- \n
- First reason<\/strong>: Creative work starting with the 1999 movie \u201cThe Matrix\u201d<\/a><\/em> followed by many movies and series made people contemplate the nature of reality and the emergence of consciousness. This trend in popular culture and the consequent public thirst for knowledge likely sparked a movement in scholarly circles.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Second reason<\/strong>: Popular science books that address consciousness, perception, and related topics \u2014 among them Daniel Dennett<\/a> (“Consciousness Explained”<\/a><\/em>), David Chalmers<\/a> (“Reality+”<\/a><\/em>), Anil Seth<\/a> (“Being You”<\/em><\/a>), and Yuval Noah Harari<\/a> (“Homo Deus”<\/em><\/a>) \u2014 raised public awareness further. While scholarly work expanded public understanding, developments in medicine and psychiatry opened another fascinating dimension.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Third reason<\/strong>: The \u2014 what I call \u2014 Psychedelic Renaissance<\/a> showed us that hard-to-treat mental health issues such as post-traumatic stress disorder<\/a> (PTSD) can be cured using psychedelic substances like ketamine<\/a>, LSD<\/a>, psilocybin<\/a>, or MDMA<\/a>. Simultaneously, the mind-altering effects of these substances raised further questions about the malleability of consciousness and scrutinized the accuracy of our perception of reality. These intriguing insights were augmented by advances in technology.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Fourth reason<\/strong>, likely the most critical: Enormous advances in machine learning followed by the creation of LLMs \u2014 software architectures that pass the Turing Test<\/a> with flying colors \u2014 have transformed consciousness from a philosophical puzzle into an urgent technological and ethical challenge. This is no longer just a thought experiment \u2014 policymakers are now grappling with its profound implications for society.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n
Due to this, I was pleased to read Peter D\u2019Autry<\/a>\u2019s article \u201cWhy Computers Can\u2019t Be Conscious\u201d<\/a><\/em> in this magazine, which discussed the possibility of machine consciousness, but ultimately concluded that it will not materialize. The article resonated deeply with my thinking, which I had put in words and published<\/a> at about the same time. There is, however, one argument I wholeheartedly disagree on \u2014 the matter of substrate independence of consciousness.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The substrate independence of consciousness \u2014 is biology mandatory?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Substrate independence is the question of whether consciousness could potentially emerge from nonbiological entities such as silicon-based systems. I agree with the previous article that consciousness is highly unlikely to emerge from current AI architectures, which are fundamentally pattern-matching and statistical inference engines \u2014 statistics on steroids essentially. These systems, while impressive in their output, lack the intrinsic qualities we associate with consciousness<\/a> such as self-awareness, subjective experience (qualia<\/a>), and genuine understanding. Yet, I disagree with the categorical dismissal of the possibility of artificial consciousness. Given our limited understanding of how consciousness emerges \u2014 even in biological systems \u2014 and considering the rapid evolution of both software (e.g. AI architectures & quantum algorithms) and hardware (quantum computing), it seems rather premature to rule out the possibility entirely.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
To make matters clear: I am not arguing that consciousness will eventually be created in a nonbiological entity, but I am staying open to the possibility. Hereafter, I will support my view on this.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Consciousness \u2014 can our minds figure themselves out?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
What is consciousness? Despite all the scientific progress made in neuroscience, we don\u2019t have a clue what consciousness really is and how it emerges; there is, however, no lack of hypotheses that are wildly debated. David Chalmers coined this in “Hard Problem of Consciousness”<\/em><\/a>, the question of how and why subjective experiences \u2014 our inner, conscious awareness \u2014 arise from the physical processes of the brain. It is a mystery that challenges our understanding of reality itself. This riddle remains unsolved, and while biological neural networks might be one path to consciousness, they may not be the only one.