Lifeboat Foundation

Search The Best Results For Pipeline Management Software. Click Here.

That, in a nutshell, is The perceived sensation of pain that you know as heartburn, the smell that draws you to a steak on the grill, the sight of magenta streaked across the sky at sunset—all are instances of conscious experience.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-2P3MSZrBM

Joscha Bach is the VP of Research at the AI Foundation, previously doing research at MIT and Harvard. Joscha work explores the workings of the human mind, intelligence, consciousness, life on Earth, and the possibly-simulated fabric of our universe.

Support this podcast by signing up with these sponsors:
- ExpressVPN at https://www.expressvpn.com/lexpod.
- Cash App — use code “LexPodcast” and download:
- Cash App (App Store): https://apple.co/2sPrUHe.
- Cash App (Google Play): https://bit.ly/2MlvP5w.

Continue reading “Joscha Bach: Artificial Consciousness and the Nature of Reality” »

It wouldn’t shock me if all the buzz around searching for the ‘locus of consciousness’ merely fine-tunes our grasp of how the brain is linked to consciousness — without actually revealing where consciousness comes from, because it’s not generated in the brain. Similarly, your smartphone doesn’t create the Internet or a cellular network; it just processes them. Networks of minds are a common occurrence throughout the natural world. What sets humans apart is the impending advent of cybernetic connectivity explosion that could soon evolve into a form of synthetic telepathy, eventually leading to the rise of a unified, global consciousness — what could be termed the Syntellect Emergence.

#consciousness #phenomenology #cybernetics #cognition #neuroscience

In summary, the study of consciousness could be conceptualized through a variety of lenses: as a series of digital perceptual snapshots, as a cybernetic system with its feedback processes, as a grand theater; or perhaps even as a VIP section in a cosmological establishment of magnificent complexity. Today’s leading theories of consciousness are largely complementary, not mutually exclusive. These multiple perspectives not only contribute to philosophical discourse but also herald the dawn of new exploratory avenues, equally enthralling and challenging, in our understanding of consciousness.

Continue reading “What Constitutes Your Stream of Consciousness?” »

Once considered a forbidden topic in the AI community, discussions around the concept of AI consciousness are now taking center stage, marking a significant shift since the current AI resurgence began over a decade ago. For example, last year, Brad Lemoine, an engineer at Google, made headlines claiming the large language model he was developing had become sentient [1]. CEOs of tech companies are now openly asked in media interviews whether they think their AI systems will ever become conscious [2,3].

Unfortunately, missing from much of the public discussion is a clear understanding of prior work on consciousness. In particular, in media interviews, engineers, AI researchers, and tech executives often implicitly define consciousness in different ways and do not have a clear sense of the philosophical difficulties surrounding consciousness or their relevance for the AI consciousness debate. Others have a hard time understanding why the possibility of AI consciousness is at all interesting relative to other problems, like the AI alignment issue.

This brief introduction is aimed at those working within the AI community who are interested in AI consciousness, but may not know much about the philosophical and scientific work behind consciousness generally or the topic of AI consciousness in particular. The aim here is to highlight key definitions and ideas from philosophy and science relevant for the debates on AI consciousness in a concise way with minimal jargon.

Science is hard. The science of consciousness is particularly hard, beset with philosophical difficulties and a scarcity of experimental data.

So in June, when the results of a head-to-head experimental contest between two rival theories were announced at the 26th annual meeting of the Association for the Scientific Study of Consciousness in New York City, they were met with some fanfare.

The results were inconclusive, with some favoring “integrated information theory” and others lending weight to the “global workspace theory”. The outcome was covered in both Science and Nature, as well as larger outlets including the New York Times and The Economist.

More than 400 years ago, Galileo showed that many everyday phenomena—such as a ball rolling down an incline or a chandelier gently swinging from a church ceiling—obey precise mathematical laws. For this insight, he is often hailed as the founder of modern science. But Galileo recognized that not everything was amenable to a quantitative approach. Such things as colors, tastes and smells “are no more than mere names,” Galileo declared, for “they reside only in consciousness.” These qualities aren’t really out there in the world, he asserted, but exist only in the minds of creatures that perceive them. “Hence if the living creature were removed,” he wrote, “all these qualities would be wiped away and annihilated.”

Since Galileo’s time the physical sciences have leaped forward, explaining the workings of the tiniest quarks to the largest galaxy clusters. But explaining things that reside “only in consciousness”—the red of a sunset, say, or the bitter taste of a lemon—has proven far more difficult. Neuroscientists have identified a number of neural correlates of consciousness —brain states associated with specific mental states—but have not explained how matter forms minds in the first place. As philosopher David Chalmers asked: “How does the water of the brain turn into the wine of consciousness?” He famously dubbed this quandary the “hard problem” of consciousness.

Continue reading “Is Consciousness Part of the Fabric of the Universe?” »

A letter, signed by 124 scholars and posted online last week, has caused an uproar in the consciousness-research community. It argues that a prominent theory describing what makes someone or something conscious — called the integrated information theory (IIT) — should be labelled as pseudoscience. Since its publication on 15 September in the preprint repository PsyArXiv1, the letter has resulted in some researchers arguing over the label and others worrying that it will increase polarization in a field that has grappled with issues of credibility in the past.

Decades-long bet on consciousness ends — and it’s philosopher 1, neuroscientist 0

“I think it’s inflammatory to describe IIT as pseudoscience,” says neuroscientist Anil Seth, director of the Centre for Consciousness Science at the University of Sussex near Brighton, UK, adding that he disagrees with the label. “IIT is a theory, of course, and therefore may be empirically wrong,” says Christof Koch, a meritorious investigator at the Allen Institute for Brain Science in Seattle, Washington, and a proponent of the theory. But he says that it makes its assumptions — for example, that consciousness has a physical basis and can be mathematically measured — very clear.

Continue reading “Consciousness theory slammed as ‘pseudoscience’ — sparking uproar” »

Integrated information theory is seen by some people as a leading theory of consciousness, but now over 100 neuroscientists have signed an open letter calling it untestable pseudoscience.

By Clare Wilson