Metaphysical “Choices” – Consciousness, Part 2

Can a silicon-based machine achieve consciousness? It is becoming an increasingly pressing question as scientists move closer to artificial intelligence. Yet we don’t understand our own consciousness, so how would we know? Maybe it already has happened…

We don’t understand what is consciousness, how consciousness came to exist, or why it exists. Because we don’t understand why it exists, we can’t answer whether it has any causal impact on the world. Aspects of human consciousness include:

• Consciousness appears to offer a more flexible and sophisticated control, at the expense of speed, which is important when encountering novel situations.
• It also appears to enhance social coordination through better understanding of other minded creatures.
• Consciousness may improve the unification and integration of reality, or at least the perception of the reality required for primitive survival.
• It may provide more global access to information within the brain.
• Does it enable free will? Or, just create the illusion of free will?
• Intrinsic motivation seems to be created by consciousness, or at least the perception of will.

Are all of these aspects possible within a silicon consciousness?

Another problem to consider. If consciousness is by definition subjective, then only a machine would know if it is truly conscious. This assumes objective and subjective are completely separate, with which a monism materialist might disagree (arguing the feeling of consciousness is simply the result of billions of neurons firing in a complex system).

Assuming a machine tells you it is conscious, do you believe it? A functionalist would argue “yes” since thoughts, beliefs, and even subjective states are simply functional states. A skeptic who believes there is something non-material about consciousness would simply argue the machine is a zombie, missing the essence of consciousness. Would the “conscious” silicon zombie then try to eat the skeptic’s brain? Maybe the kernel of an idea for my next book…

In an effort to understand consciousness I have been reading “Consciousness: An Introduction,” by Susan Blackmore. It offers a broad arc through research and experiments about consciousness, methodically building a case that there is little evidence supporting a dualist view of consciousness (implying humans have a soul or something other than matter that passes on). I believe she is an atheist, or someone who does not believe there is a God or gods.

Getting back to silicon-based zombies gobbling up human brains. There are several arguments why machine consciousness may ultimately prove different than human consciousness, although each are inconclusive:

1. Neurons could never be replicated by artificial means to replicate the information processing speed within the space and thermodynamic limitations, or the chemical interactions cannot be replicated to sustain the emotional response required of consciousness.
2. Consciousness requires a long period of learning, interacting with its environment. “Biological capacity to produce experiences, and these experiences only when they are felt by some human or animal agent.” (Searle, 1997)
3. Consciousness involves something greater than the parts (Holism), whether that is interpreted as a soul, a physical aspect in our universe we have yet to discover in our reality.
4. Before artificial consciousness could become a reality, a new type of physics is required to explain consciousness, including quantum entanglement and wave function collapse in a complex system.
5. A spectrum exists of consciousness, defined either by self-awareness, ability to imitate another, awareness of time, or intentionality to originate. Silicon may reach low level consciousness, but not high level.

All of this dances around the central issue, which is the gap in our understanding of consciousness. The large bulk of scientific research suggests consciousness is a product of the material activity of our minds (monism/ physicalist). But… the answers you find are determined by the questions you ask, and scientists ask decidedly objective questions. Therefore there is little surprise they arrive at objective answers.

Put differently, if scientists discovered tomorrow a reality beyond what we perceive (either quantum or cosmological), a reality the mechanisms of the mind can utilize, then all the scientific research into consciousness becomes lacking and religious teachings on consciousness again offer guideposts to follow.

In Evolved I take this path because well, science fiction is a wonderful platform to explore what could become main stream in science.

Metaphysical “Choices” – Holism

Waterspout

What are the physical laws explaining how convection ovens operate? How do hurricanes form in such a predictably orderly (and deadly) pattern? You might be surprised scientists cannot fully explain these phenomena. Thus the metaphysical topic of Holism.

Holism itself makes the basic assertion that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts, implying something non-material affects the outcome of certain systems. The closely related concept of non-separability generally asserts that the state of the whole is not constituted by the states of its parts. Both terms try to address a phenomena involving the spontaneous generation of degrees of order well outside predicted causality.

Examples of holism are often found in dissipative systems, in which an open system is operating outside of thermodynamic equilibrium. Specific examples of dissipative systems include convection, turbulent flow, cyclones, hurricanes and living organisms. These systems exchange energy and entropy with their environment in order to maintain a high degree of internal order in the system.