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The challenge begins with a profound question: since we cannot define consciousness with precision, how can we judge whether another entity \u2014 biological or artificial \u2014 is conscious? The only consciousness we can truly confirm is our own. Are other humans as conscious as we are? Perhaps they are slightly less or even more aware. And what about my dog \u2014 is he merely a \u201cbeast machine,\u201d as Descartes<\/a> might argue, or does he possess a form of consciousness that is simply less developed than ours? These questions highlight our first massive hurdle: What exactly is consciousness, and how can we determine whether something else shares this mystic, undefinable property?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Consciousness, fragile as it is enigmatic, can dissolve under certain conditions. Real-world events such as trauma, coma, or general anesthesia starkly demonstrate its impermanence. In the case of anesthesia, a cocktail of chemicals can effectively fade consciousness into oblivion, albeit thankfully temporarily. Invasive procedures like lobotomies, or vascular incidents such as strokes, have drastically altered self-awareness and consciousness. Psychedelics offer yet another perspective, showing how minute amounts of chemical compounds can profoundly alter perception and qualia<\/a>, the subjective experience of reality. These examples underscore the profound link between consciousness and biological processes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In addition, the brain\u2019s remarkable ability to rearrange itself, neuroplasticity<\/a>, suggests an even deeper complexity. After a stroke or severe injury, the brain can create new neural pathways to restore at least some lost functioning and even recover aspects of consciousness. This is what happens when one recovers from for example a stroke. This ability not only highlights the resilience of the human mind but also suggests that consciousness is far more dynamic than we might assume.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Hence, there is undeniably a physical and biochemical foundation to consciousness, deeply rooted in the brain\u2019s processes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Another crucial consideration is embodied cognition<\/a> \u2014 the theory that consciousness emerges not just from brain activity, but from the body’s interactions with the world. Studies of infant development show that consciousness develops through physical interaction with the environment, suggesting that a purely digital system might face fundamental limitations in achieving consciousness without some form of physical embodiment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
However, neither the correlation between biological mechanisms and consciousness nor the concept of embodied cognition precludes the possibility that there is more to it. William James<\/a> and Aldous Huxley<\/a> famously likened the brain to a \u201creducing valve,\u201d filtering a broader reality into a manageable form of perception. If true, this means that consciousness might extend beyond the confines of biological functions, raising even bigger questions about its origins.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Essentially, there are three broad schools of thought in the field of the philosophy of mind regarding consciousness: dualism<\/a>, functionalism<\/a>, and idealism<\/a>. Dualism posits that consciousness and physical matter are two fundamentally different artifacts that cannot be reduced to each other, strange quantum effects support this. Functionalism holds that mental states are defined by systemic organizations \u2014 neural networks \u2014 and not by the physical substrate, the above-mentioned possibility to alter or fade out consciousness supports this. Idealism is the philosophical view that reality is fundamentally mental and hence immaterial, consciousness gives rise to the mind, which in turn gives rise to the material world. Mind and matter are referred to as the ontological essentials and the graphic below visualizes the ontological essentials and their fundamentalism according to the three schools of thought.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/uxmag.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/12\/OntoPrimitives.png\")
<\/figure>\n\n\n\nAs a consequence, dualism would imply that computers are unlikely to become conscious, while functionalism implies that eventually machines will be conscious \u2014 it is just a matter of time really. Idealism presents a third perspective: if consciousness is indeed the fundamental reality from which all else emerges, then the question of machine consciousness becomes not one of emergence but of manifestation \u2014 whether artificial systems could serve as interfaces for the expression of pre-existing consciousness just as biological entities.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Will we ever solve this riddle? Perhaps not, at least not alone. Our limited minds perceive reality through a virtual reality system \u2014 a simplified interface designed to help us survive and procreate. Albert Einstein<\/a> famously said, \u201cProblems cannot be solved at the same level of thinking that created them.