Connectionists: Sentient AI Survey Results: How analysis of learning without catastrophic forgetting led to neural models of conscious brain states

[Stephen Deiss]

Steve,

This is very interesting.  Let me read your tome and get back with some
better informed questions if you have time for a few.  One I have upfront
follows.

The claim is that ART and CogEM together provide a backdoor explanation of
consciousness in any system.  But is it assumed that the system has to be
capable of emotion, learning, and memory?  Those are 4 loaded terms.  So
how far down do you think such systems go in nature?

Sincerely,
Steve D.

On Wed, Jun 7, 2023 at 3:08 PM Grossberg, Stephen <steve at bu.edu> wrote:

> Dear Steve,
>
>
>
> Thanks for your prompt and thoughtful reply!
>
>
>
> I will respond mostly to your question:
>
>
>
> “I think a question remains after all the details get worked out in how
> consciousness arises in brains, why should it only happen at that level of
> natural resonant oscillation?”
>
>
>
> I should at the outset note that my first discoveries about CONSCIOUSNESS
> emerged from my work on *how humans LEARN quickly without being forced to
> forget just as quickly.*
>
>
>
> Otherwise, expressed:
>
>
>
> *How do we learn quickly without experiencing catastrophic forgetting?*
>
>
>
> I called this problem the *stability-plasticity dilemma.*
>
>
>
> Starting in 1976, I started to solve this problem when I introduced *Adaptive
> Resonance Theory*, or ART.
>
>
>
> After incremental principled development to the present time, ART is now
> the *most advanced cognitive and neural theory of how our brains learn to
> attend, recognize, and predict objects and events in a changing world*
> that is filled with unexpected events.
>
>
>
> This claim is supported in several ways:
>
>
>
> All the *foundational hypotheses* of ART have been supported by
> subsequent psychological and neurobiological experiments.
>
>
>
> ART has also provided *principled and unifying explanations* of scores of
> additional experiments.
>
>
>
> Last but not least, by 1980, I published in an oft-cited article in *Psychological
> Review*, a *THOUGHT EXPERIMENT* which shows that ART systems are *the
> UNIQUE solutions of the problem of how ANY system can AUTONOMOUSLY LEARN to
> CORRECT PREDICTIVE ERRORS in a changing world that is filled with
> unexpected events*.
>
>
>
> The* CogEM* (Cognitive-Emotional-Motor) model was also derived from a
> THOUGHT EXPERIMENT and explains lots of interdisciplinary data about *how
> cognition and emotion interact to achieve valued goals*.
>
>
>
> The hypotheses used to derive these models are familiar facts that we all
> know from our daily experiences. Thus, if you cannot find a logical flaw in
> the thought experiments, they logically follow from undeniable facts. No
> one has, to the best of my knowledge, yet reported such a logical flaw.
>
>
>
> Morevoer, these facts never mention mind or brain.
>
>
>
> *Thus ART and CogEM are UNIVERSAL solutions of these learning and
> prediction problems*.
>
>
>
> Moreover, *both classes of models solve their problems using different
> kinds of ADAPTIVE RESONANCES*.
>
>
>
> Explanations of many other kinds of data fell out of the wash:
>
>
>
> For example, these models explain how specific breakdowns in brain
> mechanisms cause behavioral symptoms of *MENTAL DISORDERS*, including
> Alzheimer's disease, autism, amnesia, schizophrenia, and ADHD.
>
>
>
> I only realized later that ART and CogEM together also *explain HOW,
> WHERE in our brains, and WHY our brains support CONSCIOUS STATES OF SEEING,
> HEARING, FEELING, and KNOWING, and use these conscious states to PLAN and
> ACT to realize valued goals*.
>
>
>
> This latter realization arose after I used ART to provide *unified and
> principled explanations of how interacting brain mechanisms gave rise to
> parametric properties of psychological behaviors*.
>
>
>
> I gradually realized that *the psychological behaviors being explained
> were conscious*. I had, through the back door as it were, discovered *how
> adaptive resonances generate conscious behaviors*.
>
>
>
> The classification of six resonances that I listed in my earlier email
> gradually arose from similar principled explanations of different kinds of
> psychological experiences.
>
>
>
> As I earlier mentioned, I explain all this in a self-contained and
> non-technical way in my Magnum Opus:
>
>
>