The basic question about these dissipative systems is whether a “bottoms-up” causality drives the apparent order of the system, or do “top-down” constraints restrict the action of the system. Causality could come from the still mysterious mechanisms at the quantum level, including entanglement. Constraints could come from a physical law we have yet to discover, or influence from another undiscovered dimension(s).

Another example of holism is the observed spontaneous generation of order in computerized models of logical networks. To illustrate this example scientists use an array of light bulbs, each with only an on and off option. The array starts off in a random pattern of illumination and then evolves in steps according to some simple rules, which express the logical structure of the network. If 10,000 bulbs are in the array, a limit of about 300 states of the system is observed, instead of the trillions of possibilities. The deterministic nature of logical networks implies the observed holistic order is generated from the bottom-up, even if the phenomena can best be described from the top down.

There are multiple approaches addressing these phenomena, which include methodological, metaphysical and property/ relational holism; state, spatial and spatial-temporal non-separatism.

Why is all this important? Well, for a few reasons that impact our fundamental understanding of reality. The “open future” Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics is the reason for so many theories about holism. The alternative deterministic interpretation of Bohm explains holism due to hidden information embedded within wavelengths. So if you believe in an open, indeterminate future, then you need to explain the phenomena of holism.

Holism is also important because subjects that focus on complex systems like thermodynamics rest on assumptions about how these systems should operate. If these basic assumptions prove inaccurate, the science behind these systems may lose some of their explanatory power. Lastly, metaphysical theories about time rest partially on thermodynamic theories and thus may impact these theories as well.

I know, I’m going deep on some of this stuff but I’m seeking to understand what is real in this world, and then apply it to the world in Evolved. Since I “chose” a Bohm explanation for the world in Evolved, implying the perceived three spatial dimensions of reality are deterministic, holism is largely explained.

A Few Theories on Holism and Non-separatism

Methodological holism argues some systems are better analyzed as a whole, rather than its counter-point the more typical methodological reductionism. Scientists instinctively fall in the reductionism camp as they seek to explain the “how” of quantum physics.

Methodological Holism: An understanding of a certain kind of complex system is best sought at the level of principles governing the behavior of the whole system, and not at the level of the structure and behavior of its component parts.

Methodological Reductionism: An understanding of a complex system is best sought at the level of the structure and behavior of its component parts.

Moving past methodological arguments, metaphysical holism argues the nature of some wholes are not determined by its parts. In other words, metaphysical argues we are missing something outside our scientific theories. There are three theories as to why this may be true.

Ontological Holism: Some objects are not wholly composed of basic physical parts.

Property Holism: Some objects have properties that are not determined by physical properties of their basic physical parts.

Nomological Holism: Some objects obey laws that are not determined by fundamental physical laws governing the structure and behavior of their basic physical parts.

Assuming our existing scientific theories capture the reality of these systems, Property Holism basically argues the theories are incomplete. This approach takes us into central issues of quantum physics. Property Holism breaks down into two opposing camps:

Physical Property Determination: Every qualitative intrinsic physical property and relation of a set of physical objects from any domain D subject only to type P processes supervenes on qualitative intrinsic physical properties and relations in the supervenience basis of their basic physical parts relative to D and P.

Physical Property Holism: There is some set of physical objects from a domain D subject only to type P processes, not all of whose qualitative intrinsic physical properties and relations supervene on qualitative intrinsic physical properties and relations in the supervenience basis of their basic physical parts (relative to D and P).

There are many more theories that consider the issue from multiple angles. For further reading, I suggest reviewing Stanford’s Philosophy reference.

Metaphysical “Choices” – Consciousness

Consciousness is something we intuitively believe we understand. After all, in many ways it is who we are personally. Yet try to define it and the meaning becomes elusive. American Philosopher Thomas Nagel describes another organism as conscious when we mean “there is something it is like to be that organism… something it is like for the organism.” While there is not much agreement on a specific definition of consciousness, a rough triangulation of a definition could be consciousness is subjectivity.

In Evolved I have been wrestling with the idea of consciousness. Specifically, what does it mean to be an organic life form versus a silicon life form? In the Evolved world there are silicon people who are recognized as alive, along with all the legal rights of an organic life. This sets up an interesting tension as both sides try to define what it means to be ‘alive.’ Silicon life have dreams, emotions and a sense of ‘self.’ So what does that mean? Are they conscious? If so, how are they different?

