Scientific requirements for an engineered model of consciousness

The building of a non-natural conscious system requires more than the design of physical or virtual machines with intuitively conceived abilities, philosophically elucidated architecture or hardware homologous to an animal’s brain. Human society might one day treat a type of robot or computing system as an artificial person. Yet that would not answer scientific questions about the machine’s consciousness or otherwise. Indeed, empirical tests for consciousness are impossible because no such entity is denoted within the theoretical structure of the science of mind, i.e. psychology. However, contemporary experimental psychology can identify if a specific mental process is conscious in particular circumstances, by theory-based interpretation of the overt performance of human beings. Thus, if we are to build a conscious machine, the artificial systems must be used as a test-bed for theory developed from the existing science that distinguishes conscious from non-conscious causation in natural systems. Only such a rich and realistic account of hypothetical processes accounting for observed input/output relationships can establish whether or not an engineered system is a model of consciousness. It follows that any research project on machine consciousness needs a programme of psychological experiments on the demonstration systems and that the programme should be designed to deliver a fully detailed scientific theory of the type of artificial mind being developed – a Psychology of that Machine

Nature as a Network of Morphological Infocomputational Processes for Cognitive Agents

This paper presents a view of nature as a network of infocomputational agents organized in a dynamical hierarchy of levels. It provides a framework for unification of currently disparate understandings of natural, formal, technical, behavioral and social phenomena based on information as a structure, differences in one system that cause the differences in another system, and computation as its dynamics, i.e. physical process of morphological change in the informational structure. We address some of the frequent misunderstandings regarding the natural/morphological computational models and their relationships to physical systems, especially cognitive systems such as living beings. Natural morphological infocomputation as a conceptual framework necessitates generalization of models of computation beyond the traditional Turing machine model presenting symbol manipulation, and requires agent-based concurrent resource-sensitive models of computation in order to be able to cover the whole range of phenomena from physics to cognition. The central role of agency, particularly material vs. cognitive agency is highlighted

A framework for Thinking about Distributed Cognition

As is often the case when scientific or engineering fields emerge, new concepts are forged or old ones are adapted. When this happens, various arguments rage over what ultimately turns out to be conceptual misunderstandings. At that critical time, there is a need for an explicit reflection on the meaning of the concepts that define the field. In this position paper, we aim to provide a reasoned framework in which to think about various issues in the field of distributed cognition. We argue that both relevant concepts, distribution and cognition, must be understood as continuous. As it is used in the context of distributed cognition, the concept of distribution is essentially fuzzy, and we will link it to the notion of emergence of system-level properties. The concept of cognition must also be seen as fuzzy, but for different a reason: due its origin as an anthropocentric concept, no one has a clear handle on its meaning in a distributed setting. As the proposed framework forms a space, we then explore its geography and (re)visit famous landmarks

Will machines ever think

Artificial Intelligence research has come under fire for failing to fulfill its promises. A growing number of AI researchers are reexamining the bases of AI research and are challenging the assumption that intelligent behavior can be fully explained as manipulation of symbols by algorithms. Three recent books -- Mind over Machine (H. Dreyfus and S. Dreyfus), Understanding Computers and Cognition (T. Winograd and F. Flores), and Brains, Behavior, and Robots (J. Albus) -- explore alternatives and open the door to new architectures that may be able to learn skills

Artificial intelligence and the limits of the humanities

The complexity of cultures in the modern world is now beyond human comprehension. Cognitive sciences cast doubts on the traditional explanations based on mental models. The core subjects in humanities may lose their importance. Humanities have to adapt to the digital age. New, interdisciplinary branches of humanities emerge. Instant access to information will be replaced by instant access to knowledge. Understanding the cognitive limitations of humans and the opportunities opened by the development of artificial intelligence and interdisciplinary research necessary to address global challenges is the key to the revitalization of humanities. Artificial intelligence will radically change humanities, from art to political sciences and philosophy, making these disciplines attractive to students and enabling them to go beyond current limitations.Comment: 39 pages, 1 figur

Co-creating Knowledge with Robots: System, Synthesis, and Symbiosis

In the contemporary robotizing knowledge economy, robots take increasing responsibility for accomplishing knowledge-related tasks that so far have been in the human domain. This profoundly changes the knowledge-creation processes that are at the core of the knowledge economy. Knowledge creation is an interactive spatial process through which ideas are transformed into new and justified outcomes, such as novel knowledge and innovations. However, knowledge-creation processes have rarely been studied in the context of human–robot co-creation. In this article, we take the perspective of key actors who create the future of robotics, namely, robotics-related students and researchers. Their thoughts and actions construct the knowledge co-creation processes that emerge between humans and robots. We ask whether robots can have and create knowledge, what kind of knowledge, and what kind of spatialities connect to interactive human–robot knowledge-creation processes. The article’s empirical material consists of interviews with 34 robotics-related researchers and students at universities in Finland and Singapore as well as observations of human–robot interactions there. Robots and humans form top-down systems, interactive syntheses, and integrated symbioses in spatial knowledge co-creation processes. Most interviewees considered that robots can have knowledge. Some perceived robots as machines and passive agents with rational knowledge created in hierarchical systems. Others saw robots as active actors and learning co-workers having constructionist knowledge created in syntheses. Symbioses integrated humans and robots and allowed robots and human–robot cyborgs access to embodied knowledge.© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Springer. This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.fi=vertaisarvioitu|en=peerReviewed

Intelligence Primer

This primer explores the exciting subject of intelligence. Intelligence is a fundamental component of all living things, as well as Artificial Intelligence(AI). Artificial Intelligence has the potential to affect all of our lives and a new era for modern humans. This paper is an attempt to explore the ideas associated with intelligence, and by doing so understand the implications, constraints, and potentially the capabilities of future Artificial Intelligence. As an exploration, we journey into different parts of intelligence that appear essential. We hope that people find this useful in determining where Artificial Intelligence may be headed. Also, during the exploration, we hope to create new thought-provoking questions. Intelligence is not a single weighable quantity but a subject that spans Biology, Physics, Philosophy, Cognitive Science, Neuroscience, Psychology, and Computer Science. Historian Yuval Noah Harari pointed out that engineers and scientists in the future will have to broaden their understandings to include disciplines such as Psychology, Philosophy, and Ethics. Fiction writers have long portrayed engineers and scientists as deficient in these areas. Today, modern society, the emergence of Artificial Intelligence, and legal requirements all act as forcing functions to push these broader subjects into the foreground. We start with an introduction to intelligence and move quickly onto more profound thoughts and ideas. We call this a Life, the Universe and Everything primer, after the famous science fiction book by Douglas Adams. Forty-two may very well be the right answer, but what are the questions?Comment: 34 pages, 12 Figure