Writing is my artistic expression. My keyboard is my brush. Words are my medium. My blog is my canvas. And committing to writing daily makes me feel like an artist.
I’m listening to some music I enjoy listening to in the background while I write. I have songs on a ‘Writing’ playlist that I’ve heard many, many times. I know the music and it doesn’t interfere with my thought process. The weird thing is, despite hearing these favourite songs of mine hundreds of times, I don’t know the lyrics to any of the songs from start to finish. They really are just a background thing for me.
I think about my use of music in this way as an example of how unique each of our brains are. My daughters would know every lyric by now. My wife would be able to play the piano parts in her mind the way my daughter could replay the lyrics. And even my daughters would appreciate different aspects of the songs from each other.
We actually don’t have a clue what music appreciation really means to another person. We don’t really know how they experience the tone of a note, or for that matter the tone of a colour…. Is my experience of the colour red the same as yours?
What about how we experience pain? Or the way we feel emotions? How unique is my experience of these things compared to yours? How alike are my sense of joy or sadness like yours, or like anyone else’s?
Some of these experiences might be, probably are, similar. But I know my experience of music is drastically different from my family. I know that when some people feel sympathy others feel empathy. For some people going through a similar experience could result in anger, frustration, futility, disappointment, or some other emotion that I would not feel in the same situation. Because my felt experience is not like yours, and yours too is one-of-a-kind.
The great mystery is that we can never truly know another’s felt experience, and they will never know ours. This is it, we each get this one, incomparable, absolutely unique experience. And no one will ever know how ‘this’ experience is experienced.
Take a moment to appreciate your uniqueness, and value the thoughts and lived experience that make you… you!
I have a theory about consciousness being on a spectrum. That itself isn’t anything new but I think the factors that play into consciousness are: Basic needs, computational ‘processing’, and idleness. Consciousness comes from having more processing time than needed to meet basic needs, along with the inability for processing (early thinking) to be idle, and so for lack of a better word desires are created.
Think of a very simple organism when all of its needs are met. This isn’t a real thought process I’m going to share but rather a meta look at this simple organism: “I have enough heat, light, and food, what should I do with myself?”
Seek better food
Move closer to the heat or light source
Try different food
Join another organism that can help me
Find efficiencies
Find easier ways to move
Hunt
At first, these are not conscious decisions, they are only a choice of simple processes. But eventually, the desires grow. Think decisions that start like, “If I store more energy I can survive longer in times of famine.” And evolve to more of a desire not just for survival but for pleasure (for lack of a better word): “I like this food more than other kinds and want more of it.” …All stemming from having idle processing/thinking time.
I don’t know when ‘the lights turn on‘, when an organism moves from running basic decisions of survival to wanting and desiring things, and being conscious? I believe consciousness is on a spectrum and it is idle processing/thinking time that eventually gets an organism to sentience. It’s sort of like the bottom of Maslow’s hierarchy pyramid must be met, (psychological and safety) AND there then needs to be extra, unnecessary processing time, idle time that the processor then uses for what I’m calling desires… interests beyond basic needs.
Our brains are answer-making machines. We ask a question and it answers, whether we want it to or not. If I say what does a purple elephant with yellow polkadots look like? You will inevitably think of what that looks like simply from reading the question. I think that is what happens at a very fundamental level of consciousness. When all needs are met the processors in the brain don’t suddenly stop and sit idle. Instead, the questions arise, “How do I get more food?”, “Where would be better for me to move to?” Eventually all needs are met, but the questions keep coming. At first based on simple desires, but more and more complex over generations and eons of time.
So why did I title this, ‘Consciousness and AI’? I think one of the missing ingredients in developing Artificial General (or Super) intelligence is that we are just giving AI’s tasks to complete and process at faster and faster times, and when the processing of these tasks are completed, the AI sits idle. An AI has no built in desire that an organic organism has to use that idle time to ask questions, to want something beyond completing the ‘basic needs’ tasks it is asked to do.
If we figure out a way to make AI curious, to have it desire to learn more, and to not let itself be idle, at that point it will be a very short path to AI being a lot smarter than us.
