Consciousness and AI

Can AI become sentient?

Introduction

Artificial intelligence is being used in almost every area of our economy, from scientific research to the development of new vaccines, and everywhere in business. But there is a question whether AI has the potential to become sentient (and possibly dangerous), or whether it is just sophisticated programming. Roger Penrose, the Nobel Prize winning mathematical physicist, gives his opinion of AI in this short 8-minute interview:

A Word on Godel’s Theorem

I looked up Godel’s Theorem and it is a morass of mathematical and philosophical confusion. Even Penrose was confused when he tried to explain it. Basically it says that in any list of axioms (assertions or statements to be proven or disproven) there will always be at least one that is true but not provable. It’s a lot more complicated than that, but for non-mathematicians it’s good enough for government work.

I liked Penrose’s comments because he related Godel’s Theorem to consciousness. He realized that if there are things that are true which cannot be proven, then materialism – the idea that only that which can be materially observed is true – must be questioned. A definition of consciousness that says it is beyond space and time (the God concept), for example, might then be true even if it cannot be proven.

Consciousness

I think Penrose is correct about the relationship between AI and consciousness because consciousness can be confused with computing power. A tremendous amount of brute-force computation appears to be sentience, but it is really just very fast symbol manipulation by a machine.

The problem is that the word consciousness has no broadly accepted definition.

Here, consciousness is defined as self-awareness; in particular, the ability to be aware that you are aware. This ability for self-reflection leads to intuition and the ability to transcend the “rules” by thinking out of the box.

My argument is that consciousness is and always will be a level above AI, because AI is strictly and only materialist in its conception and implementation.

In the last post we talked about subtle energy and the biofield. This concept probably originated in ancient Egypt with the MerKaBa.

Modernly, Rupert Sheldrake’s morphic field concept posits an invisible field of subtle energy outside the body that can be programmed, and where biological entities can learn from. Bruce Lipton supports this idea with his concept of epigenetics, wherein a person’s thoughts affect the mind and cell/gene expression.

It is also supported by cold, hard physics. The Aharanov-Bohm effect is a quantum mechanical phenomenon wherein the behavior of charged particles is affected by the electromagnetic potentials, even when electromagnetic fields are not present. (This shows that the electric and magnetic vector potentials, which were thought only to be mathematical entities with no relation to reality, exist outside of and affect particles, just as “real” electric and magnetic fields do).

Around 1860 James Clerk Maxwell, the founder of electromagnetism, proposed the aether as a medium of subtle energy that fills the universe and is required to propagate electromagnetic energy. Physicist Salvatore Pais calls the aether the superpotential.

Max Planck, credited as the originator of quantum mechanics, said in 1918:

“I regard consciousness as fundamental, matter is derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness. There is no matter as such; it exists only by virtue of a force bringing the particle to vibration and holding it together in a minute solar system; we must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. The mind is the matrix of all matter.”

The common denominator above is that in physics and metaphysics, an undefined potential can affect physical systems. This is the basis for the assertion that consciousness itself is a potential, independent of physical systems. (Compare to the being “Sphere” who invisibly enters and exits Flatland in a previous post.) In Godelian terms, this statement is both true and false.

Artificial Intelligence

In my experience, AI can be very good at summarizing information (I use it to summarize physics papers, and to explain confusing new plans offered by my credit card company). But is it really intelligent or does it just cleverly assign relationships to words and concepts based on its programming?

Mathematics, as Penrose says, contains truths which are outside of mathematical formalism and computation. In the history of science, intuition has been used to see between the lines of code or math and outline new approaches and new lines of research. AI, despite all the hype surrounding it, can’t do this. Which is to say that AI is not conscious. And if it isn’t conscious it isn’t intelligent.

AI, as Penrose says, “doesn’t know what it’s doing.”

The evolution of AI, it is said, will eventually result in an electronic and/or computational miracle that inexplicably achieves sentience. Yet no matter how computationally clever AI systems get, they poorly mimic consciousness. After all of the AI research is complete the biological vehicle, I believe, will turn out to be the ultimate evolution of consciousness incarnated into the physical.

I say this because AI and its partner Transhumanism are promoted and researched by strict materialists who have a backwards definition of consciousness. The motivation to create intelligent AI systems and to research its allied field, Transhumanism, comes essentially from a fear of body death. Transhumanists are so very frightened of death because of their belief that consciousness is physically based. Which means, upon death of the body, their very existence is snuffed out. This leads to the two-button problem outlined in a previous post.

AI and Transhumanism go hand-in-hand, and are, in my opinion, on the same level of consciousness. After watching the performance of Larry Ellison and Sam Altman at Trump’s Stargate event, I wasn’t too impressed with the level of self-awareness there. If those two are the directors of AI’s future, we’re all in trouble!

With AI, humans try to imitate consciousness. Perhaps one day we will build an AI body (or system) that a non-corporeal intelligence will want to inhabit (incarnate in) for a while, but that isn’t what is meant by artificial intelligence. AI is intended to be self-aware electronic/computational intelligence.

The dire predictions that AI will somehow become sentient and achieve intelligence far beyond humans – and inevitably take over the world – is in my opinion an attempt to create a Narrative of the inevitability of a dystopian future. “Get used to it humanoids, there is nothing you can do about it.” This is a good way for a tiny minority of sociopaths, psychopaths, and psychotics to get us to accept and create a dark future. (And yes, there are evil people out there.)

My response to an AI super-intelligence is something I saw on the Big Bang Theory comedy show where Sheldon says his highest dream is to become a pet of the All-knowing All-powerful AI God. That was good for a big laugh.

Conclusion

Although the current level of human stupidity is at an all-time high, I am an optimist about our future. Humanity is undergoing a profound and long-term shift in consciousness, resulting in the forces of darkness having to expose themselves in order to survive, and creating chaos in its wake. That process is going to continue in the near future, but I see a happy ending where a non-materialist, non-reductionist definition of consciousness prevails.

In this world of Duality there is a positive and a negative side to everything. I think it is far more likely that AI systems will turn out to be very helpful. AI’s computational power will stretch our understanding of the world around us. It will help us to invent new devices and systems that increase human understanding of the universe to create a more positive human future.