特別節目·中文精讀

克里斯托夫·科赫:意識

Christof Koch: Consciousness

神經科學家談意識的神經機制、整合資訊理論的思路,以及如何用實驗逼近主觀體驗之謎。

官方音訊00:00 / --:--
中文精讀由 AI 基於原始訪談改寫,非官方翻譯,可能存在偏差或錯誤;表述以原音訊與官方文稿為準。說明

Christof Koch(克里斯托夫·科赫)被問到一個假設:2040 年的 Siri,能透過任何你能想到的圖靈測試,說話得體,記得你說過的每一句話,能陪你聊哲學也能陪你開玩笑。你會說它有意識嗎?

他的回答很乾脆:不會。哪怕它自己開口說"我剛醒過來,感覺很好"。

這個回答來自一個被引用超過十萬次的人。1986 年到 2013 年他在加州理工當教授,之後去西雅圖艾倫腦科學研究所做總裁兼首席科學官,寫了《意識:一個浪漫還原論者的自白》。他這輩子幹的事,就是想把"感覺像什麼"這件事塞進科學裡。

他和 Lex Fridman 這場對話,從上世紀的老問題一路聊到小鼠腦子裡一塊一毫米厚的結構。中間穿插了漂浮艙、蜜蜂的投票、萊姆的科幻小說,以及他自己從虔誠天主教徒變成接近佛教徒的過程。

先分清兩個被混用了一百年的詞

Koch 花了很大力氣做一件事:把智慧和意識拆開。

智慧關乎功能。適應新環境,學得快,看懂局面裡有誰、接下來會發生什麼。你給它一個任務,它完成得好,這就叫智慧。AlphaGo 下棋、Watson 答題、自動駕駛認路,都是功能層面的勝利。

意識關乎存在。它不完成任何任務。Koch 的用法很樸素:任何體驗都算。坐在椅子上發呆算,深度冥想裡那個說不清的瞬間也算。哲學家 Thomas Nagel 那句被引用了半個世紀的話最省事:當一隻蝙蝠,感覺像是什麼樣子。

這兩個東西在人類身上綁得死死的,所以我們習慣性地認為它們是一回事。Koch 的解釋是進化的副作用。我們身邊全是親戚和別的物種,神經系統從線蟲的 302 個神經元一路鋪到藍鯨的上千億個。行為越複雜,腦子越複雜,我們就把"越有意識"這個標籤貼上去。這個推斷在生物界大體成立。

但數字機器把這個繫結拆了。計算機器智慧的時候,我們完全不知道它跟意識有沒有關係,甚至連方向都看不清。

三件讓功能和體驗脫鉤的事

Koch 講了三個人人都能驗證的場景,來說明意識和行為可以徹底分家。

第一個是植物狀態。他提到 1990 年代佛羅里達的特麗·夏沃(Terri Schiavo),心臟停跳後被搶救回來,在植物狀態裡躺了十四年。這類病人成千上萬,他們會睜眼、會閉眼,有睡眠覺醒週期,偶爾還有些動作。但你找不出任何規律把醫生說的話、母親說的話和他們的反應對應起來。行為沒有了,可《潛水鐘與蝴蝶》裡的那位法國編輯告訴世界另一件事:他只剩左眼能上下眨動,靠這個寫完了一整本書。到最後連眼球都動不了的人也有。沒有行為,不代表裡面沒人。

第二個是做夢。你今晚會睡著,會在自己麻痺的身體裡醒來,遇見一隻死了很多年的童年寵物狗,而且一點也不覺得奇怪。做夢時身體會給運動神經元發一個主動訊號,讓你癱瘓,這叫肌張力缺失(atonia)。缺了這個機制的人會把夢演出來,那是快速眼動期睡眠行為障礙,很麻煩的病。這裡行為被徹底鎖死,體驗卻飽滿得能讓你哭。

第三個是他自己的經歷。他去了新加坡,進了一個漂浮艙:體溫的水,瀉鹽,全黑,全靜音。脫光了躺進去,很快身體感就消失了,沒有邊界,沒有重量。接著聲音沒了,光沒了,時間的流逝感也沒了。剛開始你會覺得有點瘮人,會想"我是不是該無聊了"。可如果你剋制住不去主動思考,剩下的就是一個沒有身體、沒有時間、沒有聲音、也沒有念頭的東西,但它醒著。

你沒有任何功能在運轉,沒有在計算,沒有在回憶,沒有在計劃,可你完全清醒。你是一團純粹的存在。(克里斯托夫·科赫)

進化顯然沒給我們準備漂浮艙。所以"這玩意兒有什麼適應意義"這個問題問不出答案。Koch 說生物學家一向不擅長回答"為什麼",我們連"為什麼有兩隻眼睛而不是三隻"都說不清楚。

想測意識,先造一個能打亂它的機器

對人,現在已經有一套辦法。經顱磁刺激給大腦來一記脈衝,用腦電圖看它怎麼迴響,再算這個迴響的複雜度。這套流程在實驗室裡被叫作 zap-zip。

效果很硬:清醒的人複雜度高,麻醉的人、深睡的人複雜度低,區分準確率接近百分之百。同樣的手法可以用在猴子、狗、老鼠身上,它們的腦子結構類似。

但把磁脈衝打進一臺 iPhone,你只會把它弄壞。所以這條路對機器走不通。

Koch 的結論是:我們最終需要一個意識理論。不能靠直覺。直覺說會說話的就是有意識的,可嬰兒不會說話,夢中人被麻痺了也不會說話,植物人不會說話。憑直覺判斷,你在這些案子上全都會判錯。

他押注的理論叫整合資訊理論(Integrated Information Theory,IIT)。核心主張是:一個系統有沒有意識,取決於它內部因果結構能產生多大的、不可再分解的因果力。這個量在數學上可以算,原則上可以對任何物理系統算。

泛心論不是"石頭也有心事"

聊到這兒,Lex 追問了一個繞不開的傳統:物性論和二元論打了幾千年,意識在這兩邊的位置都很彆扭。

Koch 把泛心論(panpsychism)分成了兩檔。一檔是極端版:一切都是心,石頭、森林、iPhone 都算。他覺得這個不太現實。另一檔溫和得多:所有生物都有那麼一點點體驗,從單細胞生物到巨杉。他傾向於後者。

他還提到了伯特蘭·羅素的一個思路,通常叫羅素式一元論(Russellian monism),也有人叫中立一元論。大意是:物理學極其擅長描述事物之間的關係,電荷怎麼作用,質量怎麼彎曲時空,夸克之間怎麼配。但物理學從不告訴你那個東西本身是什麼,它永遠站在第三人稱的位置上描述關係。

那第一人稱在哪?在意識裡。Koch 的說法是,你的意識體驗就是你的大腦、特別是你的皮層,從內部被感受到的樣子。物理學是外部視角,意識是同一個東西的內部視角。

順著這個邏輯,草履蟲也值得認真對待。它確實很笨。可它身上有幾千種蛋白質、上億個分子組裝成一個至今沒有任何計算機能準確模擬的系統。它大概沒有內心獨白,沒有期待,沒有計劃,可它可能真的有那麼一丁點"感覺像什麼"。

亞里士多德的三層靈魂,和今天定義不了的死亡

Koch 順手把這個問題往回拉了兩千多年。亞里士多德大概是西方最重要的科學家兼哲學家,他有一套說法:靈魂是事物的形式。生物身上有三層。

植物有營養靈魂,那是生命原則。動物在此之上還有感覺靈魂或者說慾望靈魂,它們能看、能聞、有驅力,想吃、想繁殖。只有人有理性靈魂。這套東西后來被基督教接手,理性靈魂變成了不朽的那部分,變成了跟上帝連線的通道。

今天我們把這三層換成了別的問題:什麼是生命,什麼是智慧,什麼是意識。答案都還沒成形。Koch 舉了個特別實在的例子:死亡的定義正在變得模糊。以前很簡單,不呼吸了,心跳停了,就是死了,毫無爭議。現在有呼吸機、有起搏器,於是一批又一批的會議在討論死亡的法律和醫學定義。生命的邊界要在死亡的邊界上倒推著找。

智慧的定義同樣糟糕。沒有法律定義,只有智商測試和一堆實際成績單。我們開始在窄意義上把它造出來,AlphaGo、Watson、各種自動駕駛,也有人在想通用智慧。它大致跟"學習和適應"有關。但它和體驗之間的距離,Koch 認為遠得離譜。

筆記本里的黑洞不會把你吸進去

這裡是整場對話最鋒利的地方。

Lex 提了一個思想實驗:假設 Henry Markram 的藍腦計劃大獲全勝,十年後我們有了完整的人腦模擬,每一個神經元、每一個突觸都對得上,它還會說話,會說"你好,我剛醒,感覺不錯"。它有意識嗎?