Philosophers, scientists and psychologists have grappled with consciousness from multiple angles. Religions themselves rest on certain assumptions about consciousness, and what it means. Yet despite the extended history of human study of consciousness, we remain deeply confused by it (even if we don’t recognize our own confused state).

“For my part, when I enter most intimately into what I call myself, I always stumble on some particular perception or other, of heat or cold, light or shade, love or hatred, pain or pleasure. I never can catch myself at any time without a perception, and never can observe any thing but the perception.” -David Hume, 1739

By approaching from the perspective of the ‘self,’ there are two basic theories: ego theorists and bundle theorists. Ego theorists believe in a continuously existing self who are subjects of experiences and who think, act and feel. Bundle theorists deny there is a self, instead arguing we are simply a collection of different perceptions that are in constant flux and movement. Buddhism denies there is a self and therefore falls into the bundle theory, while most other religions believe in either immortal souls or reincarnating spirits that fall into the ego theory.

“I am not thought, I am not action, I am not feeling: I am something which thinks and acts and feels.” -Thomas Reid, 1785

In Evolved, silicon life is most definitely in the bundled theory. Yet how does a silicon life form feel about that? Could they not believe they too have a soul, a continuity of their existence beyond their physical existence? All the perceptions they process have similar reactions as organic life. In which theory does organic life fall? Well, I can’t give away all the fun…

Approaching from another angle, there are competing theories over whether consciousness is dualism or monism. Dualism argues a part of consciousness is non-physical, creating a separation between mind and body, object and subject. Monism includes physicalism and materialism, which argues matter is the fundamental substance in nature. From a scientific perspective, dualism is a hard argument to defend. After all, it argues something mystical is going on, or at least beyond current scientific reason.

Plato used the allegory of a cave to describe consciousness while David Hume described it as a type of theater, which later Daniel Dennett rejected and called the Cartesian Theater. This concept imagines a place inside the mind where ‘I’ am, complete with a sort of mental screen or stage where contents of consciousness are presented to the mind’s eye. A similar concept is Cartesian Materialism in which the consciousness is not separate from the brain. Both concepts reflect a dualism in which there are two parts to a person, the physical and the conscious. But, Susan Blackmore explains the problem with inventing a central place in which subjectivity happens:

“So either we have to find an answer to the question, ‘how does subjective awareness arise from the objective actions of all these neurons and muscle cell?’, or we have to work out what mistake has led us into posing such an impossible question in the first place.” -Susan Blackmore, 2011

Another consideration about consciousness is whether it causes directed attention or is the effect of paying attention, or neither. Many positions today describe attention in a causal manner, similar to “the sentry at the gate of consciousness” (Adam Zeman, 2001), which implies a dualism. A similar monism causal view is “there is no conscious perception without attention.” (Mack and Rock, 1998) William James asked, “Is voluntary attention a resultant or a force?” He made a strong case for the effect side but ultimately sided with the causal on ethical grounds.

Some scientists have dived down to the quantum level (Eugene Wigner and Henry Stapp) to explain consciousness, assuming a Copenhagen-sympathetic interpretation that allows for an open future (and therefore free will). Yet the actual mechanism allowing our brains to willfully collapse a wave function, or provide true chance in the process, remains mysterious. Alternatively, one could argue a Bohm interpretation, implying a deterministic reality in which we either have no free will or our brains use a mysterious outside influence on our deterministic brains.

Could silicon produce a conscious being? Could we eventually upload our consciousness into a silicon-based computer without losing anything? So much depends on your definition of consciousness but most scientists don’t see any reason why it could not happen. Most religious leaders are appalled by the notion. What would the Buddha think of it? Would robots also strive for “emptiness” to clear out the distracting objectivity originally programmed into them?

If a robot had dreams, emotions, displayed moral behavior, could create original art pieces, and vehemently argued it had a ‘self,’ would you consider it conscious? Would it be an equal to you legally? If an organic human killed it, would it be murder with the same penalties as what we consider is murder?

All of these questions about consciousness are rich veins to mine in Evolved. Honestly, I am still changing things as I reconsider questions, find inconsistencies between my meta physical choices, and work to bring out the issues to the reader. I will probably never reach a satisfactory end point, but will I consciously accept that?

