Tag Archives: science

Consciousness and AI

Leave a reply

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.

—

I’m currently listening to Annaka Harris’ audio book ‘LIGHTS ON: How Understanding Consciousness Helps Us Understand the Universe’ on Audible, and that’s inspiring a lot of my thinking. That said, this post is me rehashing an idea that I had back in December 2019, when I wrote, ‘What does in mean to be conscious?’… I go into this idea of idle time further in that post:

“…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.

What it means to be literate?

Leave a reply

Can you read? Can you do basic math? Is that enough?

The critical thinking required to make sense of the world today is ever increasing. We have a world leader using magical math to make a trade deficit calculation into a reciprocal tariff calculation, and claiming that this is, “Kind reciprocal, not full reciprocal.”

What? Help me make it make sense?

Meanwhile, I saw a video that someone created using AI. He uploaded a pdf article for two AI‘s to discuss, one of the AI’s was a version of himself, with his voice, and the other was a female at a desk. The only thing that suggested to me that the conversation was between two AI’s was some awkward hand gestures. Take those movements away, or make them a bit more natural/realistic and I would have no idea that I was watching an AI conversation.

Meanwhile, in Egypt, there are some wild claims about structures under the great pyramids, and while the evidence is unclear, I’ve seen many videos explaining these not-yet-proven structures. These claims include that they are a network of power sources connected to other structures around the world, and another theory claiming that aliens created them.

And speaking of aliens, wasn’t it just a few short months ago that we ‘discovered’ aliens living in our oceans? What ever happened to that story?

It’s becoming almost impossible to be informationally literate today. By the time you have time to seriously fact check something the story is already old, and there are new crazy claims that require your skeptical attention. What’s the source of this information? Where did they get their data from? What’s the bias of the news source? How is this data being manipulated? Who paid for the study? Is this a real quote? Is this video real, or CGI, or AI?

Who is fact checking the fact checkers? Meanwhile, here in Canada, a fact checker hired by one of our news stations was let go because trolls that don’t like their favourite political party being fact checked brought so much negative attention to her that the news station let her go.

What? Help me make it make sense?

The reality is that reading and writing and doing basic math is not enough to be functionally and informationally literate today. The critical thinking required to simply consume the information being thrown at us is overly demanding. I think the way forward for the short term is to find trusted sources and rely on them… and yet that’s the very thing that has seemed to get us into trouble. How many people get their news from just one or two biased sources? I’m literally now suggesting to find an echo chamber to sit in… hopefully you can find one that echoes facts, common sense, and some semblance of the truth.

The Light Source

Leave a reply

I’ve just started listening to Annaka Harris’ new audio documentary, LIGHTS ON: How Understanding Consciousness Helps Us Understand the Universe.

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.

And I’m sure that I will be sharing more here.

—

Related: What does in mean to be conscious?

Wonder and Speculation

Leave a reply

Pillars under the pyramids, megaliths at 12-16,000 year old Göbekli Tepe, ancient Egyptian granite vases that are so precise, modern equipment would still make them challenging to reproduce… it seems that every time we look a little further into the history of humanity we uncover yet another unexplained and unexpected mystery. There is so much more we don’t know about the origins of humanity.

And with the mystery comes some pretty far-fetched speculation. From giants to aliens to portals, imaginations run wild. I find it both exciting and frustrating. There are so many amazing new scientific discoveries, and then there are ideas that masquerade as insightful discoveries while being nothing more than crazy speculations based on extrapolations and circumstance.

It gets tiring listening to people share their wild, unsupported claims when there is so much intrigue with the actual facts. Let’s marvel at what we know. And sure, even speculate as wild as you want. But we don’t need to invent proof of aliens or use the size of sculptures and heavy rocks to make claims about giants. There’s already enough to marvel at.

A Tetraverse Response Video

Leave a reply

This video probably has an ideal audience of less than a couple dozen people in the entire world. If you are reading this as a regular Daily-Ink reader, you might not spend much time thinking about 4D space and the structure of the universe… and you can just bypass this, or at least watch the second video I share as an introduction to what Joe Truss and I are talking about.

