5 ms·

Right off the bat it seemed like it was saying experts have changed their tone recently. Saying "we're further from understanding consciousness than we thought

Right off the bat it seemed like it was saying experts have changed their tone recently. Saying "we're further from understanding consciousness than we thought we were". It never goes on to elaborate this point. Great book review. If I had more time, I would snap up the book immediately. The review left me wondering if the book elaborates on the above ^^^. I might make the time to read it.

Hemospectrum 4y ago
> Right off the bat This might not be a deliberate reference to Nagel (as mentioned in the article) but at least it's thematically appropriate.
- comfypotato 4y ago
  Perhaps. Or a strategy of the author to keep me reading until the end (it worked!)
nsxwolf 4y ago
I am glad, because for years the prevailing attitude was that there's nothing special or interesting about consciousness at all, that it doesn't really exist, it's an illusion, etc. I don't think we'll ever be able to fully explain it in scientific terms, because not everything is in the realm of scientific knowledge.
- notfed 4y ago
  What scares me is that some leading AI researchers hold this view (that consciousness in general is nothing special) and it makes them come across as unempathetic, as if all conscious beings---meat or AI---are simply computers and in turn pain is just some kind of computation and therefore that it's silly to even discuss taking precautions to prevent any kind of AI suffering.
  - opportune 4y ago
    That’s because consciousness is not well-defined and might as well be woo. The verbiage around it is the same as a “soul” Define it rigorously and show a physical basis and you might have something to work with.
    - notfed 4y ago
      All qualia (which consciousness itself closes over) are impossible to rigorously define with words. Attempts to do so will come across as woo. What we can do however is experience qualia first-hand, and prove to ourselves that they exist. While we may never know if we're experiencing them the same way as each other, the fact that we can experience qualia at all is undeniable, and the question of why we can do so is the real question being asked here.
  - grantcas 4y ago
    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 https://arxiv.org/abs/2105.10461

Hemospectrum 4y ago

> Right off the bat This might not be a deliberate reference to Nagel (as mentioned in the article) but at least it's thematically appropriate.

comfypotato 4y ago
Perhaps. Or a strategy of the author to keep me reading until the end (it worked!)

nsxwolf 4y ago

I am glad, because for years the prevailing attitude was that there's nothing special or interesting about consciousness at all, that it doesn't really exist, it's an illusion, etc. I don't think we'll ever be able to fully explain it in scientific terms, because not everything is in the realm of scientific knowledge.

notfed 4y ago
What scares me is that some leading AI researchers hold this view (that consciousness in general is nothing special) and it makes them come across as unempathetic, as if all conscious beings---meat or AI---are simply computers and in turn pain is just some kind of computation and therefore that it's silly to even discuss taking precautions to prevent any kind of AI suffering.
- opportune 4y ago
  That’s because consciousness is not well-defined and might as well be woo. The verbiage around it is the same as a “soul” Define it rigorously and show a physical basis and you might have something to work with.
  - notfed 4y ago
    All qualia (which consciousness itself closes over) are impossible to rigorously define with words. Attempts to do so will come across as woo. What we can do however is experience qualia first-hand, and prove to ourselves that they exist. While we may never know if we're experiencing them the same way as each other, the fact that we can experience qualia at all is undeniable, and the question of why we can do so is the real question being asked here.
- grantcas 4y ago
  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 https://arxiv.org/abs/2105.10461