Koch 說不。理由是他最喜歡的一個類比。

我可以寫下行進方程,讓筆記本算出銀河系中心那個黑洞,質量大到能把時空擰成一個連光都逃不出去的洞。可為什麼這臺電腦不把我吸進去?它模擬了引力,卻沒有引力的因果力。(克里斯托夫·科赫)

在計算機裡跑一場暴風雨,你不會被淋溼。模擬和真實之間隔著的不是精度,是因果力本身。

數字計算機本質上是個數字時鐘,所有計算都被離散的時鐘節拍切成碎片。人腦不是這樣運轉的,它的因果結構是連續的、高度互聯的。所以要做有意識的機器,你得造所謂的神經形態硬體,讓它的因果結構和腦子處在同一個層級上,光靠軟體模擬不夠。

這段推論有個必須說清的後果:Koch 認為意識不是造出人類級智慧的必要條件。在生物身上兩者手拉手,因為進化把複雜度和因果力一起堆了上去。在數字機器裡,它們可以徹底分開。

為什麼我們覺得虐待一條狗很可惡

Lex 把話題引向倫理。一個超級智慧,如果不跟我們共享任何價值,怎麼辦?

Koch 的回答繞回了共情。他拆了這個詞的希臘語詞根,empatheia,意思是"與之同感"。為什麼絕大多數人覺得虐待一條狗令人髮指?不是因為它是我老婆、我孩子,也不是因為它是一個人。是因為我們心裡有個裝置,會自動替對方疼。

他的推演是:如果人類真的要造出非常強大的通用智慧,那麼讓它具備共情反應,可能符合智人這個物種的長期生存利益。一個能感受別的東西在受苦的系統,不太會順手把人類清空。

那恐懼和痛苦是意識的必需品嗎?Koch 說不是。他舉了那個經典實驗:把電極插進老鼠的內側下丘腦,老鼠會不停地按壓槓桿刺激自己,不吃、不喝、不交配,其他一切都不重要了。所以從邏輯上講,一個只有快感的系統是可能的,雖然那種存在大概很糟糕。

但真實的生物需要整套配置。需要恐懼,需要那種對消亡的迴避,也需要正向的慾望狀態,好讓訓練有抓手。

從羅馬天主教到佛教,中間隔著一片暗物質

Koch 在一個虔誠的羅馬天主教家庭長大。現在他說,他不信那個從小被教導要信的上帝了,不信有朝一日會在永恆的幸福裡與誰重聚。他看不到證據。

他現在的精神傾向更接近某種形式的佛教。他跟達賴喇嘛見過幾次面,最打動他的一點是,這位老人反覆強調的是減少一切眾生的痛苦。不只是人的痛苦,是所有生物的痛苦,按能力分級,一隻動物的苦比一個發育正常的人少。這種立場從一開始就在他們的傳統裡。

他也直接說了不成立的部分:輪迴沒有證據。

但他沒有把話說死。他提醒,宇宙裡我們連百分之四都還沒搞明白,暗物質、暗能量究竟是什麼,一無所知。他的態度是那種老派的誠實:我不知道的東西很多,但這不妨礙我認真對待我唯一能直接接觸到的東西,也就是我的體驗。

他說得很清楚:你對物理、對原子、對超弦、對分子的一切知識,都是後來的。你最先、也唯一直接熟悉的,是這個充滿東西、影象、聲音和觸感的世界。

攀巖時那個消失的內心聲音

Koch 喜歡攀巖,喜歡騎車。他描述的那種狀態,運動的人大概都碰到過:進入所謂的 zone。

在那個狀態裡,內心的嘮叨消失了。那個一直催你交稅、催你回訊息、反覆回放你和前任那場吵架的聲音,安靜了。你完全在外面,在巖壁上,在車上,在球場上。

他覺得這跟漂浮艙裡那種純粹體驗是同一件事的兩面。一個是全然的行動,一個是全然的無行動,但都碰到了意識存在裡某個非常基礎的部分。那種滿足感深得不像話,而且上癮,人會一次次回去找它。

你碰到的是存在的根。這跟智慧完全是兩回事。(克里斯托夫·科赫)

順帶說一句他對模擬假說的態度。他認為那就是"我們生活在上帝心裡"這個古老假設的現代版本,幾百年裡無數聰明人認真討論過。它永遠無法被檢驗,也談不上有什麼用處。人們喜歡聊,那就聊。

自由意志發生在你調動全部存在的那一刻

物理層面,我們活在一個大體決定論的世界裡,直到量子力學出現,某些事情原則上不可預測。Koch 說他偏愛這個不確定性,因為另一種可能更難接受:宇宙初始條件定好了,剩下的全是在播放。

在意識層面,他的立場比較微妙。我們當然被物理約束,被過去約束,被父母的教誨和環境的暗示約束,心理學實驗一次又一次證明我們多麼容易被操縱。

但他說,到了那些真正需要反覆權衡的人生決定上,要不要結婚,去不去那所學校,接不接這份工作,要不要在稅上動手腳,當你把整個有意識的存在都投進這個問題,把所有相關條件都攤開來分析,然後做出決定,這已經是你可能達到的最自由的狀態。

自由意志不是一種想幹什麼就幹什麼的意志。那種東西不存在。

潛意識是特性,不是 bug

Koch 寫部落格記錄讀的書,布林加科夫、村上春樹、尼爾·蓋曼、卡爾·薩根。他說文學的價值在於接觸更廣的人類經驗。你坐在實驗室裡盯著螢幕,看一張臉閃一下然後按鍵,這沒什麼錯,但那隻覆蓋了體驗的極窄一段。文學是通往其他狀態的捷徑。

他還提到了一個容易被忽略的好處:歷史感。你去讀幾十年前的書,會發現他們看待某些問題的方式跟我們完全不同。每個文化在鼎盛期都以為自己什麼都懂了,然後你才意識到,還有別的看世界的方式,其中一些可能比你的更有道理。

他談無意識時提到了尼采,說尼采是那片"無意識的大陸"最早的發現者之一,比弗洛伊德早。人在榮譽、憐憫、慈善的名義下乾的很多事,其實一點也不慈善。弗洛伊德後來接手了這塊地盤,Koch 認為他是個天才,雖然後期走偏了。弗洛伊德最早是做神經科學的,研究七鰓鰻,還獨立貢獻過神經元學說,也就是神經系統由離散單元構成這個想法。

無意識到底有多深?他給了一個特別具體的例子。感情破裂的時候,你心裡同時有愛、有恨、有慾望、有憤怒,全攪在一起。你想分析自己為什麼這麼難受,很難往下挖,因為這些情緒在杏仁核和其他一些地方生成,意識那雙窺探的眼睛進不去。

你可以去找心理醫生,可以跟朋友聊個沒完,最後你能給自己講出一個故事,為什麼這件事發生了,為什麼你愛或者不愛。但你無法確認那個故事是不是真的。你只是沒有許可權訪問那些區域,而那些區域權力很大。

這算 bug 嗎?Lex 問。失戀的舊賬明明沒用,為什麼還賴在那兒不走。

Koch 說這是特性。如果每做一個動作、每起一個情緒,都得經過意識批准,人根本活不到現在。學打字、學騎車的時候,意識必須在場,然後你把這件事交給基底神經節和紋狀體,訓練出一批自動化的程式。他和弗朗西斯·克里克給這些東西起了個名字,叫殭屍代理(zombie agents)。它們替你處理手上的活,意識解放出來去操心文字的抽象含義。

至於那些清不掉的創傷記憶,他認為也有功能意義。除非是極度虐待導致的臨床解離,正常人沒有刪除記憶的能力,我們因此受苦。可要是真給你一個隨時擦除記憶的開關,你大概會擦到對自己毫無益處的程度。

蜜蜂投票,黑雲思考,尺度決定一切

Lex 問了一個尺度問題:我們會不自覺地用人類的時間尺度和體型去想意識,那些極大的、極小的、極慢的東西呢?