\u201d<\/em> This insight is perfectly applicable to the Hard Problem of Consciousness: Are our limited minds equipped to understand itself and deduce the origins of consciousness? Or will we need the assistance of a higher intelligence, perhaps even advanced AI, to finally glimpse the full picture? Like we need a therapist or coach to tell us what\u2019s going wrong with our own thoughts \u2014 we sometimes need an outside perspective to understand something.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In conclusion, our limited understanding of consciousness \u2014 the Hard Problem \u2014 makes it impossible to definitively verify or falsify whether any entity is truly conscious. This leads us on to the next two topics, namely the possibility of machine consciousness and the consequent ethical dilemma we face.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The possibility of machine consciousness: creepy, complex, and completely uncertain<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
The creepy notion of humans creating artificial life \u2014 and potentially conscious beings \u2014 has been haunting literature and philosophy for centuries. Mary Shelley<\/a>\u2019s “Frankenstein”<\/a><\/em> probed the ethics of creating life in a laboratory, while E.T.A. Hoffmann<\/a>\u2019s “The Sandman”<\/a><\/em> (a delightfully chilling German Gothic short story) explored the confusion between a human and an automaton. Yet, the possibility of machine consciousness entered philosophical discourse even before machines as we know them even existed!<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The four advances outlined above \u2014 quite rightly \u2014 extended and intensified the discussion on machine consciousness. “Why Computers Can\u2019t Be Conscious”<\/em> maintains that computers cannot and will not ever be conscious. The reasoning? Consciousness not matter is fundamental, i.e. everything we perceive as reality \u2014 including matter \u2014 emerges from consciousness, not the other way around. Hence, material systems cannot create consciousness as they are merely a product of consciousness \u2014 a viewpoint clearly based on philosophical idealism<\/a>. Also, scholars arguing for dualism \u2014 matter and mind as separate entities \u2014 essentially exclude consciousness in machines as it requires a biological basis and that silicon systems will not give rise to a conscious entity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
I partially agree: today\u2019s hardware and software architectures, no matter how advanced, still pale in comparison to even the most basic biological systems (including chicken brains), and hence these systems will by no means give rise to a conscious entity. However, I remain open to the possibility and would not categorically rule it out.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Why? Because history has shown us that underestimating technological advancement is a risky bet. Take chess as an example, according to Murray Head<\/a>\u2019s 1980s hit \u201cOne Night in Bangkok\u201d<\/a><\/em>, it is the ultimate test of cerebral fitness, and experts maintained that chess computers could never beat a true grandmaster. These predictions were nullified when Gary Kasparov<\/a> lost to IBM\u2019s Deep Blue<\/a> in the 1990s. Still, techno-pessimists followed up with the bold claim that AI would never master the ancient board game of Go<\/a> as it is far more intuitive and intuition is clearly not a machine\u2019s strength! Fast forward to 2016, and DeepMind<\/a>\u2019s AlphaGo<\/a> not only beat a champion but consistently outperformed human grandmasters. Meanwhile, we are not talking about performance in games, or scientific endeavors but the most innate human competency, our conscious mind. Well, I guess it is a case of \u201cnever say never\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The UX Magazine article \u201cWhy Computers Can\u2019t Be Conscious\u201c<\/em> argues consciousness must remain embodied in biological systems, while I entertain \u2014 but do not claim \u2014 the idea that it might emerge independent of biology and may not be fundamental. I am agnostic in the debate on idealism vs functionalism vs dualism, I will wait and see who wins the race.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
To complicate matters a bit further, there is another tech game changer in the pipeline: quantum computers and algorithms, which will eventually make their mark, further transforming computing and amplifying its benefits and risks. This raises profound questions about their implications for consciousness and AI. Roger Penrose<\/a>, for instance, proposed that consciousness might arise from quantum effects<\/a> in tubular structures in the brain. If he\u2019s right, what happens if an advanced AI is uploaded to a quantum computer? Will we accidentally<\/em> build a conscious machine?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Before a conscious machine intelligence, even accidentally, is generated, moral and ethical questions have to be tackled head-on considering the far-reaching ramifications of such a creation. The next section delves into this critical ethical consideration: Even if the probability of creating a conscious machine is minimal, should we still prevent it by all means?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Ethical dimensions: could machine consciousness signal the novacene or the end of us?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