Metaphysical “Choices” – Chance and Causality

Image courtesy of Victor Habbick at FreeDigitalPhotos.net

When researching and writing Evolved a great deal of thought went into metaphysical questions about reality. After all, the setting is a couple thousand years in the future and the topography of the universe (explained in the book) should fit within current scientific theories and philosophies.

Metaphysics is a traditional branch of philosophy concerned with explaining the fundamental nature of being and the world that encompasses it. Scientists tend to overlook it, but it illuminates the assumptions we make about our reality, as well as the holes in current scientific theories. Questions about causality, cosmology, time, and consciousness have consumed much of my thoughts even after writing Evolved.

Structuring the overlapping and conflicting arguments about each of these topics has been a challenge. In addition, all of these questions force a deeper dive into quantum physics (the apparent root system of our reality), and even slivers within the overall field like quantum statistical mechanics. My path over the past few years has been equal parts of befuddlement and enlightenment. A few books I have read half a dozen times in an effort to fully appreciate the author’s wisdom.

At some point one has to put a stake in the ground and begin building a world around it. Let me start with the stake planted around causality. In Evolved, humanity believes in an open future, a Neils Bohr reality (explained below) and one in which humanity has control over its choices (free will) and real chance exists. The mechanism I use in the book to explain the mechanism behind the measurement problem is cosmological in nature to allow for this metaphysical existence.

My protagonist, however, comes to believe humanity exists in a deterministic world, a David Bohm world (explained below). Part of his challenge is to overcome the deterministic nature of the physical world to save humanity’s apparently preset course of destruction. The mechanism to allow for this level of control also comes from a cosmological theory. With that, a little explanation of quantum mechanics is in order.

From a quantum perspective there are two ways of looking at our reality, and it involves the uncertainty associated with the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics. The fundamental question about the probabilities found at the quantum level is whether they simply reflect ignorance or an indeterminate reality.

Niels Bohr is one of the founding fathers of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum probabilities. This interpretation of the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics is that we understand quantum wave lengths completely, but they are not deterministic. Most scientists intuitively favor this interpretation because it depicts a world of becoming, allowing for an open future, or indeterminate reality. In other words, chance is allowed for within this interpretation, which is seemingly supported by observation and mathematical constructs like chaos theory.

Yet, the Copenhagen interpretation leaves some puzzles. Foremost is the measurement problem. The theory enables extremely accurate predictions of relative probabilities at the quantum level based on deterministic wave functions calculations, but we do not understand the actual process that provides a seemingly indeterminate definitive answer on each occasion of measurement. In other words, what is the mechanism that allows for this indeterminate reality?

David Albert takes a stab at this mechanism in his book Time and Chance. Dr. Albert lays out the challenge of finding the mechanism within the Copenhagen interpretation.

The idea … is to stick with the standard way of thinking about what it means to be in a superposition, and to stick with the idea that a quantum-mechanical wave function amounts, all by itself, to a complete description of a physical system, and to account for the emergence of determinate outcomes of experiments … by means of explicit violations of the deterministic differential equations of motion, and to try to develop some precise idea of the circumstances under which those violations occur. – David Z. Albert

Dr. Albert offers one fully worked out scientific solution, which involves the GRW theory. Within this theory the wave function of a single particle almost always evolves according to linear deterministic equations of motion, except for a probability within the wave function itself for a random localization of the particle to occur. Furthermore, the effects of these “jumps” will convert superpositions of macroscopically different states in a way consistent with standard-mechanical probabilities. This mechanism allows for real dynamical chance to enter into scientific discussion and our observable reality.

David Bohm, on the other hand, produced a complete quantum theory arguing the probabilities reflect our ignorance about the complete nature of the quantum mechanical wave function. Bohm argued wave functions act like force fields, guiding the particle along a particular course. In this sense our spatial reality is fully deterministic since the wave function is deterministic. Or, in other words, the future movement of every particle can be calculated into the future if we had a complete understanding of the wave function. In this theory, chance does not exist.

Another set of theories fall into modal interpretations, which differentiate between dynamical state (determines what may be the case) and the value state (represents what is actually occurring). Since the dynamical state always evolves according to the Schrodinger equation, the evolution of our reality is entirely deterministic within these modal interpretations. Only the probabilities associated with the value state are real dynamical chances.