Koch 先講了蜜蜂。大多數人覺得那就是蟲子。可蜜蜂能認出單獨的人臉。分蜂的時候,它們要做一次足以讓人焦慮一整週的決定:這棵樹還是那面牆。偵察蜂飛出去實地考察,回來跳舞,跳好幾天,用舞步給不同地點拉票,最後整個蜂群一起飛向偵察蜂自己達成的那個共識地點。它們的神經迴路密度比人腦高十倍,雖然只有不到一百萬神經元,複雜程度驚人。工蜂只活兩個月左右。

所以在 IIT 的框架下,它們大概真的在體驗什麼,只是那套體驗跟我們的完全不像。

然後是《黑雲》。弗雷德·霍伊爾 1957 年的小說,一團雲擋在地球和太陽之間,全球降溫,後來人類用射電望遠鏡跟它搭上話,發現它是個智慧實體,最後說服它離開了。Koch 說,如果這團雲的整合資訊峰值出現在"月"這個時間尺度上,那它的一個瞬間就是我們的一個月,它的一秒鐘是另一個東西。這種形式的意識可能就生活在我們旁邊,我們認不出來,因為它在尺度上跟我們錯開得太遠。

他還講了萊姆的《無敵號》。人類飛船降落在一個星球上,發現原住民早就死光了,機器接管了一切,並且開始了自己的達爾文式進化。最終勝出的形態是無數六邊形元胞自動機組成的巨雲,平時一個一個躺在地上,遇到危機就組裝成巨大的網路,然後它們變成超級智慧,能控制一切人類能控制的東西。最後人類只能做兩個選擇:把整個星球核平,或者離開。因為他們根本沒法理解這個東西,也沒法跟它溝通。

Koch 借這個說了一個區分。"它有沒有意識"和"我能不能知道它有意識",是兩個完全不同的問題。一個是本體論的,一個是認識論的。多重宇宙可能真的存在,但如果我們跟它交換不了任何資訊,那它就只是認識論上的一片空白,不能因為測不到就說它不存在。

這個區分今天就派上用場了。有些實驗室在培養微型腦類器官(mini organoids):從你胳膊上取一點幹細胞,放進培養皿,加幾個轉錄因子,誘導它們長成幾毫米大小的一團,裡面大約有五十萬個神經元,看起來像神經細胞。哈佛在做,斯坦福也在做。

它們可能已經開始體驗到點什麼了。但我們目前沒有辦法跟它們通訊。所以倫理問題提前來了:它是否有意識,和我怎麼知道它是否有意識,兩條完全分開的問題,卻要一起回答。

給年輕人的建議:站在幾個學科的縫隙上

Lex 問,如果一個年輕研究者想搞懂或者造出人類級的智慧與意識,該學什麼。神經科學、計算、認知科學、哲學、計算機、機器人?

Koch 的回答是不選。已知唯一具備高水平智慧的系統就是智人,真想造,那就得貼著人研究。他畫的範圍是:認知神經科學在一頭,心智哲學在一頭,電腦科學在中間。

他給了個歷史論據。那些原創的點子基本都從神經科學裡長出來。神經網路是,強化學習是,明斯基當年造的東西是,Hubel 和 Wiesel 那個著名的視覺皮層實驗更是,它一路長成了多層網路。

順著這個邏輯,他判斷 AI 下一步的瓶頸恰好在這兒。卷積網路能做很多事,但它不理解。你給一個人看一張圖:街上有人從別人包裡掏錢包,人一眼就知道那是扒手。機器會告訴你,圖裡有男人、有女人、有包。除非你餵它十萬張扒手圖,否則它沒有那個"一眼就懂"。

所以有些人的判斷是:真要讓機器像你我這樣理解世界,就得回到心理學,搞清人是怎麼做到的,大腦是怎麼支援的。Koch 覺得最讓人興奮的位置,就在認知科學、神經科學、AI、電腦科學和心智哲學的交界處。

一毫米厚的地方,可能是"部分"變成"整體"的介面

最後 Lex 問他,拋開所有現成的謎,近期最想解開的是什麼。

他講了一個結構,叫屏狀核(claustrum)。它藏在大腦皮層下面,島葉下方,很薄,大概一毫米,嵌在白質的線路里,非常難成像。左右各一個。它的特殊之處在於:它跟每一個皮層區域都有連線。

弗朗西斯·克里克生前最後一篇論文寫的就是它。他在醫院裡,去世那天還在口述修改稿。他們的假設是:這個結構從所有皮層區域接收輸入,又向所有皮層區域投射回去,那它的功能大概像交響樂團裡的指揮。皮層裡有一堆演奏者,有的管運動,有的管心理理論,有的推斷社交關係,有的處理顏色和聽覺,各管一攤。而意識要做的事,是把這一切打成一個包。所謂繫結問題,說的就是這個。

屏狀核的神經元數量比皮層少得多,但它跟所有區域都說得上話,所以位置上最像一個"整合器"。

這個假設正在被檢驗。他們用小鼠,找到了一種新的標記結構,起了個名字叫"荊棘王冠"(crown of thorns),長在屏狀核裡,擁有 Koch 見過的所有神經元中最廣泛的連線。細胞體極小,但伸出來的軸突樹巨大,同時覆蓋同側和對側皮層。配上光遺傳學這類工具,就可以把這些神經元開啟、關掉,看小鼠的行為怎麼變。

Lex 把它總結成一句話:這裡是部分變成整體的介面。Koch 說這個說法很好,這是把一個個獨立的模組變成一個完整的意識體驗的地方之一。

整場對話裡最該被記住的幾件事

如果只帶走一層意思,大概是這個:我們習慣用"表現得像不像人"來判斷一個東西有沒有內心,這個標準在生物界勉強能用,在機器上徹底失效。會說話、會答題、會安慰你,這些全是功能。功能可以做到極致,同時裡面空無一物。

反過來也成立。沒有行為,也可能滿是體驗。植物狀態的人、被麻痺的夢中人、漂浮艙裡那團沒有身體的存在,都在提醒同一件事。

而 Koch 給出的路徑不是"等 AI 更強大我們自然就知道了",而是先去把理論建起來,讓理論告訴你什麼樣的物質結構會產生體驗,然後拿這個標準去量任何系統,包括那些跟我們尺度完全錯開的系統。

