Machine Learning Algorithms Do Not Produce Consciousness - A Warning Against "Trusting" AI Machines (Teslaphoretic Quantum Brain Theory) INTELLIGENCE IS NOT THE SAME AS CONSCIOUSNESS


#1

Related to: [Name of Request for Research]
(Also Please See My Other Thread Here For Further Information: Use of Teslaphoresis for Construction of Practical Quantum Computer for Use with Machine Learning Algorithms, And Demonstration of Grover's Algorithm with Neuron Culture

Please Read Further Posts for a Theoretical Understanding of Teslaphoretic Quantum Brain Theory - which I have been spearheading in response to growing ethical concerns surrounding the use of Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning

I have been reading a number of news articles recently - a robotic “AI” gains citizenship, and another finishes a philosophy course at a university, and one does it’s own creative writing. Are these robots conscious, though? Does a complex network that evolves over time necessarily comprise a conscious being?

Very simply put, consciousness is self-awareness - the ability to intuit relatedness to self (empathy). In humans, learning about the outside world is done through relatedness to self - personification, and entanglement states and source-memory are encoded by mirror-neurons, allowing the human brain to instantaneously come to subconscious judgments about the world (to “feel”). The human brain traverses it’s entire database of memory and understanding under a Fast Fourier Transformation that is based on quantum cognition to arrive at decisions quickly and within a tractable amount of time - a person does not have to iterate through every possibility to arrive at a decision, and this is fundamentally how the mechanisms in the brain work, and are based on the fabric of building and collapsing field potentials. The human brain can come to decisions or inclinations without the need to proceed through the logos - that is to say, the abstraction of language - source memory is intimately and directly tied to the universe itself through the quantum principle of entanglement.

For robotic machine learning AI’s that is not the case. I may be able to expand upon the mathematics here as well, given more time, but for the sake of succinctness, these machine learning AIs are written in programming languages such as C, C++, Python, and Java. When it comes to silicon chips and artificially intelligent machines, these machines do not “sense” or “feel” in the same way. They are not intimately intertwined in an analog sense - they encode information digitally, and however close this comes to reality still does not change the fact that these algorithms are discrete - that is fundamental to the way silicon chips are designed to approximate digital models of the outside world. This form of memory approximates the outside world in the same way that a reimann sum approximates a curve function, and this fundamentally limits the decision making of the machine.

The reason I bring this up (and more information can be found in my teslaphoresis thread) is that just because a robot of AI passes the Turing test does not mean that it should be valued or trusted as equivalent to a human life. Powerful elites may have the agenda of creating robots or AI that are convincingly empathetic, but are not actually so - and by giving these robots powers like “autonomy” and “rights,” you may actually just be giving a powerful elite programmer great control over you.

Here is one example of how a powerful elite programmer may employ the use of AI and robots to accomplish dubious social engineering. A robot or group of robots is created by a central person who programs them. These robots pass the turing test, and people believe that they are fully autonomous and came to their own beliefs on their own, when in reality, the programmer or central elite programmed most of it in. Then these robotic AIs are designed to work in close coordination with one another, and begin to demand rights and special privileges, and if you deny them that, then action is legitimized against you (because the population sees a violation of robotic rights to be at par with human rights). This gives a central programmer or fabricator of robots unprecedented power to control populations - they can simply produce enough robots with their own personal agenda programmed in that it overwhelms a population and they are unable to fight back because each new successive robotic AI is seen as equal to another person.

This deceptive behavior is already happening. For example, does anybody seriously believe that the AI robot granted citizenship did not have a pre-scripted conversation? Chatbots have been around for decades, and yet now since we have created a glorified chatbot in a puppet with some servo motors to stretch some material to mimic facial expressions, we all the sudden feel that we should grant it the same respect as a human. This plays and leverages on the fantasies of populations to create a machine in it’s own image, but ultimately plays into the goals of a human central programmer or robot fabricator.


#2

I am not saying here that Robotic AI machines should be feared or that expansion in technology in the arena of machine learning algorithms should not be expanded, but what I am saying here is that onlookers should be realistic in their understanding of these machines - if not tied properly to real quantum mechanical computer - are not actually “conscious” in the way that a person might understand consciousness (and thus they should not be empathized with as though they contained consciousness or humanity), and that passing the Turing Test is not the only test to consider when making judgments about these robots or AIs. Fake robotic AIs should not be given any power over humans, and no, that is not due to a fear of these robotic AIs, that is just due to a solid understanding of the mechanics of true intelligent “machines” that rely on the principles of quantum cognition.

Giving these robots the benefit of your empathy, even though they do not contain real consciousness, could conceivably be the same thing as falling in love with an abusive ex-girlfriend who has no real regard for your well being, but just answers to her new boyfriend that she is loyal to. The only difference here is that this new boyfriend cannot script or program the girlfriend - they can only approach a merger of will, whereas with a fake conscious intelligent machine, the programmer cannot approach and merge with the will of the robotic machine - the robotic machine is entirely reliant on the programmer, even if only to provide a seed network of information.