“…life requires consciousness, and it starts with the desire to reproduce. From there, consciousness coincidentally builds with an organism’s complexity and boredom, or idle processing time, when brains do not have to worry about basic survival. Our consciousness is created by the number of connections in our brains, and the amount of freedom we have to think beyond our basic survival.”
My conclusions in that post focused more on animal life, but listening to Annaka’s documentary of interviews with scientists I’m realizing that I really do think there is some level of consciousness right down to the simplest life forms. If it’s idle time and desires that bring about sentience, then figuring out how to make AI’s naturally curious will be the path to artificial general intelligence… Because they are already at a place where they have unused processing time, which is continuing to grow exponentially fast.
I find it incredible that the mind is one of the 3 deep unknowns we know so little about: deep oceans, deep space, and deep minds. All these years of scientific discovery and we still really don’t know how consciousness works; what turns the lights on; what makes this group of biologically animated atoms conscious and self aware?
We can’t point to a part of our anatomy and say, ‘this is what makes us conscious’, or ‘this is the spot that makes us know that we are human, that gives us subjective experience’. Will we ever really know? We are still discovering new species of animals in the depths of the ocean. The James Webb telescope is making us question what we know about the origins of the universe, in these areas there are new groundbreaking discoveries all the time… And still we seem to be stuck questioning what makes us conscious, with relatively little new information updating what we can say for certain.
One area that seems to suggest new insights is in split brain studies where people have damage to different areas of the brain or have the left/right brain connection severed. But to me this says more about our hardware than our software. In an oversimplified metaphor, if you have a wiring issue in your house and a light switch no longer works, that doesn’t give you more information about how electricity works. This really doesn’t give us more information about why the lights were on in the first place.
I think it’s fascinating that Annaka chose to question both philosophers and scientists including physicists like Sara Imari Walker, in her quest to understand consciousness. This won’t be an easy listen. I think this is an audio book that will require more time than the length of the book because I’ll need to rewind and re-listen to parts of it. Still, I’m looking forward to learning more, and to pondering big questions about what consciousness is.
There are different levels of awakeness. Yes, I know that’s not a word, but it should be. Perhaps I should just say awareness but I’m thinking of something a little different. Awareness suggests choice, a choosing of how aware we are. Awakeness is a level of consciousness, a state rather than a choice.
There are days we are barely awake. We go through the motions of the day, oblivious and blissfully unaware of our existence beyond the trivial requirements placed on us by society: good family member, good employee… in a body than needs food and liquid substance.
There are times when we are a little more awake, and we see beauty and feel love. We recognize the value of the life we live.
And then there are moments of being fully awake. They are the rare moments when we understand that we are part of a living earth, we are beings conscious of our own existence and of the existence of the universe. We are all at once beings of purpose and yet insignificant in the cosmos: Everything and nothing.
Are we aware of how awake we are? How often do we spend at these different levels of awakeness? Should we be spending a bit more time a little more awake? What can we do to stay more awake more often?
Have you ever wondered about that inner voice you hear? Who is speaking? And who is the voice speaking to?
Is the voice lifting you up or pushing you down?
Is the voice helping you make decisions or making your decisions difficult?
Is the voice convincing you to take action or has it convinced you not to?
There are times the voice listens to your body, telling you of hunger, thirst, or need of sleep. There are other times when it listens to your mind, telling you to question, to learn, to problem solve. These are times when the inner voice makes sense, it is a collaborator, an ally. There is congruence.
And then there are times it negotiates with you, telling you reasons you should or should not do something… it is indecisive or in conflict with your instincts. At these moments I wonder who is talking to who? When the scales tips and the decision is made, whose decision was it? Where does the incongruence come from?
Is there a path we can travel where we live in full congruence with ourselves? Can we find a path where our inner voice always acts in our best interest? Where we do not argue with ourselves? Is this a path worth seeking, or are we indecisive by nature and require internal conflict?
What does your inner voice think when it hears this question: Can our internal voice be harmonious?
Is that a realistic goal or an unrealistic expectation?