下面是這場對話裡可以直接拿去用的東西。

  • 把"智慧"和"意識"當成兩個詞用。下次討論 AI 時,先問清對方說的是哪一個。混著用會讓整場討論原地打轉。
  • 別拿圖靈測試當意識證據。它測的是模仿能力。一個系統越擅長模仿,你越容易誤判,而不是越容易判斷。
  • 想判斷一個系統有沒有體驗,去找它的因果結構,別找它的臺詞。能自我報告只是線索之一,而且是最容易被偽造的那條線索。
  • 對尺度保持開放。蜜蜂、腦類器官、一團跨月思考的雲,如果意識的載體取決於整合資訊的方式而非人類的硬體,那我們認不出來的東西可能比認出來的多。
  • 想進這個領域,別隻學一門。認知神經科學、心智哲學、電腦科學的交界處,是 Koch 認為最有可能出下一個大突破的地方。深度學習的下一步瓶頸很可能不在算力,在理解。
  • 給自己的"殭屍代理"留位置。把重複的、機械的事訓練成自動流程,讓意識騰出來處理真正需要它的問題。但也要接受,有些情緒你永遠挖不到底,那不是故障。
  • 去找那種讓內心聲音消失的活動。攀巖、騎行、漂浮艙,方式不限。Koch 認為那類體驗觸到的是存在本身,不是智慧,而這件事值得每個人自己去驗證一次。
文稿由本站用語音識別模型(基於官方釋出音訊)機器轉寫,可能有識別錯誤,人名與數字請以音訊為準。
[00:00:00] Welcome to the Artificial Intelligence podcast. My name is Leks Friedman. I'm a research scientist at MIT. If you would like to skip ahead to the conversation of Christopher Coke, I started introducing him at about the one minute and 30 second mark. This podcast is an extension of the courses and deep learning, autonomous vehicles and artificial general intelligence that I've taught and organized. It is not only about machine learning or robotics or neuroscience or philosophy or any one technical field, it considers all these avenues of thought in a way that is hopefully accessible to everyone. [00:00:40] The aim here is to explore the nature of human and machine intelligence, the big picture of understanding the human mind and creating echoes of it in the machine. To me, that is one of our civilization's most challenging and exciting scientific journeys into the unknown. I will first repost parts of previous YouTube conversations and lecture companies that can be listened to without video, if you want to see the video version, please go to my YouTube channel. My username there on Twitter and everywhere else is Leks Friedman spelled F.R. ID without the E, so reach out and connect if you find these conversations interesting. [00:01:25] In this episode, I talked with Christoph Koch, who's one of the seminal figures in the fields of neurobiology, neuroscience and generally in the study of consciousness. He's the president and chief scientific officer of the Allen Institute of Brain Science in Seattle from 1986 until 2013. He was a professor at Caltech, his work associate, over 100000 citations. He's the author of several books, including Consciousness Confessions of a Romantic Reductionist. His research, his writing, his ideas have had a big impact on the scientific community and the general public in the way we think about consciousness and in the way we think of ourselves as human beings. [00:02:09] I enjoyed and learned a lot from this conversation. I hope you do as well. [00:02:31] OK, before we delve into the beautiful mysteries of consciousness, let's zoom out a little bit and let me ask, do you think there's intelligent life out there in the universe? [00:02:43] Yes, I do believe so. [00:02:45] We have no evidence of it. But I think the possibilities are overwhelming in favor of it. Given a universe where we have 10 to 11 galaxies and each galaxy has between 10 to 11, 10 to the 12 stars, and we know more stars have one or more planets. [00:03:01] So how does that make you feel? It still makes me feel special because I have experiences, I feel the world, I experience a world and independent of whether there are other creatures out there, I still feel the world and I have access to this world in this very strange, compelling way. And that's the core of human existence. [00:03:25] Now, you said human. Do you think if those intelligent creatures are out there, do you think they experience their world, that they are evolved? [00:03:35] If they are a product of natural evolution, as they would have to be, they will also experience their own world through consciousness. Isn't just human urine. It's much wider. It's probably it may be spread across all of biology. We have the only thing that we have special is we can talk about it. Of course, not all people can talk about babies and little children can talk about it. [00:03:55] Patients who have who have a stroke in the left to the left in Pierpont or try to kind of talk about it. But most normal adult people can talk about it. And so we think that makes us special compared to little monkeys and dogs or cats of mice, all the other creatures that we share the planet with. But all the evidence seems to suggest that the to experience the world. And so it's overwhelmingly likely that other alien that aliens would also explain their world, of course, differently because they have a different sense, a different sense of their but very different environment. [00:04:24] But the fact that I would strongly support that, they also have experiences, they feel pain and pleasure and see in some sort of spectrum and here and have all the other senses. [00:04:37] Of course, their language, if they have one, would be different. So we may not be able to understand their poetry about the experiences that they have. That's correct. Right. So in a talk in a video I've heard you mention Putzel, a dachshund that you came up with, that you grew up with as part of your family when you were young. First of all, you're technically a Midwestern boy. You just technically. [00:05:03] Yes. After that, you traveled there on a bit and a little bit of the accent. [00:05:08] You talked about supposedly the dachshund having these elements of humanness of consciousness that you discovered. So I just wanted to ask, can you look back in your childhood and remember when was the first time you realized you yourself, sort of from a third person perspective, are conscious being this idea of. [00:05:31] You know, stepping outside yourself and seeing. There's something special going on here in my brain. I can't really it's a good question, I'm not sure I recall a discreet moment. I mean, you take it for granted because that's the only world you know, the only world I know, you know, is the world of seeing and hearing voices and touching and all the other things. So it's only much later at early in my undergraduate days, when I became when I enrolled in physics and in philosophy, that I really thought about it and thought, well, this is really fundamentally very, very mysterious. [00:06:05] And there's nothing really in physics right now that explains this transition from the physics of the brain to feelings where do the feelings come in? And so you can look at the foundational equation of quantum mechanics, general relativity. You can look at the table of the elements. You can you can look at the endless chatter in our genes and no is consciousness. Yet I wake up every morning to a world where I have expensive. And so that's the heart of the ancient mind body problem. [00:06:32] How to explain to get into the world. [00:06:36] So what is consciousness, experience, consciousness as any? Any any experience, some people call it subjective feeling, some people call it phenomenon phenomenology. Some people call it qualia of the philosopher, but they all do not the same thing. It feels like something in the famous word of the philosopher Thomas Nagel. It feels like something to be a bat or to be an American are to be angry or to be sad or to be in love or to have pain. [00:07:09] And that is what expense is any possible experience could be as mundane as just sitting in a chair, could be as exalted as, you know, having a mystical moment, you know, in deep meditation. Those are just different forms of experiences, experience. [00:07:24] So if you were to sit down with maybe the next skip a couple of generations of IBM, Watson, something that was in jeopardy, what is the gap? I guess the question is between Watson, that might be much smarter than you ask than all any human alive, but may not have experience. What is the gap? Well, so that's a big, big question that's occupied people for the last certainly the last 50 years since, you know, since the advent, the birth of of computers. [00:07:58] That's a question Alan Turing tried to answer. And, of course, he did it in this indirect way by proposing a tests and operational tests. So but that's not really that's you know, he tried to get it. What does it mean for a person to think? And then he had this test that you lock them away and then you have a communication with them and then you try to to guess after a while whether that is a person or whether it's a computer system. [00:08:20] There's no question that now or very soon, you know, Alexa or Siri or Google now will pass this test. [00:08:27] Right. And you can game it. But, you know, ultimately, certainly in your generation, there will be machines that will speak with complete poise, that will remember everything you ever said. They'll remember every email you ever had, like like Samantha. Remember in the movie, her snow question, it's going to happen. But of course, the key question is, is does it feel like anything to be Samantha in the movie? How does it feel like anything to be Watson? [00:08:51] And then one has to be very, very strongly think that two different concepts here that we call there is a concept of intelligence, natural or artificial, and there is a concept of consciousness, of experience, natural or artificial. [00:09:07] Those are very, very different things. Now, historically, we associate consciousness with intelligence. Why? Because we live in a world leaving aside computers of of natural selection, where we are surrounded by creatures, either our own kin that are less or more intelligent, or we go across species. Some some are more adapted to a particular environment. Others are less adapted, whether it's a whale or dog or you go talk about a permit or a little worm or and and we see the complexity of the nervous system goes from one cell to to a specialized cells to a worm that has Toinette that have 30 percent of its cells and nerve cells to a creature like also like a blue whale that has done a billion even more nerve cells. [00:09:49] And so based on behavioural evidence and based on the underlying neuroscience, we believe that as these creatures become more complex, they are better adapted to to their particular ecological niche and they become more conscious, partly because their brain calls and we believe consciousness. Unlike the ancient ancient people thought most almost every culture thought that consciousness was intelligent, has to do with your heart. And you still see that today. You see, honey, I love you with all my heart. [00:10:18] Yes, but what you should actually say, they know, honey, I love you with all my lateral hypothalamus. And for Valentine's Day you should give you a sweetheart, you know, hypothalamic piece of chocolate, not a hot chocolate anymore. So we still have this language, but now we believe it's a brain. And so we see brains of different complexity and we think, well, they have different levels of consciousness. They're capable of different experiences. But now we confront a world where we know where we're beginning to engineer intelligence and it's radical, unclear whether the intelligence we engineering has anything to do with consciousness and whether it can expend anything, because fundamentally, what's the difference? [00:11:02] Intelligence is about function intelligence, no matter exactly how you define it, sort of adaptation to new environments, being able to learn and quickly understand the set up of this and what's going on and who are the actors and what's going to happen next. [00:11:15] That's all about function. Consciousness is not about function consciousness. It's about being it's in some sense much fundamental. You can see folks that you can see this and in several cases you can see it. For instance, in the case of the clinic, when you're dealing with patients who are, let's say, had a stroke or had were in traffic accident, et cetera, they're pretty much immobile. [00:11:40] Terri Schiavo, you may have heard historically she was a person here in the in the 90s in Florida. Her heart stood still. She was reanimated. Then for the next 14 years, she was in a vegetative state. There are thousands of people in a vegetative state. So they're you know, they're you know, they're like this. Occasionally they open their eyes for two, three, four, five, six, eight hours and then close your eyes. [00:12:01] You have sleep, wake, cycle. Occasionally they have behavior. [00:12:04] They do like, you know, they but there's no way that you can