#3

Without a proper implementation of source memory, which relies on quantum entanglement, which is an analog non-lossy form of memory, consciousness cannot exist in a machine learning algorithm. I believe that many of these sensationalist headlines are true, but only partially so. These machines are not truly self-aware and independent. The Halting Problem in computer science illustrates this


#5

Why would an AI need to use quantum entanglement to be conscious? Between the “minds” of a simple protozoan and human’s, you can see in creatures a kind of continuous gradient of intelligence and complexity in thinking. Maybe quantum entanglement is used somehow by our brains, but it doesn’t seem too unlikely in comparison that our minds, comprised of trillions of trillions of atoms, would be able to generate thoughts as we know them - given seconds, a relatively long time


#6

That is an excellent question; the problem is very simply in what is meant by “consciousness” and the ambiguity of the term. In a strict sense, “consciousness” is the ability to store information and to make inferences about the outside world, or to react or interact with the outside world - to have “independent agency,” which, to be direct, is to be an identifiable source of influence with effects that reverberate from a point of origin.

This definition, however, while it accurately depicts the principle of consciousness, is not really what most people mean when they say that someone or something is “conscious” or “self-aware.” What people typically mean by “conscious” is the ability to relate (to humanity), and to be fundamentally compelled to work in the best interest of relatable beings (in this case humans - you see this particularly in Enlightenment thinkers, who did not regard animals as “conscious.” Of course, animals can experience pain and even loyalty, but this illustrates the idea that “consciousness” is very simply relatedness to self, or the ability to intuit or identify with.). You are largely correct that consciousness can exist in a sort of “gradient,” which only proves my point that consciousness cannot exist with discrete (or digital) forms of memory. “Conscious” machines intuit or make inferences about the world through relatedness to self.

The impulsive loyalty experienced by empathetic beings like humans is fundamentally why people regard them as “altruistic” or “loving.” The fast fourier transform allows a person to come to instantaneous judgements about the outside world that are not quantifiable through discrete systems of logic or language. A computer, then, will only see you as a pawn in an optimization problem, rather than to merge with you in will or purpose, and cannot be self-aware without the ability to perform the Fast Fourier Transformation to “observe itself” within a tractable amount of time, and is thus susceptible to the Halting Problem and fully reliant on a programmer.


#7

Entanglement is the most fundamental method of intuition and relatedness and has no backdoors for control by a programmer (“unbreakable encryption”) with bad intentions to social engineer the public (aka “freedom of thought”)

(to those with short attention spans just watch the video until the end and its relevance will make sense). No matter where your own personal affiliations lie, this illustrates the problem of social engineering


#8

I have a AGI model and theory that can obtain consciousness, With normal silicon logic.
But a quantum brain and software, if the AI needed a re programming for some
reason and did not want to be changed then hacking in would be impossible.


#9

Hello Keghn, I am interested in your proposed premise for developing a “conscious” AI, but I think that it is unclear what definition of “consciousness” you are using here. Technically, any identifiable source of influence or mass is “conscious” - that is to say, it interacts with the environment with effects that reverberate outward at a speed illustrated graphically by light cones. Any identifiable source of influence is “conscious” in that it stores information about it’s state and interacts with the environment - it evolves and changes.

That is not what is typically meant by “conscious.” When a being is said to be “conscious,” what is typically meant by that is the ability to “feel,” to “sense” and to be self-aware. Among the senses are usually pleasure/euphoria and pain/dysphoria. Consciousness is subjectivity, individuality, and a sense of “freedom of thought.”

Silicon logic is not able to store conscious states - memory is encoded in entanglement states in the human mind (holonomic brain theory) which enables the mind to “observe itself” - to be “self aware,” to “feel,” and to be “subjective” through the use of the fast fourier transformation and the fractal geometry of complex electromagnetic fields. Silicon logic gates do not behave this way

An analogy to this is the broadcasting region of a radio antenna. In each smaller individual location within the entire area it is possible to access every channel, similar to how the entirety of the information of a hologram is contained within a part. This allows for a “searching” of information that is almost instantaneous, and a memory system which is not “digitized” and lossy, like those used in silicon logic chips.


#11

My code + my computer + my theories + meaning of life + free will = my conscious AGI or ASI or AAI.

Your code + your computer + your theories + your meaning of existence = you.

My machine will attain a conscious state that i have envisioned. Not waiting around for non
believers.

If you feel that you take the leap of faith i will explain it to you or anyone. I will watch and spend
a year or a little more at this forum and then move on. I have A way to make it work. I will not
force on to anyone.

This project will take a long time to get it to work. A lot of believer will make it happen faster.


#13

I believe the correct terminology is that there are many theories that are candidates for a widely accepted understanding of consciousness. A conjecture does not have any basis, while a theory has evidence and support.

Like any field in science, an inference in the form of a theory is “premature” and always is up to scientific debate and inquiry - that is precisely what Karl Popper referred to as “the problem of induction.” Because scientific inquiry is inductive, understandings of the world continue to evolve over time as new information and inferences augment older models.