Here is:
A Dimensional Twist of the Tetraverse (A response video to Klee Irwin’s 20 Group Twist)

And hopefully more digestible, and more introductory in nature, here is:
We live in a Tetraverse

And if you want something a little more esoteric, try:
Secret Origins of the Enneagram

And finally, here is the first response video we made, to Neil deGrasse Tyson & Chuck Nice’s Startalk interview with Sarah Imari Walker:
A Short Take on Assembly Theory in the Tetraverse Model: A Geometric Representation

More videos to come in our Book of Codes series.

Taking the shot

Leave a reply

I got my second shingles vaccine yesterday. Today my arm is sore, I have a mild headache, and I feel a bit of a chill. But the symptoms are mild and I’ll go about my day just fine. I do marvel at the idea of vaccines and how they can build our immunity to prevent serious sickness. I’m also further excited about how medical scientists are doing research using mRNA vaccines tailored to specific people to fight certain kinds of cancer. This is an incredible breakthrough because normally our immune system does not detect cancerous cells as foreign, and that’s why they are left unharmed by our immune system and spread so easily.

On the flip side, I saw a social media post by a pastor in a small town in Texas bragging that his school was the least vaccinated against measles in the country. There is a measles breakout currently going through Texas and so far one unvaccinated child has died (not from the school mentioned above). In all likelihood, there will be more as a result of not taking the vaccine.

I’m no longer surprised by anti-science, conspiracy minded people.

I can question whether during Covid, if we actually needed to vaccinate small children when only 0.4 percent of the deaths were in those under 20 years old… and still see that the vaccine worked. In fact, the stat above might have been quite a bit higher without the vaccine. I can question the application of the vaccine without needing to question the efficacy.

Imagine our world, with polio and smallpox still being a concern. When is the last time you recall someone getting the mumps? I know that I’m not immune to shingles now, but my likelihood of catching it, and/or having a very bad case is drastically reduced thanks to the vaccine. A friend of my wife got it a week before her scheduled vaccine, and she had to take a lot of time off, and still has nerve damage as a result.

Sometimes you need to trust the science, trust in conventional research, and not social media posts that cherry pick stats and outright lie to convince you otherwise. There are not a cabal of scientists collaborating to dupe you into taking measles or shingles vaccines, to somehow inject you with (insert conspiracy theory here). There are thousands of scientists dedicated to making life better, curing diseases, and increasing both your quality of life and also your time here on earth.

I’m grateful for the advances we’ve seen, and I encourage you, if you’ve missed any of these shots, to go get them.

Theory, fact, and identity

Leave a reply

One of the ironies of science is that when you hold a theory to be true, you can base your factual understanding around that theory.

The Theory of Relativity is just a theory, but we can prove at least part of it because time moves slower for faster moving objects, and if we didn’t scientifically account for this, GPS wouldn’t work because we need to make adjustments for this on satellites. Not all aspects of all theories are that easy to prove, and scientists spend entire careers trying to produce evidence for theories.

Some are true scientists and if they come up with evidence that does not support their theory and understanding of the world, they seek another theory. They abandon the theory that is no longer supported be evidence.

Other pseudoscientists will have every possible reason and justification why the new evidence is wrong. They will defend a broken/falsified theory. They will ignore the concrete evidence and double down on the theory they support.

I can rewrite this entire message starting with,

“One of the ironies of politics is that when you hold a political party’s stance to be true, you can base your factual understanding around that stance.”

…And no matter which party is supported, the bias will lead to pseudo-beliefs. Supporters will ignore the concrete evidence and double down on the stance they support. Except it’s worse, because the theories/stances they support are based on inherent biases rather than facts.

The problem here is that we are in an era where political stance is more influential than scientific theories and facts. Identity matters more than evidence, more than decades of theoretical research, more than facts. And so we have debates that make comparisons of unequal dichotomies.

We have debates between scientists and morons: scientists and flat earthers; scientists and climate change deniers; scientists and religious zealots. And the fact that we have these debates, the fact that we allow these debates to influence our policies, actions, and ultimately our thinking, all make us a little dumber, and a lot more open to influences that we should not waste our time on.

We’d all be better off letting go of identity politics and thinking about the validity of individual arguments. You can be left wing and agree that a country should have safe borders where thoughtful decisions are made about who comes into the country. You can be right wing and agree that women should have rights over their own bodies. You can be moderate and not be ‘othered’ by people on both political wings because of specific stances you hold that are not necessarily moderate.

