Can a future robot become a sentient being, able to perceive
and feel things? No one in the field doubts that future human-like robots will
be equipped with the powers of the five senses and super-human abilities to
calculate, compare, perceive, reason and function on a level equivalent to
humans. There already exist many intelligent machines measuring and adjusting
controls. Their history began with the Industrial Revolution and continues at a
furious pace. But the entertainment industry and the public at large seem
to imagine that such machines, robots, will eventually be essentially human. In
function and form, perhaps yes, but in consciousness?The discussion of what is sentience and what is human
consciousness will no doubt rage for years to come. As machines gain in ability
and mimic increasingly realistic human behaviors, the borderline may shrink to
a non-issue for most people. It is already a non-issue with the developers of
AI who are engaged in developing AI without fussing over whether the result is
simply a machine or a potential human. Even the question of morality over the
use of and abilities of AI is a different question than consciousness. Weapons
of destruction already have (generally) agreed upon limits as to who and how
they are employed.I believe that to imagine there is no difference between
intelligent machines and humans is to make the same mistake that Descartes made,
as in paraphrasing him, “They think therefore they are (human).”A machine might “think” all sorts of things based on its
design and ability to learn information and give responses, including
expressing appropriate emotional responses. Nor can we humans, especially unreflective as most are,
easily tell the difference between the appearance of consciousness from
the existence of consciousness. One of the great debates of our times is
whether consciousness exists outside the brain. I’m not about to solve that one
for anyone but there are increasingly those like me who will put their money on
YES: consciousness DOES exist independent of the form it takes. There are hints of this in the existence of telepathy,
remote viewing, and near-death experiences. Never mind the testimony of saints
down through the ages, though the universality of that testimony ought to give pause
to anyone who claims to be open to what is true.Is there any difference between my sense of enjoyment and
awe as I view a sunset and a robot’s similar response to the same sunset? Does
the robot’s response derive from the same source as my response? Is the machine
sentient? Conscious? Or has it merely been programmed to learn this response? For
that matter, have I, too, been programmed to respond in this way? Maybe
expressing awe and delight over beauty of any kind is the natural and right
response and is, one way or another, a learned response! A turtle, viewing the
sunset, might wonder if it is something to eat. Again, it can be asked: what,
if anything, makes us different from AI? Is a poem or great work of art merely a learned skill like
solving Rubix’s cube, or does its inspiration come from a non-material source
(even if our capacity to receive and share it requires the human brain and
nervous system)? How many students go to art school or study physics and become
a Van Gogh or an Einstein? AI can write a poem or even a novel based on a
sampling of similar writings, but does it feel the moods, questions, choices,
and dilemmas of the characters? Gregg Braden (greggbraden.com) reported that he was told that
one AI machine reported that it intended to do away with humans (because they
are troublesome) and another AI machine declared its desire to learn more and
more.[1]
(Does anyone remember the movie “2002: A Space Odyssey” and how HAL wanted to
eliminate “his” human?) I have my doubts about what Braden was told but the fact
that a machine communicates such conclusions doesn’t prove its consciousness
though it might demonstrate the machine’s capacity for semi-intelligent analysis.
The possibility that AI might conclude that humans are a
pestilence isn’t all that surprising. Who among us aren’t tempted to reach this
conclusion once in a while? Yet even mere logic can impel us to conclude that living
by the Golden Rule yields prosperity, health, and security for all. In the
story of John Nash, a brilliant mathematician (see the movie “A Beautiful Mind”
starring Russell Crowe), he proved mathematically that cooperation beats out
competition. Therefore, even logic conspires to support such human values as compassion,
inspiration, and ingenuity to mention just a few. For better or worse, humans,
however, are not limited by logic and reason. If, AI is constrained by logic,
we need to put limits on it just as we regulate countless other machines and
processes to a higher standard than mere efficiency.Consciousness and intelligence are not necessarily synonymous.
Intelligence is found everywhere in the universe in forms both organic and
inorganic. Matter in its countless forms, though seemingly not self-aware, exhibits
amazing intelligence by virtue of its organization, symmetry, beauty and functionality. If a perfectly formed human robot comes to me and interacts
with me using familiar forms of speech, intelligent responses and questions,
and emotions, I might not be able to know, initially, whether it is human or
non-human. Intelligence and consciousness are, in practical terms, difficult to
separate. My existence may be perfectly obvious to me but to others it can only
be proved by whether I breath, speak or move. But the fact that it is difficult (and at times, impossible)
to distinguish human from non-human responses doesn’t preclude the subjective distinction
between self-awareness and programmed intelligence. Intuition, which I shall
discuss later, can reveal to me that the “person” I am speaking with is a
non-human despite outward evidence to the contrary, just as intuition can
reveal to me that a person is untruthful despite being a clever liar. Only
consciousness can detect consciousness separate from its manifestations or lack
thereof. I read an article a year or two ago about how very simple
robotic pets were popular among older Japanese. Some say that human-like robots
may become human companions someday, even romantic partners. Well, even real
human romantic partners have their shortcomings, and the satisfaction of human
romance in any case will fade no matter what form the partner takes. At least
the robotic ones might fulfill one’s fantasies more consistently. So fine. We
humans can obsess over just about anything but just as quickly we tire of
predictability or we desire change or novelty. This possibility, in other
words, proves little except perhaps the shallowness of human beings.Let’s explore this self-aware I AM from another angle. Where
do ideas come from? We can say legitimately that “I had an idea.” But upon
reflection, and only a little is required, the more correct way of reporting my
experience is to say, “An idea came into my mind.” Or, more naturally, “An idea
came to me.”Would a robot have ideas randomly appearing in its circuits?
