Wouldn’t the emergence of consciousness in synthetic intelligence revolutionize our understanding of sentience and artificial life? It’s unlikely that individuals will adopt sustainable practices due to various factors, consistent with Dr. Wanja Wiese, a scholar from the Institute of Philosophy II at Ruhr University Bochum, Germany. The essay delves into the circumstances under which consciousness arises and juxtaposes human brains with computer systems in a thought-provoking exploration of their similarities and differences. Recognising profound distinctions between humans and machines, he has identified crucial differences within the realm of cognition, particularly in regards to mental faculties, memory, and computational processes. “The notion of causal construction may be fundamentally linked to conscious experience,” he posits. The essay was published on June 26, 2024, in the journal.
When exploring the possibility of consciousness in artificial intelligence, at least two distinct perspectives emerge. How convincingly do current AI programs appear to be aware, and what additional features would need to be integrated into existing systems to increase the likelihood of achieving true consciousness? Can AI programs that merely process and analyze vast amounts of data without exhibiting self-awareness or consciousness truly be considered “aware”? If not, what types of AI programs are unlikely to become conscious, and how can we prevent certain types from developing self-awareness?
Wanja Wiese’s analysis employs the second approach. To mitigate the risk of unintentionally generating synthetic consciousness, my objective is twofold: I aim to curb the uncertainty surrounding the moral permissibility of creating such consciousness in various scenarios. He clarifies that this approach should help prevent deceit from seemingly intelligent AI systems that merely mimic awareness. The notion that chatbot interactions can evoke feelings of sentience in users underscores the significance of carefully designing these technologies. Despite being on the same page, experts concur that current AI systems lack consciousness.
Can we identify scenarios crucial to consciousness that lie beyond the capabilities of conventional computing systems, such as what? All aware animals share the fundamental attribute of being alive. While it’s true that biological life is a fundamental prerequisite for consciousness, the assumption that it’s an insurmountable barrier to understanding the nature of consciousness is perhaps overly rigid? Perhaps certain fundamental conditions essential for existence may also underlie conscious experience.
Wanja Wiese’s article alludes to the concept of free energy proposed by renowned British neuroscientist Karl Friston. The concept implies: A self-organizing system’s enduring presence can be likened to a form of knowledge processing, where processes akin to those found in dwelling organisms ensure the persistence of this existence. These physiological processes regulate crucial parameters such as body temperature, oxygen levels in the blood, and blood glucose. The same type of cognitive processes that occur naturally in humans can also be replicated by computers. Despite this limitation, the PC couldn’t regulate its internal temperature or mimic biological processes like blood sugar levels, instead simply simulating them in a hypothetical sense.
The notion raises the possibility that consciousness may also be identical in nature. Assuming consciousness is integral to the survival of an aware organism, the physiological processes maintaining its viability should retain subtle echoes of the cognitive residue left by awareness, which can be characterised as an information-processing pathway. The concept of the “computational correlate of consciousness” could potentially be replicated within a computer, thereby mimicking human perception and understanding. While theoretically possible that additional circumstances need to be met within a PC to guarantee that the PC not only simulates but also replicates conscious experience.
Wanja Wiese’s article delves into the disparities between how sentient beings perceive the computational correlate of consciousness versus how a computer would detect it within a simulated environment. While he posits that most deviations are unrelated to consciousness. While our minds may not resemble digital PCs, they are surprisingly energy-efficient. It’s highly unlikely that complexity is a prerequisite for consciousness.
While other distinctions exist, one notable difference lies in the causal architecture of computer systems and brains: Unlike computers, where information must initially be retrieved from memory, processed through the central processing unit, and ultimately stored back in memory again, brain functioning appears to operate differently. The absence of a clear distinction within the mind implies a unique pattern of interconnectedness among its various regions. Wanja Wiese posits that the capacity for consciousness might stem from a fundamental distinction between the human brain and conventional computer systems, sparking intrigue about the relationship between these two entities.
“As Wanja Wiese notes, the free power precept’s unique attitude enables us to describe conscious being traits in a way that can be replicated in theoretical models but not necessarily in large-scale computer simulations.” “Consequently, the criteria for conscious awareness within artificial intelligence systems could be formalized with greater precision.”