establish a lawful relationship between what you see or the doctor says or the mom says and what the patient does. [00:12:15] So so the so the there isn't any behavior yet in some of these people. There is still experience. You can you can design and build a brain machine interfaces where you can see there's still explain something. And of course these cases are blocked in state. There's a famous book called The Diving Bell and the Butterfly. Well, you had an editor, a French editor. You talk in the brainstem unable to move except his vertical eyes, eye movement. You could just move his eyes up and down. [00:12:45] You dictated an entire book and some people even lose this at the end. It all the evidence seems to suggest that they're still in there. And this case, you have no behavior. You have consciousness. Second cases tonight, like all of us, you're going to go to sleep, close your eyes, you go to sleep, you will wake up inside your sleeping body and you will have conscious experiences. [00:13:07] They are different from everyday experience. [00:13:09] You might fly, you might not be surprised you're flying. You might meet a long dead pet childhood dog. And you're not surprised that you're meeting them, you know, but you have conscious experience of love of Hajj. You know, they can be very emotional. Your body during this state, typically to them, state sends an active signal to your motor neurons to paralyze you. It's called a tonia, right. [00:13:31] Because if you don't have that, like some patients, what do you do? You act out your dreams. You get Procter Gamble Disorder, which is the bad, which is bad juju to get. OK, third case is pure experience. So I recently had this what some people call a mystical experience. I went to Singapore and went into floatation tank. Yeah, right. So this is a big tub filled with water. [00:13:55] That's body temperature and Epsom salt. You strip completely naked, you lie inside of it. [00:13:59] You close the darkness, complete darkness, soundproof. So very quickly, you become body less because you're floating and you're naked. You have no wings, no water, no nothing. You don't feel your body anymore. It's no sound soundless. There's no photon. Sightless, timeless, because after a while early on, you'll actually hear your heart. [00:14:22] But then that you sort of adapt to that and then sort of the passage of time ceases. And if you train yourself like in a meditation not to think early on, you think aloud you it's a little bit spooky. You feel somewhat uncomfortable or you think, well, I'm going to get bored. But if you try to not to think actively, you become mindless. So there you are, body less timeless, you know, soundless, less mindless. [00:14:46] But you own a conscious experience. You're not asleep, you're not asleep. You're you you are being of pure your pure being. There isn't any function. You aren't doing any computation. You're not remembering. You're not projecting. You're not planning yet. You are fully conscious. [00:15:00] You're fully conscious. There's something going on. There could be just a side effect. So what is the the. [00:15:06] You mean epiphenomenal. So what's the side effect. Meaning why. What is the function of you being able to lay in this sense sensory free deprivation tank and still have a conscious experience, evolutionary invention? [00:15:22] Obviously we didn't evolve with floatation tanks in our environment. I mean, so biology is notoriously bad at asking why question until a normal question, why do we have two eyes? Why don't we have four or three eyes or something? [00:15:35] Well, no, there's probably it's a function to that, but we're not very good at answering those questions. We can speculate endlessly where biology is very or science is very good about making. The question why they're charging the universe we find ourselves in a universe where the positive negative charge is why why does quantum mechanics hold? You know, why doesn't some other theory or quantum mechanics hold in our universe? It's very unclear why. So still a nominal question, why? [00:15:59] Questions are difficult to answer. Clearly, there's some relationship between complexity, brain processing, power and consciousness. [00:16:08] But however, in these cases, in the three examples I gave, one is an everyday experience at night. The other one is a Tom. On third one is in principle. You can everybody can have these sort of mystical experiences. [00:16:20] You have a dissociation of function, form of intelligence from from consciousness, consciousness. [00:16:29] You called me asking a question. Let me ask a question. That's not a why question. You're giving a talk later today on the Turing Test for intelligence and consciousness and drawing lines between the two. So is there a scientific way to say there is consciousness present in this entity or not? And to anticipate your answer, because you you will there's a neurobiological answer so you can test a human brain. But if you take a machine brain that you don't know tests for yet, how would you even begin to approach a test of consciousness present in this thing? [00:17:06] OK, that's a really good question. So let me take in two steps. So as you point out, for for for for humans, let's just stick with humans. There's now a test called a zap zip. [00:17:16] It's a procedure where you ping the brain using transcranial magnetic stimulation. You look at the electrical reverberations essentially using EEG and then you can measure the complexity of this brain response. And you can do this in a week. People in the sleep, normal people, you can do it in a week, people and then anesthetize them. You can do it in patients. And it has 100 percent accuracy that in all those cases, when you're clear the patient or the person is either conscious or unconscious, the complex is either high or low. [00:17:44] And then you can adopt these techniques to similar creatures like monkeys and dogs and and mice that have very similar brains. Now, of course, you point out that may not help you because we don't have a cortex, you know, and if I send a magnetic pulse into my iPhone or my computer, it's probably going to break something. So we don't have that. [00:18:02] So what we need ultimately, we need a theory of consciousness. [00:18:07] We can't just rely on our intuition. Our intuition is, well, yeah, if somebody talks, they're conscious. However, then are all these children and babies don't talk. Right. But we believe that that the babies also have conscious experiences. [00:18:20] Right. And then there are all these patients I mentioned and they don't talk when you dream. You can't talk because you're paralyzed. So so what we ultimately we can't just rely on our intuition. We need a theory of conscience that tells us what is it about a piece of matter? What is it about a piece of highly excitable matter, like the brain or like a computer that gives rise to conscious experience? [00:18:41] We all believe none of us believe that anymore in the old story. It's a soul that used to be the most common explanation that most people accept that. And a lot of people today believe, well, there's there's God and only us was a special thing that animals don't have. We need to have famously said, dog, if you hit it, will you catch me? Yell at me. Okay, but it doesn't have this special thing. It doesn't have the magic, the magic. [00:19:03] So, yeah, it doesn't have to down thought. Now we believe that isn't the case anymore. So what is the difference between brains and and these guys silicon and in particular once their behavior matches. So if you have Siri of Alexa on twenty years from now that she can talk just as good as any possible human, what grounds do you have to say she's not conscious? In particular, if she says it's, of course she will pass. I'm conscious. [00:19:31] You also how are you doing? [00:19:32] And she'll say, well, you know, they will generate some way to cheat. She'll behave like a like a person. Now, there's several differences. One is. So this relates to the problem, the very hot. Why is consciousness a hard problem? It's because it's subjective, right? Only I have it. Only I know I have direct experience of my own consciousness. I don't have your consciousness now, I assume as a sort of a Bayesian person who believes in this theory and all of that, you know, I can do I can do an abduction to the to the best available facts. [00:20:07] I deduce your brain is very similar to mine. If I put you in a scanner, your brain is actually going to behave the same way I do. If if you know, if I gave you this mousseline ask you, how does it taste? You tell me things that you know that that I would also say more or less so infer based on all of that, that you're conscious now with Syria can do that. So there I really need a theory that tells me what is it about any system, this or this, that makes it conscious? [00:20:31] We have such a theory. [00:20:32] Yes. So the integrated information theory. But let me first maybe in introduction for people not familiar to car. [00:20:40] Can you you talk a lot about sarcasm, can you describe what physicalism versus dualism this you mentioned the soul. What what is the history of that idea? [00:20:53] What the idea of Sikhism or the debate really out of which Sikhism can emerge of of of dualism versus physicalism? [00:21:06] Or do you not see Sikhism as fitting into that? So you can argue there's something. [00:21:11] Well, OK, so let's step back. So Sikhism is a very ancient belief that's been around. I mean, Plato and Aristotle talks about it. Modern philosophers talk about it. Of course, in Buddhism, the idea is very prevalent that I mean, there are different versions of it. [00:21:26] One version says everything is in sold everything rocks and stones and dogs and people and forests and iPhones, all of us all all matter. Isn't all that sort of one version. [00:21:36] Another version is that all biology, all creatures, small or large, from a single cell to a giant sequoia tree, feel like something that's one I think is somewhat more realistic. [00:21:49] So they're different. [00:21:49] What do you mean by feel like something? Well, I have have feelings. [00:21:53] Have some kind of you like some. It may well be possible that it feels like something to be a power medium. I think it's pretty likely it feels like something to be a bee or a mouse or dog. [00:22:05] Sure. So, OK, so so that you can see that's also so Pentagon is very broad and you can to some people, for example, Bertrand Russell tried to advocate this this idea. [00:22:17] It's called Castalian monism that that pantie Kuzma's really physics viewed from the inside. [00:22:25] So the idea is that physics is very good at describing relationship among objects like charges or like gravity, you know, this kind of relation between curvature and mass distribution. OK, that's the relationship among physics doesn't really describe the ultimate reality itself. [00:22:40] It's just relationship among quarks or all these other was sort of like a third person observer. Yes, yes. And consciousness is what physics feels on the inside. [00:22:51] To my conscious experience, it's the way the physics of my brain, particular my cortex feels from the inside. And so if you have permission, you've got to remember you say paramecium. Well, that's a pretty dumb creature. It is. [00:23:03] But it has already a billion different molecules, probably, you know, 5000 different proteins assembled in a highly, highly complex system that no single person, no computer system so far on this planet has ever managed to accurately simulate its complexity vastly escapes us. Yes. And it may well be that that little thing feels like a tiny bit and it doesn't have a voice in the head like me. It doesn't have expectations. You know, it doesn't have all that complex things, but it may well feel like something. [00:23:32] Yeah. [00:23:33] So this is really interesting. Can we draw some lines and maybe try to understand the difference between life, intelligence and consciousness? [00:23:43] How do you see all of those? [00:23:45] If you have to define what is a living thing, what is a conscious thing and what is an intelligent thing, do those intermix for you or are they totally separate? [00:23:54] OK, so