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
Thanks for the pointer to Edelman. Interesting stuff! Ross Ashby, Gordon Pask, and Michael Levin are the examples I know best. Interesting that Edelman is happy to use the word consciousness whereas Levin avoids it.
You're welcome. I believe the theory and experimental method that the Darwin automata are based on is the way to a conscious machine. Although I'm sure much other research will be useful and pertinent in that endeavor. The TNGS is the only neuroscience theory that seems like real science to me, with theory suggesting hypotheses that are tested by the embodied modeling of the Darwin automata performing in real time based on realistic models of the parts of the biological brain that the theory claims subserve these hypotheses, with all the functioning of the simulated neurons recorded for analysis to provide confirmation or not of the hypotheses, and to provide the basis for further conjecture and experimentation. This has taken us from Darwin I, a relatively simple computer program demonstrating general principles of selective recognition systems, to Darwin XIII, a physical automaton capable of mental rotation of objects.
This is so smart Rob -- I'll be returning to it. I need to read more William James at this moment. More Henry too. In the meantime, I'll keep reading you!
Thanks, I have Pollan’s new book sitting around and staring at me, though I couldn’t quite get the motivation to pick it up. This makes it a little more intriguing! I also think that those living tissues don’t make it into enough conversations about consciousness…
Michael Lind make a brief appearance in the book, and he is my favorite researcher into these questions. He follows James in how he thinks about mind, but he is building robots, some with living tissue, in a effort to model cognition. Drawing a line from his lab to Mary Shelley and the Murderbot Diaries is to start to sketch the world we're building.
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
Thanks for the pointer to Edelman. Interesting stuff! Ross Ashby, Gordon Pask, and Michael Levin are the examples I know best. Interesting that Edelman is happy to use the word consciousness whereas Levin avoids it.
You're welcome. I believe the theory and experimental method that the Darwin automata are based on is the way to a conscious machine. Although I'm sure much other research will be useful and pertinent in that endeavor. The TNGS is the only neuroscience theory that seems like real science to me, with theory suggesting hypotheses that are tested by the embodied modeling of the Darwin automata performing in real time based on realistic models of the parts of the biological brain that the theory claims subserve these hypotheses, with all the functioning of the simulated neurons recorded for analysis to provide confirmation or not of the hypotheses, and to provide the basis for further conjecture and experimentation. This has taken us from Darwin I, a relatively simple computer program demonstrating general principles of selective recognition systems, to Darwin XIII, a physical automaton capable of mental rotation of objects.
This is so smart Rob -- I'll be returning to it. I need to read more William James at this moment. More Henry too. In the meantime, I'll keep reading you!
Thanks, Hollis. I convinced myself three years ago that James could help make sense of what is happening as we confront these weird new machines.
Thanks, I have Pollan’s new book sitting around and staring at me, though I couldn’t quite get the motivation to pick it up. This makes it a little more intriguing! I also think that those living tissues don’t make it into enough conversations about consciousness…
Michael Lind make a brief appearance in the book, and he is my favorite researcher into these questions. He follows James in how he thinks about mind, but he is building robots, some with living tissue, in a effort to model cognition. Drawing a line from his lab to Mary Shelley and the Murderbot Diaries is to start to sketch the world we're building.