Jump to content
Science Forums

Machine Consciousness Experiments


Recommended Posts

19 hours ago, Halc said:

Well, you seem to actually study nothing at all. It's not like you're sticking probes into human brains here. You've provided no evidence so far, which makes it mere philosophy at best, and pseudoscience at worst. Neither of those is going to help you try to get a designed device to do it.

I actually agree with that, but you do need something to get this design, and you don't have that. You need to know how the biological connection works, and there's apparently zero evidence of even the presence of one at all, let alone something that shows how this hypothetical connection works.

You're apparently jumping straight to the design of a wardrobe that gets you to Narnia when you still have zero evidence of the existence of Narnia, let alone a clue how the wardrobe should accomplish the portal.

And yet your comment was saying something about its true nature. You're contradicting yourself now.

How can anything that exists in a timeless realm make a decision, complete a concept, or be impatient?

This is what I was calling an avatar. My drone was the example, not conscious (unconscious means something else), externally controlled by the controller from which the commands come (volition), and at which the video feed is displayed (experience). You didn't disagree with the terminology.

Careful. Halting neural activity would be fatal unless the body was say frozen. I don't think you understand what anesthesia does. I claim no expertise myself.

Loss of connection would still leave the mind conscious, but in a sort of sensory deprivation state. If memories are difficult to retrieve, does that mean that memories are stored in physical space and not with the consciousness? The personality would be nonexistent since the avatar is now mindless without the connection. OK, you're maybe talking about partial disruption, but still, a full disruption should have completely different experience. You assert that the CM is unaffected, and yet it obviously is.

You ignored my first response to this. Why is the human brain so large and inefficient if it doesn't do anything that isn't done by a similar mass animal like a deer, which accomplishes the task at under a quarter of the metabolic cost.

It's also not totally out of view. I pay attention to mine and am quite aware of at least the communications. It's much faster for instance at calculus than the conscious mind, but it doesn't speak the mathematical language one is taught in school.

There has to be, or naturalistic physics would be sufficient to explain all behavior. There could be no supernatural volition.

The steps for implementing the Scientific Method for a Machine Conscious Experiment can be stated as follows:

Ask a Question: Are there such things as Conscious Minds in Conscious Space?

Background Research: Read and Study everything possible about Consciousness and Conscious Experience. Emphasis will be on Human Brain Physiology and especially what happens at the Neural Activity Level with regard to Conscious Experience. Unfortunately, and Surprisingly, it was found that no Scientific Explanation, using known Scientific Phenomena, exists for Consciousness and Conscious Experience.

Hypothesis: Conscious Experience happens in a separate Conscious Space from the normal Physical Space. It is hypothesized that Conscious Minds in Conscious Space can Connect with and affect Physical Brains or other Material in Physical Space. It is further hypothesized that Quantum Mechanical principles may be involved in this Connection process.

Experiment: Use the Quantum Mechanical Tunneling Phenomenon to see if it can be used to show a Connection between Physical Space and Conscious Space. (Details below.)

Analyze Data: Let Experiment run for a long time to collect massive amounts of Data. Try to find behavior in the data that indicates Non Random behavior.

Make Conclusions: Decide if there is Non Random behavior. If there is, then analyze and reanalyze to be sure there is no normal Physical reason for the results.

The Connection Perspective of the Inter Mind Model (IMM) enables the conceivability of actually designing Experiments for Machine Consciousness (MachCon). The Connection Perspective stipulates that there is a separate Conscious Space (CSp) concept apart from normal Physical Space (PSp). The IMM also stipulates that there is an Inter Mind (IM) concept that bridges the Gap between PSp and CSp. The basic premise of any MachCon Experiment having this structure is that something in CSp is able to affect something in PSp. This would correspond to a Conscious Volition (CV) concept existing in CSp. The CV will need the resources of an IM in order to have an effect on anything in PSp. There are two Quantum Mechanical (QM) phenomena that can be considered as a resource that the IM might implement. The first QM phenomena involves the Wave Function of an Electron and the second QM phenomenon involves the effect of Quantum Fluctuations on Electrons.

The following Phase 1 Experiment descriptions depend on the existence of a latent Consciousness of some kind in CSp. It is also assumed that this Consciousness can use QM principles to affect PSp. Each Experiment provides a method to detect changes in some parameter that can be controlled by a QM principle. A series of measurements will have the characteristics of a random signal when there is no Conscious control. If there seems to be a bias or correlation in the data that is not purely random then that could be evidence of Conscious control. This is what we will look for.

It is known that Electrons can travel through Energy barriers and actual Physical barriers due to the Quantum Tunneling effect. The probability that an Electron will Tunnel through a barrier is controlled by the Wave Function of the Electron. The speculation is that maybe something in CSp is able to control Wave Functions in a way that will enable higher or lower probabilities of Tunneling. This speculation can be tested with certain Electronic devices that exist today. Tunnel Diodes and Floating Gate Transistors have been used in separate Experiments. The Tunnel Diode based experiment is described in Machine Consciousness Experiment Legacy. The Floating Gate Transistor based experiment is currently running and generating data for analysis.