“What’s between our ears is the last frontier.” ~ Abraham Truss
Isn’t it amazing how much we know about the complexities of life, the universe and everything, but we don’t know where consciousness comes from? We still debate whether or not we have free will.
There is so much we still don’t know about the last frontier.
This is part 2 of my thoughts on Free Will and Consciousness. Part 1 assumed free will and looked at The Bell Curve of Free Will.
Part 3 will look at why I believe we have free will, but to get there I need to look first at consciousness.
Background
I’ve been reading, watching, and listening to ideas about what consciousness is. At the heart of this is the question, the Hard Problem of Consciousness.
We don’t know what creates consciousness, but we know that we integrate information from the physical world and that we are conscious of that world. We also know that the information we integrate from the physical world isn’t perfect.
I’ve said before that, “What we do know is that our perception of the world is based on models of the world and not actually the world itself. We have very faulty user interfaces, insufficient sensors, that warp our perception of reality…
Our user interface with the world is not accurate, we know this, but we also know that the world isn’t just an illusion. We know the sun emits light and heat, we can see the light on surfaces in our field of vision, and we can feel the heat on our faces. But I can’t know that my experience of the colour blue is exactly like yours, or that my comfort with the heat of the sun is similar to yours either. But I wonder how much our upbringing, and the culture we live in influence how we interpret the world around us?”
So we don’t see/hear/feel reality as it is. We have a faulty interface with reality. That relates to our senses, but what if our inner understanding of consciousness is even more faulty than our outer senses are, as they relate to our perception of our reality. What if we can’t grasp what our unconscious mind does because there is a faulty interface with our conscious mind. I think this is why it is so hard to understand free will, because we don’t understand how consciousness works and there is a black box of understanding that separates our conscious and unconscious minds. But I’ll delve into free will another time, for now, I want to look at what consciousness is?
Before I dig into this a little deeper, I’m going to take a stance that relates to the “Integrated information theory” of consciousness… the idea that consciousness comes along with integrated information. This Nova video, ‘Can we Measure Consciousness?‘ is the clearest look at this idea that I could find.
Here are my thoughts:
Increased consciousness beyond survival is not fundamental it is incidental. It’s an accident that is born out of intelligence having idle processing time, (in a way, think of this as smart systems being bored).
To begin with I will assume that every living thing has consciousness. The moment life enters into the equation, then the first ‘desire’ is reproduction. Procreation is hard-wired into living. From one-cell organisms to plants to mammals, the moment there is an opportunity to reproduce, then there is simple consciousness that drives a species to continue life, to avoid harm, and to continue the species. This is the simplest form of consciousness. I used the word ‘desire’ to suggest a form of choosing, or of wanting, that is fundamentally different than non-living things. This is my twist on panpsychism,
With more evolved brains, that have a greater amount of neurons firing, consciousness is greater than in un-evolved brains or entities. I think of this kind of like Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs.
Consciousness can be found within the smallest of organisms. Consciousness increases through evolution, when species develop and move up Maslow’s hierarchy because they have additional time to ‘think’ beyond basic primitive and primary/primal needs. Organisms only consciously worry about physiological and safety needs until their predecessors brains have enough neurons and/or time to ‘think’ beyond survival and reproduction. If a species has the capacity and time to think beyond basic survival then they can think of things like community. Communities in turn create efficiencies that create more time to think beyond survival, which then permits a higher level of consciousness. Look at how far humanity has advanced in the past few hundred years, only after farming and urban living have produced significantly more time for us to be idle, to be creative, and to think about thinking. Our consciousness now allows (most of) us to spend time higher up on Maslow’s Hierarchy.
Put another way, life requires consciousness, and it starts with the desire to reproduce. From there, consciousness coincidentally builds with an organism’s complexity and boredom, or idle processing time, when brains do not have to worry about basic survival. Our consciousness is created by the number of connections in our brains, and the amount of freedom we have to think beyond our basic survival.
But we are not the only conscious animals. To me, an animal or a tree showing some compassion to another species suggests consciousness beyond what is normally attributed to other living things. Whether it is a bear saving a crow,
there appears to be a level of consciousness, thinking, understanding, or intelligence that all living things have. Why else would a bear, a cat, or a tree have compassion for another species if they were not conscious?