that's a question that we don't have a full answer. Right. [00:23:58] A lot of the stuff we're talking about today is full of mysteries and fascinating ones. Right? [00:24:03] I mean, you can go to Aristotle, who's probably the most important scientist and philosopher ever lived in, certainly in Western culture. He had this idea. It's called humanism. It's quite popular these days that there are different forms of soul. The soul is really the form of something he he says all biological. You have a vegetative soul. That's life principle. Today, we think we understand something more, that its biochemistry nonlinear thermodynamics. But then he said they have a sensitive. [00:24:28] So only animals and humans have also sensitive soul or appetitive soul. They they can see, they can smell and they have drives. [00:24:38] They want to reproduce, they want to eat, etc. And then only humans have what he called a rational soul. OK, right. [00:24:45] And that idea that made it into Christendom and then the rational soul is the one that lives forever. He was very unclear. He wasn't really I mean, different readings of Aristotle give different what they did. He believe that national soul was immortal or not. But I probably think he didn't. But then, of course, had made it into to Plato, into Christianity, and then this whole became immortal and then became the connection to God. Now you so you ask me essentially, what is our modern conception of these three? [00:25:13] Aristotle would have called them different forms of life. We think we know something about it, at least life on this planet, although we don't understand how they originated. But it's it's been difficult to pin down. [00:25:25] You see this in modern definition of death. It's in the fact that right now there's a conference ongoing, again, that tries to define legally and medically what is death. It used to be very simple. Death is you stop breathing, your heart stopped beating your dead. Totally uncontroversial. But if you answer, you wait another ten minutes. If the patient doesn't breathe, you know, he's dead. Well, now we have ventilators, we have a pacemaker. [00:25:48] So it's much more difficult to define what death is. Typically, death is defined at the end of life and life is defined before death before that. [00:25:56] OK, so we don't have really very good definitions, intelligence. We don't have a legal definition. We know something how to measure. It's called IQ or de facto height. [00:26:05] And and we're beginning to build it in a narrow sense. I'd like go Alfa, go and and and and Watson and, you know, Google cars and Uber cars and all of that that's done now. And some people are thinking about artificial general intelligence. But roughly as we said before, it's something to do with ability to learn and to adapt to new environments. But that is, as I said, also it's a radical difference from experience. And it's very unclear if you build a machine that has ajai. [00:26:34] It's not at all it's not at all clear that this machine will have consciousness. It may or may not. [00:26:40] So let's ask it the other way. Do you think if you were to try to build an artificial general intelligence system, do you think figuring out how to build artificial consciousness would help you get to to an AGI? So or put another way, do you think intelligent requires consciousness in human? [00:27:01] It goes hand in hand in human, I think. Biology, consciousness, intelligence goes hand in hand, quick resolution, because the brain evolved to be highly complex complexity via the theory integrated information theory is sort of ultimately is what is closely tied to consciousness. Ultimately, it's causal power upon itself. And so evolution evolved systems that go together in artificial system, particularly in digital machines, they do not go together. And if you ask me point blank, is Alexa twenty point oh in the year 2040 one, she can easily pass every Turing test. [00:27:37] Is she conscious? No. Even if she claims she's content. In fact, you can even do a more radical version of this thought experiment. We can build a computer simulation of the human brain. You know what Henry Maqam in the Blue Brain Project or the Human Brain Project in Switzerland is trying to do. Let's grant him all this success. So in ten years, we have this perfect simulation of the human brain, every new unassimilated, and it has a lab mix and it has motor neuron that has a Barcus area. [00:28:02] And of course, they'll talk and they'll say, hi, I just woke up. I feel great. OK, even that computer simulation that can in pencil map onto your brain will not be conscious. Why? Because it simulates it's a difference between the simulated and the real. So it simulates the behavior. [00:28:17] Thought it was consciousness. [00:28:19] It might be it will, if it's done properly, will have all the intelligence that that particular person they're simulating has. But simulating intelligence. It's not the same as having conscious experiences. And I give you a really nice metaphor that engineers and physicists typically get. [00:28:35] I can write down Einstein's field equation, nine or ten equations that describe the link and general relativity between curvature and and mass. I can do that. I can run this on my laptop to predict that the sample, the black hole at the center of our galaxy will be so massive that it'll twist spacetime around it so no light can escape. [00:28:56] It's a black hole, but funny. Have you ever wondered why doesn't this computer simulation suck me in? It simulates gravity, but it doesn't have the causal power of gravity. That's a huge difference. So it's a difference between the real and and the simulator, just like it doesn't get wet inside a computer when the computer runs cold, that simulator weather storm. [00:29:18] And so in order to have to have artificial continents, you have to give it the same causal power as a human brain. [00:29:26] Yes, you have to build so called a neuromorphic machine that has hardware that is very similar to the human brain, not a digital clock for human computer. [00:29:36] So that's just to clarify, though, you think that consciousness is not required to create human level intelligence, it seems to accompany in the human brain, but for a machine. [00:29:50] That's correct. [00:29:51] So maybe just because this is ajai, let's dig in a little bit about what we mean by intelligence. [00:29:59] So one thing is the G factor, these kind of IQ tests of intelligence. [00:30:04] But I think if you maybe another way to say so in 2040, 250 people have Siri. That is just really impressive. Do you think people will say serious, intelligent? Yes. Intelligence is this amorphous thing. So it could be intelligent. It seems like you have to have some kind of connections with other human beings in a sense that you have to impress them with your intelligence and their fields. You have to somehow operate in this world full of humans. [00:30:37] And for that, there feels like there has to be something like consciousness. So you think you can have just the world's best natural Alpay system, natural language, understanding generation. And that will be that will get us happy and say, you know what we've created in Ajai? I don't know. Happy, no. [00:30:56] Well, yes, I do believe we can get what we call high level functional intelligence, particular sort of that, you know, this this fluid like intelligence that we challenge, particularly the police like. Right in in in machines. I see Upworthy, no reasons. And I see a lot of reason to believe it's going to happen very, you know, over the next 50 years or 30 years or so for beneficially for creating in a system that's. [00:31:23] So you mentioned ethics that is exceptionally intelligent but also does not do does you know, Aline's its values with our values as humanity. Do you think then in years consciousness? [00:31:34] Yes, I think that that is a very good argument, that if we are concerned about the threat of Icelandic Bostom existentialist threat, I think having an intelligent that have empathy, why do we find abusing a dog? Why do most of us find that abhorrent, abusing any animal? Why do we find it abhorrent? [00:31:54] Because we have this thing called empathy, which if you look at the Greek, really means feeling with I feel a path of empathy. I have feeling with you. I see so many. Suffa, that isn't even Maicon specific. It's not a person, it's not a it's not my wife or my kids, it's a dog. But I feel naturally, most of us. Not all of us. [00:32:13] Most of us will feel emphatic. [00:32:15] And so it may well be in the long term interests of survival of Homo sapiens sapiens, that if we do build ajai and it really becomes very powerful that it has an emphatic response and doesn't just exterminate humanity. [00:32:31] So as part of the full conscious experience to to create a consciousness artificial or in our human consciousness, do you think fear maybe we're going to get into the earlier days and so on. [00:32:44] But do you think fear and suffering are essential to have consciousness, do have the full range of experience to have it to have a system that has experience? Or can you have a system that only has a very particular kinds of very positive experiences? [00:33:01] Look, you can have in principle, you people have done this in the right way. You implanted electrodes in their hypothalamus, the pleasure center of the rat and the rat stimulated from above and beyond anything else. It doesn't care about food or natural sex or drink any more to stimulate itself because it's such a pleasurable feeling. I guess it's like an orgasm. Just you have, you know, all day long. [00:33:23] And so clearly, I see no reason why you need different, why you need a great variety. Now, clearly, to survive that wouldn't work. But if I'd engineered artificially, I don't think I don't think you need a great variety of conscious expense. You could have just pleasure or just feel it might be a terrible existence. But I think that's possible, at least on conceptual, logical, common cause. [00:33:52] Any real creature without artificially engineered, you want to give it fear, the fear of extinction that we all have. And you also want to give it a positive appetitive states, states that it wants to that you want the machine encouraged to do, because if they give the machine positive feedback. [00:34:07] So you mentioned and sarcasm to jump back a little bit everything having some kind of mental property, how do you go from there to something like human consciousness? So everything having some elements of consciousness to well, is there something special about human consciousness? [00:34:28] So so just it's not everything like a spoon. [00:34:31] There's no I in the form of pantomime I think about doesn't ascribe consciousness to anything like this. The spoon on my liver. [00:34:39] However, it is the theory of integrated information theory does say that system even one to look from the outside, relatively simple, at least if they have this internal covid power, they are that it does feel like something. [00:34:55] The theory doesn't say anything. What's special about human biologically? We know what the one thing that's special about human is. We speak and we have an overblown sense of our own importance. [00:35:07] Right. We believe we are exceptional and we're just God's gift to to and to the universe. [00:35:13] But the but behaviorally, the main thing that we have, we can we can plan over the long term we have language. And that gives us enormous amount of power. And that's why we are the the dominant species on the planet. [00:35:25] So you mention God, you grew up a devout Roman Catholic and a Roman Catholic family. So, you know, with consciousness, you're sort of exploring some really deeply fundamental human things that religion also touches on. So where does where does religion fit into your thinking about consciousness? And you've you've grown throughout your life and changed your views on religion, as far as I understand. Yeah. [00:35:52] I mean, I'm now much closer to so I'm not a Roman Catholic anymore. I don't believe there's sort of this God, the God I was I was educated to believe in, you know, sit somewhere in the fullness of time. I'll be united in some sort of