> https://www.amazon.com/Conscious-Mind-Resonant-Brain-Makes/dp/0190070552
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.amazon.com/Conscious-Mind-Resonant-Brain-Makes/dp/0190070552__;!!Mih3wA!ECkl6YgJGiyeT8S7ckGRdwjdMkTaH6l8kLD7GcVKJL9seMtkfwiee-KBJ6ojPAveG83T8niE_9Y$>
>
>
>
> Best again,
>
>
>
> Steve
>
>
>
> *From: *Stephen Deiss <sdeiss at ucsd.edu>
> *Date: *Wednesday, June 7, 2023 at 12:17 PM
> *To: *Grossberg, Stephen <steve at bu.edu>
> *Cc: *Jeff Krichmar <jkrichma at uci.edu>, connectionists at cs.cmu.edu <
> connectionists at cs.cmu.edu>
> *Subject: *Re: Connectionists: Sentient AI Survey Results
>
> Hi Steve,
>
>
>
> Thanks for adding these comments.  My bad for not including you on that
> list of consciousness researchers.  I admit to having your book on my shelf
> but I have not started on it yet.  I'm somewhat familiar with ART and its
> historical development, and resonance fits right in with my summary term of
> 'coupled areas.'  (Actually, I started down my own quest reading many of
> your papers about ART in the early 80's after we had lunch at NTSU in
> Denton, TX where you spoke and gave what the conference host called your
> 'big mountain' view as you may recall.). Resonance or global coherent
> oscillations in brains, ignoring finer distinctions, has always seemed a
> non-brainer to me since reading Hebb (OoB).  Your work developed Hebb's
> intuitions into a quantitative and experimentally supported coherent
> theory.  Thank you for sharing the synopsis for all here.
>
>
>
> I think a question remains after all the details get worked out in how
> consciousness arises in brains, why should it only happen at that level of
> natural resonant oscillation?  Resonance or what underlies it may go very
> deep.  If socially-informed self-awareness is dropped as an assumed
> requirement, and if 'sensation' is treated as more than a metaphor for what
> happens in more elementary systems participating in events, then there is
> an opening for a paradigm shift in how we think about conscious systems.
> This has no small bearing on how an artifact could be conscious too.  I
> will have more to present about this bottom-up thinking about consciousness
> soon in a planned publication.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Steve
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 7, 2023 at 8:24 AM Grossberg, Stephen <steve at bu.edu> wrote:
>
> Dear Steve,
>
>
>
> There is a tendency to conflate AI with a particular neural network, Deep
> Learning.
>
>
>
> Deep Learning, and related models, are biologically impossible and omit
> key processes that make humans intelligent, in addition to being
> UNTRUSTWORTHY (because they are NOT EXPLAINABLE) and UNRELIABLE (because
> they experience CATASTROPHIC FORGETTING).
>
>
>
> In contrast, biological neural networks that have been developed and
> published in visible archival journals over the past 50+ years have none of
> these problems.
>
>
>
> These models provide *unified and principled explanations *of many
> psychological and neurobiological facts about how our brains make our
> minds.
>
>
>
> They have also been implemented over the last several decades in many
> large-scale *applications* in engineering, technology, and AI.
>
>
>
> Along the way, they provide explanations of HOW, WHERE in our brains, and
> WHY from a deep computational perspective, humans can CONSCIOUSLY SEE,
> HEAR, FEEL, and KNOW about objects and events in a changing world that is
> filled with unexpected events, and use these conscious representations to
> PLAN, PREDICT, and ACT to realize VALUED GOALS.
>
>
>
> From my perspective, a credible theory of consciousness needs to LINK
> brain mechanisms to conscious psychological experiences.
>
>
>
> Without knowing the brain mechanisms, one does not understand HOW
> consciousness arises.
>
>
>
> Without knowing the emergent psychological experiences, one does not
> understand the CONTENTS of conscious awareness.
>
>
>
> Significantly, neural models that do this can be derived from THOUGHT
> EXPERIMENTS whose hypotheses are a few simple facts that we all know from
> our daily experiences.
>
>
>
> My Magnum Opus
>
>
>
> CONSCIOUS MIND: RESONANT BRAIN: HOW EACH BRAIN MAKES A MIND
>
> https://www.amazon.com/Conscious-Mind-Resonant-Brain-Makes/dp/0190070552
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.amazon.com/Conscious-Mind-Resonant-Brain-Makes/dp/0190070552__;!!Mih3wA!EadrIVIL2DqjS4bZ3vkctcvdyc9hTpeWv_1r1RTEDkA9GgQG2lYHXCU0LmD7956z0BrgikH8Xe8$>