The debate on consciousness is fascinating, but when it comes to AI, the stakes are much higher. Beyond theoretical musings, AI poses real and escalating risks. Just as industrialization displaced blue-collar jobs, AI is now set to disrupt white-collar professions. Add to that the dangers of losing human control, amplifying bias and discrimination, and the existential risk highlighted by Nick Bostrom<\/a> in “Superintelligence”<\/a><\/em>: the control problem<\/a> \u2014 how to ensure a superintelligent AI aligns with human values.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
But here\u2019s where the ethical dimension becomes truly mind-bending. Imagine a conscious machine \u2014 perhaps accidentally \u2014 is created. Would we then be morally obligated to keep it turned on forever? After all, turning it off could be akin to killing it, and that opens a Pandora\u2019s box of ethical and moral dilemmas. The twist? We know so little about consciousness that we wouldn\u2019t even be able to confirm whether the machine is truly conscious or not, vide supra<\/em>. That uncertainty alone creates a formidable ethical challenge. Idealist perspectives would frame the act of creating conscious machines not as generating something entirely new, but as engaging with a reality fundamentally rooted in consciousness itself.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Personally, I believe we must prevent machine consciousness at all costs. The control problem alone is daunting, but there\u2019s also a deeply humanist argument: if we create an entity as \u2014 or even more \u2014conscious than ourselves, we\u2019d bear the ethical responsibility of its existence. Moreover, creating conscious machines would violate core humanist values by altering humanity’s unique position and burdening us with godlike responsibilities we’re not prepared for. Could humanity handle that burden? Unfortunately, I doubt we could do that without prior consultation, not only with science and philosophy but also with leaders from faith systems encompassing both organized religions and spiritual practices.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Faith is another critically important aspect of this dilemma: if we were able to falsify the idea of substrate independence in consciousness, we would essentially be disproving functionalism. Such a revelation could lend support to belief systems that have long rationalized our reality, predating modern science. However, this is very risky as it could also exacerbate tensions among already fragile relationships between differing belief systems. In essence, the question of whether artificial consciousness is possible might simultaneously be the question of whether a higher power exists \u2014 a profound and potentially divisive implication. This is a topic I plan to explore further in future publications.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Policymakers need to act urgently. Tackling AI\u2019s risks isn\u2019t optional; it\u2019s imperative. Regulation must prioritize ethical and moral considerations alongside safeguarding measures. AI, when harnessed responsibly, has extraordinary potential \u2014 I\u2019ve edited a book<\/a> on how it\u2019s helping reduce emissions and combat climate change. But left unchecked, AI could usher in a future that resembles either “Brave New World”<\/a><\/em> or “1984”<\/a><\/em> \u2014 neither of which we want to live in.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The late Jim Lovelock<\/a> took a relaxed view in his final book “Novacene”<\/a><\/em>, arguing that machines taking over is simply the next step in evolution \u2014 inevitable and unstoppable. Humanists, however, might beg to differ. Ultimately, the advent of superintelligent machines will take our position as apex creations of evolution and this would be a hard pill to swallow. More importantly, the possibility of machine consciousness, however small, could shatter belief systems that have existed for millennia \u2014 the consequences of such an event are as frightening as they are unpredictable.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Conclusions<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
- Second reason<\/strong>: Popular science books that address consciousness, perception, and related topics \u2014 among them Daniel Dennett<\/a> (“Consciousness Explained”<\/a><\/em>), David Chalmers<\/a> (“Reality+”<\/a><\/em>), Anil Seth<\/a> (“Being You”<\/em><\/a>), and Yuval Noah Harari<\/a> (“Homo Deus”<\/em><\/a>) \u2014 raised public awareness further. While scholarly work expanded public understanding, developments in medicine and psychiatry opened another fascinating dimension.<\/li>\n\n\n\n