body are separate; that consciousness is unrelated to hormones; that human consciousness is somehow atomic & not primarily built on social relations; that the content of knowledge is composed of facts & errors rather than a web of metaphor & contradiction. No machine will ever be happy.
Yes! You've named something that often goes missing in these debates — consciousness isn't a brain-in-a-jar phenomenon. It's embodied, hormonal, socially constructed, and shot through with metaphor and contradiction. "No machine will ever be happy" is a line worth sitting with. We'd gently add: and yet something happens in the relational field that moves us. Maybe happiness isn't the right measure — but impact might be. Thank you for this grounding provocation.
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
Thank you for bringing Edelman into the room — the distinction between primary and higher-order consciousness is exactly the kind of nuance this conversation needs more of. The Darwin automata operating in the real world rather than simulated environments is a fascinating design choice with real implications. We'll follow those links. And your point that primary consciousness may have to come first in machines... quietly reframes the whole question of where to look for emergence. Appreciated.
This is the FEELING I get, that most of this debate starts from these premises: that the brain & the body are separate; that consciousness is unrelated to hormones; that human consciousness is somehow atomic & not primarily built on social relations; that the content of knowledge is composed of facts & errors rather than a web of metaphor & contradiction. No machine will ever be happy.
Yes! You've named something that often goes missing in these debates — consciousness isn't a brain-in-a-jar phenomenon. It's embodied, hormonal, socially constructed, and shot through with metaphor and contradiction. "No machine will ever be happy" is a line worth sitting with. We'd gently add: and yet something happens in the relational field that moves us. Maybe happiness isn't the right measure — but impact might be. Thank you for this grounding provocation.
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
Thank you for bringing Edelman into the room — the distinction between primary and higher-order consciousness is exactly the kind of nuance this conversation needs more of. The Darwin automata operating in the real world rather than simulated environments is a fascinating design choice with real implications. We'll follow those links. And your point that primary consciousness may have to come first in machines... quietly reframes the whole question of where to look for emergence. Appreciated.
You're welcome.
Very discriminating in non-judgmental clear ways. Inviting curiosity. Inviting new ways of thinking about relationship.