>
>
>
> provides a self-contained and non-technical overview and synthesis of how
> our brains make our conscious minds, and explains several ways in which
> consciousness may fail.
>
>
>
> In the book, six different kinds of conscious awareness, with different
> functional roles, in different parts of our brains are classified and used
> to explain lots of interdisciplinary data.
>
>
>
> All of them arise from BRAIN RESONANCES:
>
>
>
> *Surface-shroud resonances* enable us to consciously see visual objects
> and scenes.
>
>
>
> *Feature-category resonances* enable us to consciously recognize visual
> objects and scenes.
>
>
>
> *Stream-shroud resonances* enable us to consciously hear auditory objects
> and streams.
>
>
>
> *Spectral-pitch-and-timbre resonances* enable us to consciously recognize
> auditory objects and streams.
>
>
>
> *Item-list resonances* enable us to consciously recognize speech and
> language.
>
>
>
> *Cognitive-emotional resonances* enable us to consciously feel emotions
> and know their sources.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
>
>
> Steve
>
> sites.bu.edu/steveg
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://sites.bu.edu/steveg__;!!Mih3wA!ECkl6YgJGiyeT8S7ckGRdwjdMkTaH6l8kLD7GcVKJL9seMtkfwiee-KBJ6ojPAveG83TljEUdmM$>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *Connectionists <connectionists-bounces at mailman.srv.cs.cmu.edu> on
> behalf of Stephen Deiss <sdeiss at ucsd.edu>
> *Date: *Monday, June 5, 2023 at 2:17 AM
> *To: *Jeff Krichmar <jkrichma at uci.edu>
> *Cc: *connectionists at cs.cmu.edu <connectionists at cs.cmu.edu>
> *Subject: *Re: Connectionists: Sentient AI Survey Results
>
> Hi Jeff,
>
>
>
> Survey questions do not get much more complicated than this, and the
> social scientists and pollsters would spank us for using open-ended
> terminology like 'consciousness' to get an accurate opinion sample.
>
>
>
> So let's start with a definition of consciousness that goes beyond the
> Nagel "There is something it is like."  It never has been very
> informative.  It was only useful to suppress arguments about what 'IT' is,
> and it helped to get philosophers off their fear of talking about
> consciousness.  From an epistemological standpoint, we have some kind of
> sensation of what we are conscious of even if it is only the itch in our
> head we call a thought.  We interpret these sensations by inference to
> their meaning.  The meaning might be the next thoughts (or subthreshold
> possible thoughts as happens with a feeling of understanding) or a belief
> of what is beyond the sensation such as the chair 'out there' beyond my
> visual or tactile sensations.  The meaning is our interpretation of the
> sensation, a set of inferences beyond it.  Furthermore, this interpretation
> lasts long enough to register in our working memory.  Otherwise, it passes
> by without notice like the scenes along the road while driving and talking.
>
>
>
> So my definition is that consciousness is a *process* of interpreting
> sensations for their meaning and holding that meaning in working memory for
> some minimal time. Key terms are sensation, meaning, and memory.
>
>
>
> Many think consciousness requires self-awareness or reflexiveness.  I
> don't because people sometimes 'lose themselves' enraptured in the
> experienced moment.  Music, lovemaking, extreme sports, psychedelic trips,
> and other things that can induce a fugue state are examples.  But our
> average consciousness is self-aware or has self-knowledge.  We usually know
> we are having an experience when we are having it.
>
>
>
> So for question Q1, a preliminary hurdle might be that the AI system or
> robot have sensations or feelings.  That seems to imply robot-like
> embodiment, and that of a certain kind that can result in qualitative
> feelings to be interpreted (dare I say *qualia*?).  We tend to think of
> AI these days as being software running on a computer.  Neuroscientists
> think of consciousness as wide-spread coupled activity in cortical areas
> (Dennett, Baars, Dehaene, Llinas, Ribary, Singer, Tononi & Koch...).  This
> suggests to some multiple realizability might work if we can just get the
> mechanism right.
>
>
>
> To me, it suggests that our mechanistic worldview with assumed or implied
> governing laws (governing from a platonic realm or from on-high) is