The Tunnel Diode experiment ran for 2 years and generated GBytes of data. Unfortunately the results were swamped by the random noise in the system. There was never any indication that a Conscious Mind was controlling the experiment. This first experiment was really a Hail Mary Pass in order to try to at least Do Something. The first problem was that the Experiment used only two Diodes which probably was the equivalent of having only two Neurons. The second problem was that it was measuring the changes in a 1nA current which is 6.24 billion electrons per second. It was the best that could be done using bread board level electronics in a spare bedroom lab situation. The coarseness of the measurement doomed it from the start. Practically speaking there is no way to reduce the coarseness to a low enough level to make an analog experiment like this sensitive enough.

The Floating Gate Transistor version of the MachCon Experiment has been running for a couple of months. See Machine Consciousness Experiment. However it too has not exhibited anything except random behavior. But it is early and maybe given more time some positive results can be realized. A 1 Mega bit Flash memory is used in this Experiment. Now we effectively have 1 Million Neurons. To program a Zero into the memory about 50000 Electrons must Tunnel onto the Floating Gate. This is vastly less coarse than the Tunnel Diode situation but is still pretty coarse. The next MachCon Experiment will have to incorporate an array of Single Electron Tunnelinig (SET) Transistors. As its name implies these devices can handle single electron charge movements. This will enable a Coarseness that is Billions of times less than the situation with the Tunnel Diode and 50 Thousand times less than the Flash Memory. Unfortunately, the SET Transistor is still at the experimental laboratory stage.

Even if there is a latent Consciousness in CSp that is ready to interact with the world through QM principles, the question could be asked as to why this Consciousness would want to interact with the world in a case like this? A Consciousness would probably need some kind of Motivation to act. Maybe an act of CV will be activated only when we understand how to produce a Discomfort or Pleasure in CSp. This might motivate an act of CV that will affect the Tunneling characteristics of an Electron. The Experiment should be programmed to then reward the act of CV by lessening the Discomfort or increasing the Pleasure to close the loop. This could be how it all works at the single cell level or at the Amoeba level.

Quantum Fluctuations are highly hypothetical events where small bursts of Energy or Particles appear briefly and randomly out of supposedly empty space. It is thought that if a Quantum Fluctuation occurs near an Electron that it could have an effect. There is anticipation that the SET Transistor could be exploited to measure these Quantum Fluctuations. The speculation is that maybe there could be evidence of Consciousness in the occurrence of Quantum Fluctuations given the right circumstances.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/24/2022 at 9:44 AM, SteveKlinko said:

It is known that Electrons can travel through Energy barriers and actual Physical barriers due to the Quantum Tunneling effect. The probability that an Electron will Tunnel through a barrier is controlled by the Wave Function of the Electron. The speculation is that maybe something in CSp is able to control Wave Functions in a way that will enable higher or lower probabilities of Tunneling.

This is an entirely classical description. Yes, transistors work due to tunneling. All of physics is, at some level, based on quantum effects. Semiconductors are in no way special in this regard. What your comment above says seems to boil down to "the amount of current through the transistor is controlled by the gate voltage". So the transistor is just an amplifier of a signal elsewhere that is being measured. The tunneling is just the means to measure it, not what is itself being manipulated by the supposed CM. It measures something, perhaps random fluctuations in some field, but it isn't the tunneling at all that is the source of the signal.

This is only critique of the description. You seem to be measuring random noise (as predicted by QT) and hope to find a non-random signal to it (as not predicted by QT).

You've not seemed to have run any experiments at all on anything actually conscious, so all this is just wild guesswork (said hail-Mary). I don't see where quantum effects make any difference. I'm unaware of there being a quantum amplifier anywhere in biology. That's any device that extracts information from a random signal. The best known example of a quantum amplifier is Schrodinger's device that amplifies a simple quantum measurement (that of a Geiger counter) into the classical destruction of a bottle of poison. If humans had that capability, the connections wouldn't need the brain at all. Arms and legs could be controlled directly by the CM without need for the lag of wires and such. Eyes would be superfluous since the interface could same the outside world directly instead of indirectly through single PoV devices.

On 11/24/2022 at 9:44 AM, SteveKlinko said:

The Tunnel Diode experiment ran for 2 years and generated GBytes of data. Unfortunately the results were swamped by the random noise in the system.

I've generate that much data in about 5 seconds (testing something completely different). Just saying it seems a pretty slow data acquisition rate. Irrelevant, I know. What's relevant is that it measures random noise. Wasn't that the whole point, to find non-randomness in something random? I actually applaud the efforts here. It's further than most go.