everlasting bliss. I just don't see any evidence for that. [00:36:10] Look, the world the night is large and full of wonders. There are many things that I don't understand. I think many things that we as a cult look, we don't even understand more than four percent of all the universe. [00:36:21] I dark matter, dark energy. We have no idea what it is. Maybe it's lost socks. [00:36:24] What do I know? [00:36:25] So so all I can tell you is it's sort of my current religious or spiritual sentiment is much closer to some form of Buddhism. [00:36:36] Can you just without the. Unfortunately, there's no evidence for any reincarnation, so can you describe the way Buddhism sees the world a little bit? [00:36:45] Well, so they talk about when when I spent several meetings with with the Dalai Lama and what always impressed me about him, he really unlike, for example, that either the pope or some cardinal, he always emphasized minimizing the suffering of all creatures. [00:37:00] So they have this from the early beginning. They look at suffering in all creatures, not just in people, but in everybody. This universe and of course, by degrees right in the animal channel will have is less capable of suffering than than a well developed, normally developed human. [00:37:17] And they think consciousness pervades. [00:37:20] And this universe and they have these techniques, you know, you can think of them like mindfulness et in meditation that tries to access sort of what they claim of this more fundamental aspect of reality. [00:37:33] I'm not sure it's more fundamental as I think about it. There's a physical and then this is inside you consciousness. [00:37:38] And those are the two aspects. That's the only thing I have access to in my life. And you've got to remember, my conscious experience in your consciousness explains comes prior to anything you know about physics comes by to knowledge about the universe and atoms and superstrings and molecules and all of that. The only thing you directly acquainted with is this world. It's populated with with things and images and and sounds in your head and touches and all of that actually have a question. [00:38:04] So and it sounds like you kind of have a rich life. [00:38:07] You talk about rock-climbing and it seems like you really love literature and consciousness is all about experiencing things. [00:38:16] So do you think that has helped your research on this topic? [00:38:20] Yes, particularly if you think about it, the various states of them, when you are climbing or now? [00:38:26] I do well in school going on and a bike every day you can get into this thing called the zone. And if I was, I want to I wanted about a particular with respect to continents because it's a strangely addictive state. [00:38:38] You want to you want to I mean, once people have it, once they want to keep on going back to it and you wonder what is it so addicting about it? And I think it's the experience of almost close to pure experience, because in this in this zone, you're not conscious of inner voice anymore. [00:38:54] There's always the inner voice nagging you. You have to do this. You have to do that. You have to pay your taxes. You had this fight with your ex and all of those things are always there. But when you're in the zone, all of that is gone. And you're just as in this wonderful state where you're fully out in the world, you're climbing or you're going or biking or doing soccer or whatever you doing and sort of consciousness sort of it says you're all action or in this case of pure experience, you're not action at all. [00:39:20] But in both cases, you experience some aspect of of course, you touched some basic part of of of conscious existence that are so basic and so deeply satisfying you. [00:39:32] I think you touch the root of being that's really what you're touching there. You're getting close to the root of being, and that's very different from intelligence. [00:39:41] So what do you think about the simulation hypothesis, simulation theory, the idea that we all live in a computer simulation have you know, it's rapture's for not just for nerds, I think is it's as likely as the hypothesis that engaged hundreds of scholars for many centuries. [00:39:59] Are we all just existing in the mind of God? Right. [00:40:02] And this is just a modern version of it. It's it's it's equally plausible. People love talking about these sort of things. I know that book written about this simulation hypothesis. If that's what people want to do, that's fine. It seems rather esoteric. [00:40:16] It's never testable, but it's not useful for you to think of in those terms. So maybe connecting to the questions of free will, which you've talked about, I think I vaguely remember you saying that the idea that there is no free will, it makes you very uncomfortable. So what do you think about free will and from from a physics perspective? From a consciousness perspective, what does it all fit? [00:40:40] OK, so from a physics perspective, living inside quantum mechanics, we believe we live in a purely deterministic world. [00:40:46] Right, right. But then comes, of course, quantum mechanics. So now we know that certain things are in principle not predictable, which, as you said, I prefer because the idea that at the initial condition of the universe and then everything else, we just acting out the initial condition of the universe. [00:41:01] That doesn't that doesn't it's not a romantic notion, certainly not right now. [00:41:07] When it comes to consciousness. I think we do have certain freedom. We are much more constrained by physics, of course, and by our past and by our own conscious desires. And what our parents told us and what our environment tells us, we all know that there's hundreds of experiments that show how we can be influenced. [00:41:23] But finally, in the in the final analysis, when you make a life and I'm talking not really about critical decision, what you really think should a marriage should I go to this school of thought that should have take this job or that job? Should I? Cheat on my taxes are not the sort of these are things where you really deliberate and I think under those conditions you are as free as you can be when you when you bring your entire being entirely conscious, being to that question and try to analyze analyze it on all the various conditions. [00:41:54] And then you take you make a decision. You are as free as you can ever be. That is, I think, what free will is. It's not a will that's totally free to do anything it wants. [00:42:04] That's not possible. Right. So as Jack mentioned, yet you actually write a blog about books. You read amazing books from Russian from Bulgakov to my son. Yeah. Neil Gaiman, Carl Sagan, Murakami. So what is a book that early in your life transformed the way you saw the world, something that changed your life? Nietzsche suggested that spokes are twisted because he talks about some of these problems. You know, he was one of the first discovery of the unconscious. [00:42:37] This is a little bit before Freud when he was in the air. And, you know, he makes all these claims that people sort of, under the guise of honor, the mass of charity, actually are very non charitable. [00:42:52] So he sort of really the first discoverer of the great land of the of the unconscious. And that that really struck me. [00:43:01] And what do you think what do you think about the unconscious? What do you think about Freud? We think of all these ideas. What's what's just like dark matter in the universe, what's over there and that unconscious? [00:43:11] A lot. I mean, much more than we think. This is what a lot of last hundred years of research has shown. I think he was a genius, misguided towards the end. But he was he started out as a neuroscientist and he contributed. He did the studies on the on the lamprey contributed himself to the Newlon hypothesis idea that there are discrete units that we call no cells now. And then he started then he he borrowed, you know, about the unconscious. [00:43:38] And I think it's true. There's lots of stuff happening. You feel this particular when you're in a relationship and the breaks asunder. Right. And then you have this terrible you can have love and hate and lust and anger and all of it's mixed in. And when you try to analyze yourself, why am I so upset? It's very, very difficult to penetrate to those basements, those cabins in your mind, because the prying eyes of conscience doesn't have access to those, but they are made in the amygdala, you know, a lot of other places they make you upset or angry or sad or depressed. [00:44:11] And it's very difficult to try to actually uncover the reason you can go to a shrink, you can talk with your friend endlessly. [00:44:17] You can start finally a story why this happened, why you love or don't love or whatever, but you don't really know whether that's actually the way that that actually happened because you simply don't have access to those parts of the brain and they're very powerful. [00:44:29] Do you think that's a feature or a bug of our brain, the fact that we have this deep, difficult to dive into subconscious? [00:44:36] I think it's a feature because otherwise, look, we are we are like any other brain or nervous system or computer. [00:44:46] We are severely limited. If we if everything I do, every emotion I feel, every movement I make of all of that had to be under the control of consciousness. [00:44:56] I couldn't. I couldn't. I wouldn't be here. [00:45:01] All right. [00:45:01] So so what you do early on your brain, you have to be conscious when you learn things like typing or like riding on a bike. But then you what you do, you train up a road, I think that involve basal ganglia and striatum. You you train up different parts of your brain. And then once you do it automatically, like typing, you can sure you do it much faster without even thinking about it, because you've got these highly specialized what Francis Crick and I called zombie agents that that they're taking care of that while your consciousness can sort of worry about the abstract sense of the text, you want to wait. [00:45:32] And I think that's true for many, many things. [00:45:34] But for the things like all the fights you had with an ex-girlfriend, things that you would think are not useful to still linger somewhere in the subconscious. So that seems like a bug that it would stay there. [00:45:48] You think it would be better if you can analyze and then get it out of and say, get out of the system or just forget it ever happened? [00:45:54] You know, that that seems a very buggy kind of. Well, yeah. [00:45:57] In general, we don't have and that's probably functional. We don't have an ability unless it's extremely Alix's clinical dissociation. So when people are heavily abused, when they completely repress the memory, but that doesn't happen in in you know, in normal people, we don't have an ability to remove traumatic memories. And of course, we suffer from that. On the other hand, probably if you had the ability to constantly wipe your memory, you'll probably do it to an extent that isn't useful to you. [00:46:27] So, yeah, it's a it's a good question to balance. So on the books, as Jack mentioned, correct me if I'm wrong, but broadly speaking, in academia, in different scientific disciplines, certainly in engineering, reading, literature seems to be a rare pursuit. Perhaps I'm wrong on this, but as in my experience, most people are much more technical tax and do not sort of escape or seek truth in literature. It seems like you do. [00:46:58] So what do you think is the value? What do you think literature as the pursuit of scientific truth? Do you think it's good? [00:47:05] It's useful for access to a much wider array of of human experiences. [00:47:12] How valuable do you think it is? Well, if you want to understand human nature and nature in general, then I think you have to better understand a wide variety of experiences, not just sitting in a lab, staring at a screen and having a face flashed onto your hand and pushing a button. That's what that's what I use. That's what most psychologists do. There's nothing wrong with that, but you need to consider lots of other strange estates, you know, and literature as a shortcut for this as