We recently abandoned our home offices during working hours to see Ex-Machina, a fascinating tale about artificial intelligence. The story is well written and the acting excellent. The fact that the three main actors are virtually unknown in the U.S. added to the reality, since we didn’t have to get past the idea that we were watching a famous actor or actress playing another role. That made it easier to drop the sense of disbelief and get into this compelling story of advanced artificial intelligence in the form of a very human-like robot that becomes more clever than its creator.
In Ex-Machina, we have a robot that apparently possesses a sense of self-awareness. However, according to Korean quantum physicist Daegene Song, that will never happen. According to an article published in techswarm.com, Song has shown that computers will never be able to duplicate human consciousness or be programmed to do so. The reason, he says, is that consciousness doesn’t exist in the brain.
By representing consciousness mathematically, Song’s quantum computer research shows that consciousness is not compatible with a machine. Among conscious activities, the unique characteristic of self-observation cannot exist in any type of machine,” Song explained. “Human thought has a mechanism that computers cannot compute or be programmed to do.”
An article in Unknown Country notes that the neuroscience community has been working for many years to replicate consciousness in a machine by increasing the number of pathways between memory chips, but now it appears that, no matter how large the machine brain, it will never be self aware. A general assumption among scientists is that consciousness is a side-effect of brain activity, but Dr. Song’s math suggests that this cannot be true. If he is correct, then a fundamental change not just in science is implied, but also in the way we view ourselves. It would appear that consciousness may be something that the brain accesses, but does not generate.
In a related study of consciousness, described in phys.org, physicist Sir Roger Penrose and anesthesiologist Stuart Hameroff tussle with the same issue in their study of consciousness.
“The origin of consciousness reflects our place in the universe, the nature of our existence. Did consciousness evolve from complex computations among brain neurons, as most scientists assert? Or has consciousness, in some sense, been here all along, as spiritual approaches maintain?” ask Hameroff and Penrose in the current review.
“This opens a potential Pandora’s Box, but our theory accommodates both these views, suggesting consciousness derives from quantum vibrations in microtubules, protein polymers inside brain neurons, which both govern neuronal and synaptic function, and connect brain processes to self-organizing processes in the fine scale, ‘proto-conscious’ quantum structure of reality.”
If these scientists are correct, we might not have to worry about self-aware robots taking over the world. But we’ll still potentially have to deal with programmed robots following the coded orders of their makers. Who knows what they might eventually be capable of doing.
In my previous comment, I was writing ONLY about Souls in the human vehicle. I definitely, without any reservations whatsoever, have the conviction that things we term “inanimate” also have souls! Trees, plants, rocks, crystals, even houses….in my opinion, have Souls of various and sundry types. Our home is filled with plants, almost like a jungle in some rooms, and I pet these plants, literally stroke their leaves, tell them how beautiful and green they are, and how much pleasure they bring to me and to the family. When I must “groom” them, cut away yellowing stems and leaves or whatever, I always explain to them that it’s necessary in order for them to grow to their fullest potential….that the straggling stems, etc., are leaching out their nutrients that they need to flourish. They dO respond, no question about it, and usually turn toward wherever I am and become lush and green. I KNOW they hear and understand me, as silly as that sounds to most folks. As a rock and crystal collector, I also talk to my rocks and crystals. I think that just the fact that inanimate objects absorb energies that can be felt and interpreted through psychometry is an indication that inanimate objects have souls. Its magickal, to me, knowing that souls exist all around us and that we have the ability to communicate with those souls on certain levels.
I saw Ex Machina last month, and found it very interesting. Most of the discussion at the IMDb concerns our (audience) perception of Ava, who was designed to appear human. My response was:
I didn’t feel any emotion / compassion towards Ava because she’s a robot. The concept of sentient, virtually-human A.I. is fascinating, but simultaneously: “What’s the point?” Any type of robotic humanoid, no matter how realistic or advanced, is basically just a glorified toy.
Most people don’t have an emotional attachment to their electronic devices, household appliances, or cars. We might appreciate their functions, but it’s only machinery. Granted, most tech gadgets aren’t photo-realistically humanoid by design, but the point remains that no flesh-and-blood human being will genuinely love or bond with an A.I. because it’s not real. People tend to project human characteristics onto inanimate objects (like a child with a favorite toy or doll), but those feelings will never be reciprocated.