Remember that the physical model doesn't require quantum specific effects at all, so long as the process is implemented. It can be done with electrical relays, wooden gears, a China-brain, or even paper and pencil. Likewise, I've never seen an electronic circuit simulator that simulated it down to the quantum level. The classical level yields sufficient results.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Halc said:
Quote

 

This is an entirely classical description. Yes, transistors work due to tunneling. All of physics is, at some level, based on quantum effects. Semiconductors are in no way special in this regard. What your comment above says seems to boil down to "the amount of current through the transistor is controlled by the gate voltage". So the transistor is just an amplifier of a signal elsewhere that is being measured. The tunneling is just the means to measure it, not what is itself being manipulated by the supposed CM. It measures something, perhaps random fluctuations in some field, but it isn't the tunneling at all that is the source of the signal.

This is only critique of the description. You seem to be measuring random noise (as predicted by QT) and hope to find a non-random signal to it (as not predicted by QT).

 

Of course, QT is described by QM principles which is derived from Energy balance equations. The equations provide probability distributions but say nothing about possible modulations of those distributions. 

Quote

You've not seemed to have run any experiments at all on anything actually conscious, so all this is just wild guesswork (said hail-Mary). I don't see where quantum effects make any difference. I'm unaware of there being a quantum amplifier anywhere in biology. That's any device that extracts information from a random signal. The best known example of a quantum amplifier is Schrodinger's device that amplifies a simple quantum measurement (that of a Geiger counter) into the classical destruction of a bottle of poison. If humans had that capability, the connections wouldn't need the brain at all. Arms and legs could be controlled directly by the CM without need for the lag of wires and such. Eyes would be superfluous since the interface could same the outside world directly instead of indirectly through single PoV devices.

The connections obviously do need Brain because a Brain is where the connection takes place.

 

Quote

I've generate that much data in about 5 seconds (testing something completely different). Just saying it seems a pretty slow data acquisition rate. Irrelevant, I know. What's relevant is that it measures random noise. Wasn't that the whole point, to find non-randomness in something random? I actually applaud the efforts here. It's further than most go.

Thank You

 

Quote

Remember that the physical model doesn't require quantum specific effects at all, so long as the process is implemented. It can be done with electrical relays, wooden gears, a China-brain, or even paper and pencil. Likewise, I've never seen an electronic circuit simulator that simulated it down to the quantum level. The classical level yields sufficient results.

I will be trying to work at the level of a single Electron in the Phase 3 experiments. This definitely will be subject to QM effects. If Consciousness can be implicated in QM processes, then I hope to eventually find that out. It's a long road ahead with the Single Electron devices but I'm taking my time and will try to, with the help of a group of Subject Matter Experts, devise some good Experiments.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/26/2022 at 9:08 AM, SteveKlinko said:

Of course, QT is described by QM principles which is derived from Energy balance equations

An interesting claim. I was under the impression that quantum principles were based on empirical evidence of non-classical behavior of observed systems, and not derived from what you call energy balance equations.

On 11/26/2022 at 9:08 AM, SteveKlinko said:

The connections obviously do need Brain because a Brain is where the connection takes place.

This may be obvious to you, but not at all to others. If evolution managed to find the obvious place to put say the VoPort, it would be where it is needed, a the muscles. The ExPort could be anywhere, even off-body. Look at anecdotes of out-of-body experiences that report a point of view outside the body,  still able to see things and move around, all without use of anything physical that would say actually stop light. Apparently the input can directly measure the physical world without use of physics, and thus is not in need of something superfluous like eyes or other sensory organs.

I'm just saying this to counter your statement of what you feel is obvious. My opinion is that it is obvious that the connections don't exist at all. Your actual testing with the electronics is great, but it's still just testing a wild guess and even if there are such connections, you may well be looking at the complete wrong thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Halc said:
Quote

An interesting claim. I was under the impression that quantum principles were based on empirical evidence of non-classical behavior of observed systems, and not derived from what you call energy balance equations.

The Wave Equation is based on some assumptions and approximations that make it solvable. I have always hated the Hermitian Matrix assumption. It is the reason why there is always a Phase component in the solution. There is also a Linear assumption along the way in the derivation that I didn't like. 

Quote

 

This may be obvious to you, but not at all to others. If evolution managed to find the obvious place to put say the VoPort, it would be where it is needed, a the muscles. The ExPort could be anywhere, even off-body. Look at anecdotes of out-of-body experiences that report a point of view outside the body,  still able to see things and move around, all without use of anything physical that would say actually stop light. Apparently the input can directly measure the physical world without use of physics, and thus is not in need of something superfluous like eyes or other sensory organs.

I'm just saying this to counter your statement of what you feel is obvious. My opinion is that it is obvious that the connections don't exist at all. Your actual testing with the electronics is great, but it's still just testing a wild guess and even if there are such connections, you may well be looking at the complete wrong thing.

 

Everybody is currently looking at their own possibly wrong Things. I like my Thing and will attempt to show that it is not a wrong Thing by designing Experiments that will prove it.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...