Identify politics has no place influencing theories and facts. We need to think of politics the way good scientists think about theories: Seek out factual information and be prepared to change our minds if the evidence warrants us to change.

‘unable to distinguish’

Leave a reply

Carl Sagan wrote, ‘The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark’ in 1996, almost 30 years ago. When I read this quote from the book it really resonated with me. Carl Sagan saw what was coming.

“I have a foreboding of an America in my children’s or grandchildren’s time — when the United States is a service and information economy; when nearly all the manufacturing industries have slipped away to other countries; when awesome technological powers are in the hands of a very few, and no one representing the public interest can even grasp the issues; when the people have lost the ability to set their own agendas or knowledgeably question those in authority; when, clutching our crystals and nervously consulting our horoscopes, our critical faculties in decline, unable to distinguish between what feels good and what’s true, we slide, almost without noticing, back into superstition and darkness…

The dumbing down of American is most evident in the slow decay of substantive content in the enormously influential media, the 30 second sound bites (now down to 10 seconds or less), lowest common denominator programming, credulous presentations on pseudoscience and superstition, but especially a kind of celebration of ignorance”

The line, “unable to distinguish between what feels good and what’s true”, seems to me the most chilling insight. It’s like gut instinct, a failing intuition, and biased sources of information all get weighed heavier than fact… and truth is a construct people create in their minds. The capital ‘T’ Truth seems to be constantly up for debate, and somehow a well researched theory loses validity when it is contrasted by conspiratorial ‘facts’ shared on social media with a little background, spooky mood music. As if these two sources of information deserve equal consideration.

Here’s a news flash… they don’t. And the fact that so many people are unable to distinguish the difference is both alarming and scary.

Promise and Doom

2 Replies

I see both promise and doom in the near future. Current advances in technology are incredible, and we will see amazing new insights and discoveries in the coming years. I’m excited to see what problems AI will solve. I’m thrilled about what’s happening to preserve not just life, but healthy life, as I approach my older years. I look forward to a world where many issues like hunger and disease have ever-improving positive outcomes. And yet, I’m scared.

I also see the end of civilized society. I see the threat of near extinction. I see a world destroyed by the very technologies that hold so much promise. As a case in point, see the article, “‘Unprecedented risk’ to life on Earth: Scientists call for halt on ‘mirror life’ microbe research”.

We are already playing with technology that has the potential to “put humans, animals and plants at risk of lethal infections.” What scares me most is the word I chose to start that sentence with, ‘We’. The proverbial ‘we’ right now are top scientists. But a decade, maybe two decades from now that ‘we’ could include an angry, disenfranchised, and disillusioned 22 year old… using an uncensored AI to intentionally develop (or rather synthetically design) a bacteria or a virus that could spread faster than any plague that humans have ever faced. Not a top researcher, not a university trained scientist, a regular ‘Joe’ who has decided at a young age that the world isn’t giving him what he deserves and decides to be vengeful on an epic scale.

The same thing that excites me about technological advancement also scares me… and it’s the power of individuals to impact our future. We all know the names of some great thinkers: Galileo, Newton, Curie, Tesla, and Einstein as incredible scientists that transformed the way we think of the world. People like them are rare, and have had lasting influence on the way we think of the world. For every one of them there are millions, maybe billions of bright thinkers for whom we know nothing.

I don’t fear the famous scientist, I fear the rogue, unhappy misfit who uses incredible technological advancements for nefarious reasons. The same technology that can make our lives easier, and create tremendous good in the world, can also be used with bad intentions. But there are differences between someone using a revolver for bad reasons and someone using a nuclear bomb for bad reasons. The problem we face in the future is that access to the equivalent harm of a nuclear bomb (or worse) will be something more and more people have access to. I don’t think this is something we can stop, and so as amazing as the technology is that we see today, my fear is that it could also be what leads to our demise as a species.

Aliens, aliens everywhere

Leave a reply

Fake videos on social media, news about aliens living in our oceans, even congressional hearings… It seems everywhere I look there are reports about aliens from outer space.

Disregard the click bait title, and watch ‘The UFO Movie THEY Don’t Want You To See’.

It’s a full dose of scepticism, based on science. Whether you believe there are aliens visiting us, aliens too far away to visit, or that we are alone in the universe… it’s worth an hour and a half of your time to watch this documentary.