Quantum decoherence was developed by David Bohm. The theory does not explain a mechanism for the wave function collapse, but instead a mechanism for the appearance of the collapse. The appearance is due to “leaking” of quantum information into the environment so that the superposition of the wavelength exists, but beyond our ability to measure it. Decoherence became fundamental to Hugh Everett’s many-world interpretation and has been incorporated into various theories. Since decoherence does not provide an actual mechanism, it cannot offer an opening for chance to enter into our reality.

So with that it should be obvious it remains an open question as to what the probabilities of quantum mechanics mean. We naturally prefer to think of ourselves in control, with free will. It is decidedly unwelcome to consider the possibility that we live in a deterministic reality. But that, to me, is a fun avenue to explore since it will make the reader uncomfortable and force more consideration about ourselves.

One last note. I am by no means an expert on quantum physics or philosophy. So please leave a comment if you believe I am wrong on a theory, or misrepresented an argument.

Chance – Does Humanity Have Any?

Does chance exist in our reality?

Do we live in an indeterminate universe?

Two different questions, but closely related. The first asks whether anything is truly random. The second incorporates the first but also asks whether we can actively change how the future plays out. Is there room in our universe for free will?

You might be surprised that scientists and philosophers find it quite difficult to allow an opening for chance to exist in our reality. Time is asymmetric, but just because we can’t perceive the future doesn’t mean it is random in nature. Theoretically, the laws of physics should determine how the future unfolds.

Those probabilities in quantum mechanics? In the wrong place to allow for real chance. The probabilities reflect our inability to measure effectively at the quantum level. They do not allow for random wave functions, unless one incorporates the GRW theory into the model. GRW theory implies an inherent randomness within the quantum wave functions, allowing a wave function to randomly reset itself every billion years, or so. (It also implies many dimensions exist beyond what we perceive)

So, does humanity have any chance? It would appear the answer is no, or at least an extraordinarily small degree. Does that mean we have no free will? Let’s return to that idea of extra dimensions.

String theory implies ten, or even eleven dimensions if you include time. GRW theory implies more dimensions than that. Other theories suggest we live in a multi-universe, which requires multiple dimensions. Science, and math, consistently suggests something more is going on than we perceive with our limited senses.

Do extra dimensions open up the opportunity for free will? Does consciousness use extra dimensions to change the deterministic universe we perceive? Is consciousness simply a receiver of something from extra dimensions, manipulating this reality for some greater purpose? Is life’s ability to create order in a less organized environment a hint of its higher purpose? These are the questions explored in Evolved.

When I started writing Evolved I entered through a well-defined sturdy portal with a neon light blinking “Science” above it. When the writing was finished I had unexpectedly popped out of some twisted rabbit hole into a reality well beyond what we perceive today. It is something I hope to share with the world one day.

Standing on Giants

Over the summer I plan to go through my sources of inspiration for Evolved. This is partly for my own benefit as I refresh my understanding of various theories. It is also to recognize the brilliant minds that have transformed my life over the past few years. Finally, it will help you understand the road I have traveled to date, and how I arrived at this point.

The path started innocently enough with the thought, “What if humans could adapt to non-organic elements and unlock new capabilities?” This initial idea quickly swept me into chemistry, neurology and psychology, followed almost immediately by cosmology and particle physics. Quantum mechanics and time philosophy took some time to wrap my head around, but boning up on general relativity helped me to understand at least the basics. I’ve always enjoyed moral philosophical debates like “sacrificing the many for the few,” as well as arguments around free will and determinism. One book on chance I read at least five times before it clicked.

When the second draft of the manuscript was complete I took a step back and thought, “there is something more to this.” After showing the draft to a minister at my church, I was blown away that the world I had created was explained almost perfectly by spiritual teaching. Not only that, but Christian, Judaism, and Buddhism belief systems all seemed to explain the supra conscious element I had developed, especially Native American spirituality. Ancient Greek philosophy suddenly sprang into relevance for me. It became clear my mind was wrestling with deeper questions than I had recognized. This realization has been transforming me, urging me on to deeper understandings in all the areas mentioned above.

It has been very cool to go into science and emerge out of spirit. Hope you enjoy the ride.