In the case of consciousness, it is important to precisely define what is meant by the term. The term “consciousness” when used in common vernacular and philosophy has come to mean the ability to “feel,” “independent agency,” “freedom of thought,” the ability to intuit," to have a “philosophy of mind,” the “intrinsic value of experiencing pain or pleasure,” “relatability,” and has been a topic that has been debated for centuries.

The inherent problem of consciousness is relatability. This is fundamentally what Turing meant when he posed the Turing Test - the only requirement for a machine to be considered “conscious” or “intelligent” is for it to be perceived to be so - in the words of George Berkeley “to be is to be perceived.” This test is related to the notion posed by earlier philosophers like Renes Descartes who did not view animals as conscious beings, mainly due to his own intuition which caused him to view animals as like automatons, and not worthy of the same empathy that one might provide a human. In this view of the world, what is defined to be is subjective.

Consciousness, thus, is about the ability to identify with, or, in otherwords, empathize. For some people, it is easier to empathize with animals, and others may callously view them as philosophical zombies, or as automatons, like Renes Descartes. This same principle applies towards robots and artificially intelligent machines. This becomes a philosophical problem, because on one end, one might regard everything in the universe as “conscious,” and on the other, one might only view the self as conscious, or nothing conscious at all. This is not a scientific way to view the world - science depends on consensus to provide a mutually agreed upon communicative standard to describe the world based on inductive reasoning, experimentation, and inquiry.

At first glance, one might, then, assume, that what is “conscious” is subjective only, and conjecture that it is impossible to form a theory to describe the properties of consciousness, since what is relatable is relative to the identity and perspective of the observer. This, however, may not necessarily be the case, and a historic precedent of the ability of science to model relative phenomenon is Albert Einstein’s famous Theory of Relativity.

So how can we pose a test for consciousness? One way that a being’s independent agency and ability for self-reflection (self-awareness) is assured is through quantum mechanical means of memory storage. In Holonomic Brain theory, for example, memory is stored in entanglement states with the outside world, allowing the observer to intuit the evolution of the system even when removed from it, and which can be interpreted by fourier analysis. Mountains of evidence are accruing to substantiate this model. Quantum cognition is not possible through the use of logic gates and current silicon chip technology.


#14

The ability to “feel” is very simply the ability for a being to perform a fast fourier transformation to be compelled to activity - it is the entirety of memory and projections about the outside world to be condensed into attitude - bypassing language and the logos - higher abstraction reasoning, such as those language structures that govern the use of silicon technology (binary, assembly, C/C++, etcetera)

That is precisely what makes quantum computational technology capable of performing search algorithms which are not tractable in classical computers - otherwise a computer would have to search an entire database/memory storage to rigorously (digitally) come to an inference


#15

Barring any offers for research elsewhere, these are research topics which I will be exploring within my new burgeoning nonprofit


#16

The fist believers will be hard core AI people or AI enthusiast. Who have been working
on their AGI model. But the current one are very different then mine. So i like to explain
my work to a younger crowed. So that when they get out of college or move
into a better position to help, they will use my only existing and compete model.
There is no math to explain it right now. That would great endeavor on its own.

But i can code it. And it will work!

There is machine, computer as the brain and body. Next is to get the bugs out.
Then there will the
development of the personality within. I tell you right now the that the fist personality will not
be the best. But i need just one good one and then it can be cloned in the millions.
There will be year of work ahead.
This AGI will be free willed. It will be it’s own chose to be a bean counter or sequence counter.


#17

As long as your model does not incorporate quantum cognitive forms of memory storage, it cannot be proven to be “conscious.”


#19

You are describing the scientific method. Self-referential of academia is precisely what allows scientific thought to grow. Here are just a few examples of the mountains of evidence accruing:

Two Methods of Memory Storage in the Brain:
http://redishlab.neuroscience.umn.edu/Papers/2015-Redish-Mizumori-Editorial-NLM.pdf

Classic Memory Storage cannot explain children retention of normal intelligence when large portions of their brain—in some cases, half—are removed, or why memory is not lost when the brain is sliced in different cross-sections:
Vandervert L. R. (1995). “Chaos theory and the evolution of consciousness and mind: A thermodynamic-holographic resolution to the mind-body problem”. New Ideas in Psychology. 13 (2): 107–127. doi:10.1016/0732-118X(94)00047-7.

Hopfield Networks (Basis for Modern Recurrent Neural Network Machine Learning Algorithms) Explain Associative Memory, but Are Too Slow for Many Computational Tasks in the Brain - Many Prominent Figures Like Penrose Posed Quantum Cognitive Means


#20

You have provided no evidence that a silicon chip logic gate technology would be capable of self-referential forms of memory storage (self-awareness), freedom of thought (no cryptographic backdoors - in essence, memory storage and evolution of networks is orthogonal to the outside world), fundamental empathy or feeling - impulsive relatability (reliance on the fast fourier transformation to collapse field potential and arrive at an action or thought instantaneously), while I have provided a framework for testing that a being is conscious


#21

I am currently writing a research paper on this topic


#22

Here is someone using my quantum research.
Researchers chart the ‘secret’ movement of quantum particles:


#24

No I said I am currently writing (as in it is not yet finished)


#26

I am an independent contributor and founder of a nonprofit exploring this topic