> overlooking the intrinsic nature of the things that participate in events -
> the real stuff.  Nature from the bottom up can be thought of as more
> organic - feeling its way along based on internal constraints.  Call it
> panpsychism, panexperientialism, or ... depending on desired flavor.  But
> the idea is that everything that happens in nature involves sensing, and
> the resulting event or action involved self-reference to the state of the
> system that would react as internally constrained.
>
>
>
> From this perspective, Q1 is a definite yes, but for the AI to be like us,
> it needs to have feelings, not just an algorithm parroting what people say
> when they have feelings.  Without compassion and feelings to guide, a
> software bug could become a deadly monster.
>
>
>
> For Q2: I think we should but it should be done with ethical concerns and
> studied regulation up front.  Right now the cat is out of the bag and out
> of control with every white hat and black hat hacker having near full
> access to the tools to do tremendous good and harm.  This has to be reigned
> in fast.  I was one of those who signed the FLI petition early on.  If for
> no other reason, this has to be done because when full AGI takes off
> capitalism, socialism, etc will have to be rethought as to how to support a
> society where there's not that much labor left for laborers to do.  Who
> will pay the taxes to keep up social security, medicare, public health,
> agriculture, infrastructure maintenance, and so on done by robots with
> AGI.  If 100 million Americans are laid off indefinitely, I think there
> will be a few pissed-off people marching on Washington making the last
> fiasco there look pretty tame.
>
>
>
> For Q3: Not unless it can provably attain a level of consciousness with
> feelings to match humans.  Who decides that?  I do not know.  But I hope it
> is not the most gullible among us who mistake stochastic parroting for the
> real thing.  We are all easily fooled into projecting.  I eat things every
> day as a vegetarian panpsychist that I think have or had some level of
> awareness.  I have no problem turning off a computer or hitting reset no
> matter what algorithm is running on it.  But if the AI can convince me that
> it will feel the pain of death, and it has a track record of doing good
> things for all life, I would have to think twice even if it looked like a
> machine.  According to the biochemists, I'm a machine - just a special type
> with feelings.  If someone claims these feelings are illusions, ask them
> how they treat their friends or kids.
>
>
>
> Thanks for the chance to weigh in.
>
> Steve Deiss
>
> UCSD I.N.C. (retired, but not done)
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, May 31, 2023 at 4:13 AM Jeffrey L Krichmar <jkrichma at uci.edu>
> wrote:
>
> Dear Connectionists,
>
> I am teaching an undergraduate course on “AI in Culture and Media”. Most
> students are in our Cognitive Sciences and Psychology programs. Last week
> we had a discussion and debate on AI, Consciousness, and Machine Ethics.
> After the debate, around 70 students filled out a survey responding to
> these questions.
>
> Q1: Do you think it is possible to build conscious or sentient AI?     65%
> answered yes.
> Q2: Do you think we should build conscious or sentient AI?            22%
> answered yes
> Q3: Do you think AI should have rights?
>       54% answered yes
>
> I thought many of you would find this interesting.  And my students would
> like to hear your views on the topic.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Jeff Krichmar
> Department of Cognitive Sciences
> 2328 Social & Behavioral Sciences Gateway
> University of California, Irvine
> Irvine, CA 92697-5100
> jkrichma at uci.edu
> http://www.socsci.uci.edu/~jkrichma
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/www.socsci.uci.edu/*jkrichma__;fg!!Mih3wA!HDh_VR15vKKZHpLfS4NQNCBOnPXi4taXtClO-FkrXpNYzCK6sf3PtTd6GMYP_ZhCZaZ83AkV$>
>
> https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/716394/neurorobotics-by-tiffany-j-hwu-and-jeffrey-l-krichmar/
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/716394/neurorobotics-by-tiffany-j-hwu-and-jeffrey-l-krichmar/__;!!Mih3wA!HDh_VR15vKKZHpLfS4NQNCBOnPXi4taXtClO-FkrXpNYzCK6sf3PtTd6GMYP_ZhCZT4hUUls$>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.srv.cs.cmu.edu/pipermail/connectionists/attachments/20230607/76b5ec94/attachment.html>