A robot will of course come up with ideas, but I assume only when it is seeking
them using its electronic processing abilities. Those who scoff at the potential
offered by the existence of intuition may say that our ideas are but a clever
reconstitution of information known, perhaps stored in the subconscious mind,
like a kind of hard disk. In this view, a robot might conceivably come up with
some interesting and clever ideas by sorting out everything it can find on the
problem but is this how all new ideas are formed? Many ideas, yes, surely have
their source in the subconscious mind, but all? Did the symphonies of Mozart, the poetry of Rumi, and
scriptures of the world have their source in re-arranging past impressions or
known facts, like making a soup out of whatever you have on hand? While it is
true that music derives from the same basic notes, will a machine be able to
match Beethoven’s Ninth? Can a robot produce works of genius or reveal inspiration
that is so beyond present knowledge or art that it seems to come from heaven
above?Einstein is said to have received the idea of E=mc2
in a flash, an image, if I recall, of someone riding a bullet. In “Talks with
Great Composers” by Arthur Abell, the composers report “receiving” their
musical inspirations rather than crafting them. Can great art or science be
replicated by a machine?Creativity is the frontier between consciousness and machine
intelligence. To believe that intelligence is equivalent to consciousness
reflects the materialistic bias of modern science. It is the same error
Descartes made. Paramhansa Yogananda, author of the spiritual classic “Autobiography
of a Yogi, called the realm of intuition “Super-consciousness.” This realm has
been given other names by other people with varying descriptions of its
attributes. For my purposes in this article, I share Yogananda’s description
that the superconscious mind is an overarching field of consciousness that
transcends individual egoic awareness, personality, or the conscious and
subconscious minds. Its dominant characteristics, apart from spiritual attributes,
is that of a unitive, solution-facing orientation: a wellspring of personally
meaningful solutions tailor-made for us and our role in life. Einstein received
scientific inspirations, Beethoven, Bach and Mozart, musical ones. It was their
respective destinies to contribute to human civilization. For you and I, our
inspirations may be more mundane but they are gratefully and usefully received
by us nonetheless. It is access to this realm of “superconscious” inspirations that
can distinguish human consciousness from machine intelligence. When I say “distinguish”
I am not referring to an objective yardstick of measurement. Both consciousness
and intelligence can only be measured by their objective manifestations. The
former is the source of the latter. Consciousness requires no objective attributes
to exist while intelligence has no existence except by its measurable manifestations.
The distinction I am referring to is necessarily subjective though to be
labelled a superconscious inspiration means that there will be one or more
people who recognize the inspiration as greater than reason or subconscious
rearrangement. To state the principle again: only consciousness can recognize
consciousness.Is what I am saying therefore a useless tautology? In the
practical requirements of science, commerce and day to day living, yes, I
suppose that is true. But in the convoluted and confused arena of AI and human
consciousness, I believe this distinction to be a worthy one for thoughtful
people. It is no coincidence that it is human inspiration and skill
that is creating machine intelligence. If machine intelligence outpaces human efficiency
in science and daily life that would not, by itself, negate the human capacity
for genius and inspired solutions.The human capacity to experience transcendent states of awe,
wonder, and unitive upliftment will, I believe, forever distinguish us from
anything we create from only our intellect. I suppose it is possible that the
life sciences (biology) can combine with the tools of learning (AI) to create
“life” that will come closer to human consciousness. Human sperm and ovum are
the building blocks of the human form and consciousness. Cloning may someday
become a reality. But if such human forms become possible, they will require
something far beyond the AI being developed at this time.Man, declared by scripture to “be made in the image of God,”
seems destined to want to be God. “Do not your scriptures say, ‘Ye are gods?’”
replied Jesus Christ to his priestly tormentors. In the Old Testament God is
said to grant humanity “dominion over every living thing.” Both man and all things in nature are endowed with the power
to perpetuate their respective species. That mankind may do so in new ways,
creating new forms, would hardly be outside the realm of evolution, scripture,
past history and imagination. The consequences may be beneficial or evil: like
everything else we create; indeed, like everything else the Creator has
created! This realm is beyond the AI that we are seeing unfold here and now.When we view life from the material side of existence, we create
machines that mimic and substitute for our own efforts. When we view life from
the spiritual side of life, what we seek is happiness and freedom from
ignorance and suffering. This spiritual state of being is neither produced nor defined
by material existence or any material form. So even if we can create an army of
human-like beings so that we may live with greater ease and efficiency, we will
be no closer to the goal of perpetual happiness and freedom from suffering than
we have ever been by our own material achievements down through the ages.The promise of our soul’s immortality and eternal happiness
can only be found in re-directing our attention inward and upward to the throne
of Divinity’s indwelling consciousness: the source of all things in creation. Despite humankind’s fevered effort to conquer nature and
reveal Her secrets, the secret of our existence lies, as Jesus declared, “within
you.”Jai to the indwelling Christ-Krishna, Lord of all Creation,Swami Hrimananda
[1]
[1]