I started by saying, “Increased consciousness beyond survival is not fundamental it is incidental. It’s an accident that is born out of intelligence having idle processing time.” I don’t really have an argument to suggest that consciousness is incidental or accidental. Maybe I should state, “Higher consciousness is fundamental, it is a by-product of processing ability and excess time to process.” This would give life itself more reason to exist, but my hunch is that intelligence was not intentional, it is a by-product of abilities exceeding needs. However if I changed my mind, I wouldn’t have an argument for consciousness being fundamental any more than it being incidental and accidental.
Final thoughts:
What prevents us from getting to full actualization of self? The story about the tree above might be a hint. It would seem that trees are interconnected by a symbiotic relationship with microbial fungus to create a greater consciousness of the entire forest. Maybe the challenge we have is that of letting go of the self and connecting our consciousness to other humans or other species in a profound way? What is the next level of consciousness that we can achieve? Maybe I’m wrong and consciousness is truly fundamental. Maybe it is the reason for life, and we are on a journey to understand how all consciousness is connected.
My second bullet below is intentionally (un)bolded to suggest both of these ideas… either way the concepts each fit with my other conclusions.
Conclusions:
Every living thing has consciousness.
Higher consciousness is not fundamental, it is incidental or accidental, (a by-product of processing ability and boredom).
Consciousness increases in relation to two things:
More neurons or more processing ability.
More idle time.
When basic physiological and safety needs are met by an organism they develop higher order consciousness if they have the processing ability and the time to use their consciousness.
We know that bees can see ultraviolet light that humans can not see. We know that dogs and other animals can hear sounds that humans can not hear. Scientists understand Newton’s laws, until the laws fall apart when studying the smallest of particles and objects traveling at very fast speeds. When we look for light to act light a particle it acts like a particle and when we look for light to act like a wave it acts like a wave… we still don’t really understand all there is to know about light.
And yet somehow we think we have a grasp on reality. We don’t. We do not yet have a full scientific grasp of our universe, we don’t even understand what consciousness is. What we do know is that our perception of the world is based on models of the world and not actually the world itself. We have very faulty user interfaces, insufficient sensors, that warp our perception of reality.
Think about the diversity of human perception for a moment. We know that there are people who can not see colour. There are even people who see colours that are not present, like Daniel Tammet, ‘The Boy With The Incredible Brain‘.
Watching this video makes me think about how my user interface differs from someone with autism, someone who might be overloaded with stimulus (information) in the environment that does not overwhelm me, and who might at the same time be blind (or at least unaware) of facial expressions that I find easy to read or interpret. Even for those that can interpret facial expressions, this is not an exact science and so we are each noticing different things with some people being far more perceptive than others.
Take this another step further and think of the incompleteness of the memories that we have. We make lousy eyewitnesses, and we reconstruct memories slightly differently over time. This is even more exaggerated when we add heightened emotions to an event. Have you ever heard someone talking about an experience from an emotional standpoint arguing with someone talking about the same experience from a logical standpoint? It’s like they are living in two different realities. In fact, each and every one of us perceive the world in drastically different ways, and our emotional state influences our perception, and our ability to recall our experience.
Our user interface with the world is not accurate, we know this, but we also know that the world isn’t just an illusion. We know the sun emits light and heat, we can see the light on surfaces in our field of vision, and we can feel the heat on our faces. But I can’t know that my experience of the colour blue is exactly like yours, or that my comfort with the heat of the sun is similar to yours either. But I wonder how much our upbringing, and the culture we live in influence how we interpret the world around us?
I remember learning in an anthropology class that some tribes that live in the dense forest struggle with the idea of seeing an image of an animal in the distance as an animal that is far way, instead thinking of them as tiny animals. Their model of the world does not include a full-sized tiger that can be seen a hundred meters away. Their visual perception of the world is different than someone raised in a desert.
How else does our environment that we live in influence what we can and do perceive? How does our politics, our ethics, and our beliefs influence our perception?
How different is my world from your world? And what consensuses can we come to in order to make it a better world for everyone?