well. [00:47:39] Yeah, because literature that's that's what literature is all about, all sorts of interesting expenses that people have the contingency of the fact that women experience all different black people in the world different. And, you know, the one way to express that is reading all these different literature and try to find out you see everything so relative. And you read a book finished years ago. They thought about certain problems very, very differently than us today. We today, like any culture, think we know it all. [00:48:05] That's common to every culture. Every culture believes at its heyday they know it all. And then you realize, well, there are other ways of viewing the universe and some of them may have lot of things in their favor. [00:48:16] So this is a question I wanted to ask about time, scale or scale in general. When you were that or in general, try to think about consciousness, try to think about these ideas. We kind of naturally think in human timescales to do or and entities that are sized close to humans. Do you think are things that are much larger, much smaller as containing consciousness? And do you think are things that take, you know, well, you know, eons to to operate in their conscious cause effect, cause effect? [00:48:54] It's a very good question. [00:48:55] So I think a lot of what small creatures, because experimentally, you know, a lot of people work on flies and bees. I saw and most people just think they are tarm. [00:49:03] They're just bugs, for heaven's sake. But if you look at their behavior like bees, they can recognize individual humans. [00:49:08] They have this very complicated way to communicate if you've ever been involved or, you know, your patterns when they bought a house, what sort of agonizing decision that is. And bees have to do that once a year when they swarm in this spring. And then they have this very elaborate way. They have female scouts. They go to the individual sites, they come back, they have this power, this dance literally, where they dance for several days. [00:49:29] They try to recruit other night. This very complicated decision weighed when they finally want to make a decision, the entire swarm, the scouts warm up the entire swarm and then go to one location. They don't go to the kitchen. They go to one location that the scouts have agreed upon by themself. That's awesome. But look at the circuit complex. It is ten times more dense than anything we have in our brain are don't have a million reasons, but it's amazingly complex, complex behavior, very complicated circuitry. [00:49:52] So there's no question they explain something. Their life is very different. They're tiny. [00:49:57] They only live, you know, for four while workers live maybe for two months. So I think and it tells you this in principle, the substrate of consciousness is the substrate that maximizes the cause effect power over all possible spatial template events. [00:50:13] So when I think about, for example, you know, the science fiction story, The Black Cloud, it's a classic by the astronomer. He has this cloud intervening between the earth and the sun and leading to some sort of two global cooling. This written in the 50s. It turns out you can using the the the radio dish they communicate was actually an entity to actually intelligent entity. And they they sort of they're convinced to move away. But here you have a radically different entity. [00:50:42] And in principle, it says, well, you can measure the integrated information in principle at least. And yes, if that if the maximum of that occurs at a time scale of month rather than enough, it's for a fraction of a second. Yes. And they would experience life where each moment is a month rather than a microsecond. Right. Rather than a fraction of of a second in the human case. And so there may be forms of consciousness that we simply don't recognize for what they are because they are so radically different from anything you and I are used to. [00:51:15] Again, that's why it's good to eat or to watch science fiction. Well, we want to think about this like this is do you know Stanislav Leam, this Polish science fiction writer? [00:51:25] He Wojtyła. It was turned into a Hollywood movie. Yes. His best novels are in the 60s. A very, very ingenious and engineered back on. His most interesting novel is called The Victorious Where Human Civilization. They have this mission to this planet and everything is destroyed and they discover machines, humans got killed and then these machines took over. And there was this machine evolution, a Darwinian evolution. He talks about this very vividly. And finally, the dominant they're the dominant machine intelligence organism that survived a gigantic cloud of little hexagonal universal cell automata. [00:52:02] This is in the sixties. So typically they're all lying on the ground individually by themselves. [00:52:07] But in times of crisis, they communicate the assembly into gigantic nets, into clouds, billions of these particles, and then they become hyper intelligent and they can be anything that humans can can control at it. It's a very beautiful and compelling. We have an intelligence. We're finally the humans leave the planet. They're simply unable to understand and comprehend. This creature, and they can say, well, either we can nuke the entire planet and destroy it or we just have to leave because fundamentally it's an it's an alien. [00:52:36] It's so alien from us and our ideas that we cannot communicate with them. Yeah, actually, in conversations, early retirement is still often brought up is that there could be his ideas. You know, you already have these artificial intelligence like supersmart or maybe conscious beings in this early retirement and we just don't know how to talk to them, says the language, the communication, which you don't know what to do with it. So that's one sort of view, is consciousness is only something you can measure. [00:53:07] So it's not conscious if you can't measure it. [00:53:10] So you're making an ontological and an epistemic statement. One is there they are. It's it's just like saying the multiverses that might be true but can't communicate with them. I don't have any knowledge of them. That's an epistemic argument. [00:53:22] But those are two different things. So it may well be possible. Look at another case that's happening right now. [00:53:27] People are building these mini organoids, you know, with this. So, you know, you can take stem cells from under your arm, put in a dish ad for transcription factors, and then you can induce them to go to go into large what large there? A few millimeter. They're like a half a million neurons that look like nerve cells in a dish called mini organoids at Harvard, at Stanford, where they're building them. It may very well be possible that they're beginning to feel like something, but we we can't really communicate with them right now. [00:53:53] So people are beginning to think about the ethics of this. Right. So, yes, he may be perfectly right, but they may it's one question. Are they conscious or not? A totally separate question. [00:54:02] How would I know? Those are two different things, right? [00:54:05] If you could give advice to a young researcher sort of dreaming of understanding or creating a human level intelligence or consciousness. What would you say? Follow your dreams, read quite widely. No, I mean, I suppose with discipline, what what is the pursuit that they should take on? Is that neuroscience? This is a computation. Cognitive science. Is it philosophy? Is it computer science or robotics? No. [00:54:36] In a sense that the only known system that have high level of intelligence is Homo sapiens. So if you wanted to build it, it's probably good to continue to study closely what humans do to cognitive neuroscience. You know, somewhere between cognitive neuroscience on the one hand, then some philosophy of mind and then Iike computer science, you can look at all the original ideas, neural network. [00:55:00] They all came from neuroscience, right? Reinforcement, whether it's Nike, Minsky building his Nike or whether it's, you know, the early Hubel and Wiesel experiment that how about that then gave rise to networks and then multilayered networks. [00:55:12] So it may well be possible. [00:55:14] In fact, some people argue that to make the next big step in AI once will realize the limits of deep, convolutional networks. [00:55:21] They can do certain things, but they can't really understand it. They don't. They don't. They can't really. I can't really show one image. I can show you a single image of somebody, a pickpocket who steals a wallet from a purse. You immediately know that's a pickpocket right now. A computer system would just say, well, it's a man, it's a woman, it's a purse. [00:55:40] But unless you take this machine on showing it 100000 pickpockets, I thought it doesn't it doesn't have this easy understanding that you have so so some people to make the argument in order to go to the next step, or you really want to build machines that understand in a way, you and I, we have to go to psychology. We need to understand how we do it and how our brains enable us to do it. And so, therefore, being on the cusp, it's also so exciting to try to understand better our nature and then to build to take some of those inside and build them. [00:56:08] So I think the most exciting thing is somewhere in the interface between cognitive science, neuroscience, A.I., computer science and philosophy of mind beautifully. [00:56:17] I say if there is from the machine learning from the computer science computer vision perspective, many of the research just kind of ignore the way the human brain works, you know, even psychology or literature or studying the brain. I would hope just Tannenbaum talks about bringing that in more and more. And that's yeah. She worked on some amazing stuff throughout your life. What's the thing that you're really excited about? What's the mystery that you would love to uncover in the near term beyond beyond all the mysteries already surrounded by. [00:56:52] Well, so there's a structure called a closed home. There's a structure underneath our cortex. It's yay big. [00:56:59] You have one on the left and right underneath this underneath the insula. It's very thin. It's like one millimeter. It's embedded in wiring in white matter. [00:57:07] That's very difficult to image. And it has it has connection to every cortical region. And Francis Crick, the last paper you ever wrote, he dictated corrections the day he died in hospital. [00:57:19] On this paper, he now we hypothesized, well, because it has this unique anatomy, it gets input from every cortical area and projects back to every every cortical area that the function of this structure is similar. It's just a metaphor to the role of a conductor in a symphony orchestra. You have all the different cortical players. You have some that do motion, some that theory of mine, some that infer social interaction and color in hearing and all the different modules and cortex. [00:57:48] But of course, what consciousness is consciousness puts it all together into one package, the binding problem, all of that. And this is really the function because it has a relatively few neurons compared to cortex, but it talks it seeks input from all of them and it projects back to all of them. And so we are testing that right now. We've got this beautiful new only construction in the mouse called Crown of Thorns, crown of thorns on set in the colostrum that have the most widespread connection of any neon I've ever seen. [00:58:16] They're very individual. You want to sit in the clouds from tiny, but then they have this thing on you and have this huge axonal tree that cover both IPSI and contralateral cortex and kind to turn using, you know, fancy tools like optogenetic to turn those neurons on off and study it. What happens in the in the mouse. [00:58:35] So this thing is perhaps where the parts become the whole interface. It's one of the structures. [00:58:43] It's a very good way of putting it where the the individual parts turn into the whole of the whole of the conscious experience. Well, with that, thank you very much for being here today. Thank you. All right, Jack, thank you so much.

本集資源與出處