Let’s say that someday a company succeeds in developing a sentient, fully-functional A.I. being like Ava, virtually indistinguishable from an actual human. I might admire it: “Yeah, she looks pretty hot.” but I won’t fall in love with it because it’s not real. There’s simply no substitute for the real thing.
I’m glad to see that science is finally exploring the previously taboo subject of non-local consciousness………..since millions upon millions of people have had out of body experiences, near death experiences, and paranormal experiences, it will be a relief to many of them to be told that they may not be crazy after all!
But I’m not so sure that objects, including perhaps the enormously complex crystalline objects that are computers and robots………..can’t have “souls” too. I was thinking of a book called “The Secret Life of Inantimate Objects” from the ’90’s (https://www.amazon.com/The-Nature-Things-Inanimate-Objects/dp/089281408X)…….
As an artist, I know that works of art can contain a kind of “mana”, a resonance generatated by the artist and the creative process that I am certain people respond to in ways not understood. We know that gems can have that……….remember all the stories about the Hope diamond, and other notorious stones? Could it be that, if our life is not just in the brain and the body, we imbue a kind of life into the things we create and love as well?
Just a meandering thought……….thanks for the article!
Oh yes, I’m with you on this one, Lauren. Works of art, books, yes, they all have souls to which we respond. Souls that are living, breathing….
My personal concept of individual Consciousness is over-simplified, by my own choice. (Over-simplifying the most complex and complicated subject in the universes)
I’ve reached this simplified conviction that works for me in terms of explaining consciousness after inundating myself over decades of absorbing material from God only knows how many authors and investigators into the question. I tend to have the conviction that the human physical vehicle is nothing more than a mass of various kinds of energies that are inert (inanimate and without life) until it becomes animated by an incoming Soul….and that the incoming Soul enters its physical vehicle just prior to or at the moment of the emergence of that physical vehicle out of the womb.
I absolutely agree that the HEART is the residence of the Soul once it has entered the body; that the brain is the MECHANISM used by the Soul to function, not vice-versa. In my opinion, unless someone becomes able to “create” a Soul and put it into a physical vehicle, artificial intelligence having self-awareness and emotions cannot exist. Again in my opinion, true death does not occur until the Soul, itself, has completely departed the body and its umbilical to that body is permanently severed. Artificial Intelligence may be created, ie, “thinking robots “, and may even be programmed to solve problems, etc., but these robotic intelligences will have no emotions.
Without the presence within it of a Soul, any created entity is nothing more than a sophisticated automaton. (In my opinion). Anyway, this works for me because I don’t like or enjoy or accept the idea that Soul-less entities can be created by science. When push comes to shove, we really don’t know or understand the complexities of our Souls and/or their origins, but I think we DO know and understand that their presence in the body resides within the heart….the organic receptacle for Soul. We have external clinical machines that allow different organs to function when the brain (machine) is damaged, but the Soul Consciousness cannot be duplicated by science…..imo. Just thoughts….
Interesting – have we always had self-awareness? If, as some say, we have all come through a form of evolution – at what stage did we become self aware?
I have a feeling that a form of self awareness could be achieved i.e. realising a repair is necessary and then,who knows …
as per the other day Rob!! Wat Da ya think… Name – Date… what?? expecting pornography? ancient secrets of the universe scrolled into wet concrete cursive…or maybe some stanzas of Whitman!! just to be humorous…if you only knew!!
sometimes sarcasm becomes the preferred mode of expression… think I was in this building 48 0r so years ago…wish I looked as good…. now that’s NOT Sar……
What building?
a Library Rob,,, where else a guy like me gonna quack from,,, now this ones nice,, but small,, well actually considering not quite that sm…. but here I sit in a library,, looking for truth,,, hmmmm!,, what R the chances….
We evolve from the heart – not the brain. Look at any early sonogram and you will see a tiny flicker of the heart. The brain evolves later in the process. I love Penrose’s work, but until we recognize that there is far more to us than electrical impulses we will remain clueless.
So true, Nancy!
I just read about Song’s work and was going to send you the link; I should have known you’d already know of it:-) I’m not sure I understand Penrose and Hammeroff, though. It sounds like they’re still focusing on brain generated consciousness, unless quantum is the magic word that puts the process in the who knows where. It seems to me that studying intentional OBE gives a great deal of credence to consciousness as a non-local phenomenon.
I think they are focused on brain-generated consciousness!