It is not obvious that emotion entails self-consciousness. Arguably, some animals have emotional responses without being conscious of self or having a "self-image". (A related point is that even humans have been said to have unconscious emotions, i.e. emotions that they are not conscious of.)

I am reminded of a video I once saw in which a charging bull with electrodes attached to its head was being made to turn left or right by a person with a transmitter control box. The bull had lost its own control but it still seemed quite angry. So emotions don't necessarily provide an entity with control that overrides human will.

It is not obvious that emotion entails self-consciousness. Arguably, some animals have emotional responses without being conscious of self or having a "self-image". (A related point is that even humans have been said to have unconscious emotions, i.e. emotions that they are not conscious of.)

I am reminded of a video I once saw in which a charging bull with electrodes attached to its head was being made to turn left or right by a person with a transmitter control box. The bull had lost its own control but it still seemed quite angry. So emotions don't necessarily provide an entity with control that overrides human will.

to Karl Pfeifer,

My opinion is that: function of emotion is related to happiness and pain, satisfaction and non-satisfaction, and so on. At once artificial intelligence has feelings of happiness and pain, satisfaction and non-satisfaction, the artificial intelligence will has own intrests, but these intrests maybe contradict with humans intrests. As well-known that the function of mankinds' left hemisphere of brain is intelligence, and right hemisphere of brain is emotion, emotion is produced by some chemical hormones, and obviously control behaviours of mankinds. As for artificial intelligence emotion is produced by a emotion program, this is unnecessary and harmful.

Thanks for your comments, and by the way thanks for your correction for self-consciousness.

RE: As for artificial intelligence emotion is produced by a emotion program.

I don't even know what that means, since programs manipulate symbols syntactically. If AI succeeds in having emotions and consciousness (not just simulated emotions and consciousness), it will not be because of software but because of hardware and not just any hardware, but hardware which is the right causal substrate for emotions and consciousness. So I think that will require hardware which is wetware, namely components containing organic biological material, perhaps harvested from human tissue or lab-cultured. There is already research being done on biochips and biological computer systems.

• https://inhabitat.com/scientists-invent-the-worlds-first-microchip-powered-by-biological-systems/
• https://www.computerworld.com/article/2540280/scientist---hybrid--computers-will-meld-living-brains-with-technology.html

to Karl Pfeifer,

Thanks for your comments about biochips or biological computer system, if for this case, emotion of artificial intelligence will be produced by biological method. My viewpoint is : emotion of artificial intelligence is harmful to mankinds.

Very interesting insights from both viewpoints!

I am more interested in the ethics of developing such AI with emotions, especially if it involves the biochips or other organic "living" material into such matters:

- from humanity ethical standards: is it OK to produce such biochips, especially if derived from human tissues?

- and what would be our ethical standards for interacting with such "humanized" AI?

Dear Karl Pfeifer ,

I find the possibility that, intentionally or unintentionally, we could create strong AI because of the causal substrate fascinating. If we are able to implement computational process on the same level as nature implements the functions that are responsible for behavior (in the wetware), it seems at least prima facie possible that we would end up with an “artificial” system that has at least some of the properties of the biological systems. The interesting part seems to be that this could happen without us even knowing about these properties.

I’m not sure if this goes in the direction you have in mind. In any case, do you have further sources that you could provide with regard to the implementation of computational processes in biological systems and what this could mean for AI?

Best,

Sven Beecken

Dear Sven Beecken ,

You have nicely captured my thoughts on these issues 😍. There is of course all sorts of information on the internet having to do with biological computing, but since I don't work in the area, my knowledge is scant and superficial, and I don't know of anything that specifically addresses what fascinates us both. My intuitions about how we might intentionally or unintentionally create strong AI originated with Searle's Chinese Room criticism of strong AI as it was conceived back then. I think of large-scale computational devices (and many other engineered artifacts) as incorporating "black box" components whose inner workings we don't fully understand and which may yield some surprises. Biological transplants are like that; we may only understand them in terms of their crude input-output functions without fully understanding how they function internally or in relation to all aspects of the whole organism.

Cheers,

Karl

Dear Karl Pfeifer ,

Thanks, I’ll dig deeper then. A first pass has yielded surprisingly little results, which is why I asked. Although the possibility to create strong AI (or something else?) in practice by the implementation of black box systems bears on the overall questions quiet a bit, I’m more interested in the theoretical aspects of it. So, I don’t want to clog this thread. Are you by any chance interested in opening a thread on the topic? Needless to say, I’m an utter novice, but perhaps people who know about theses issues may have something to contribute?

Best,

Sven

Ahoy Sven Beecken .

You might try googling these exact words "biologically powered computer chip". Here are a couple of somewhat relevant links:

• https://newatlas.com/cyborg-biologically-powered-chip/40815/
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wetware_computer

Since the human brain's mass is 80+ % water, maybe liquidity can provide the causal substrate?

• https://www.fanaticalfuturist.com/2019/02/american-researchers-unveil-the-worlds-first-liquid-computer-chip/

I haven't found anything relevant on RG either. The dominant conception of biological computing on RG looks to be biological informatics, although that could just be an artifact of RG's way-subpar search function. I've inserted remarks about a possible biological causal substrate now and again in RG's Q&As, but nothing much came of it.

Cheers,

Karl

Dear Karl Pfeifer ,

Thanks, this is really helpful. One article referenced in the Wiki entry is particularly interesting. In Nano-intentionality: a defense of intrinsic intentionality, Tecumseh Fitch argues that intentionality might be a basic property of cells. He calls “the capacities in question “nano-intentionality”: a microscopic form of “aboutness”.” He illustrates the idea with the goal directness of cells:

“This goal directedness is nicely displayed by a normal cell’s ability to rearrange its own local material structure in response to damage, nutrient distribution or other aspects of its individual experience. While at a vastly simpler level than intentionality at the human cognitive level, I propose that this basic capacity of living things provides a necessary building block for cognition and high-order intentionality, because the neurons that make up vertebrate brains, like most cells in our body, embody such capacities.”

As he points out:

“Crucially, these capacities are not shared by any existing computers or computer components, and thus provide a clear, empirically-based distinction between brains and currently existing artificial information processing systems.”

The idea that something deep inside cells is actually the right causal substrate is also a cornerstone of Penrose’s and Hameroff’s proposal. As I’m sure you know, they argue that the level at which the actual processes underlying cognition are implemented is on the nano scale. According to them, the microtubule that make up the cytoskeleton of cells may be the place where quantum effects can be sustained and causally efficacious in cognition.

As a fun fact, according to Penrose, microtubule contain only water and the molecules may exist in an ordered configuration, which according to him might play an important role for the quantum effects (Penrose, Shadows of the Mind, p. 368).

I do not pretend to understand the physics and biology of either proposal, all that I can take away from Penrose and Hameroff is that the right causal substrate might be found deep within the cells. Together with Fitch’s proposal, I cannot help but think of a proposal that Newton made in the last paragraph of the General Scholium in the Principia (unchanged from the second to the third edition):

"Something might now be added about a certain very subtle spirit that pervades all dense bodies and is concealed in them, [...] by which all sensation is stimulated and the limbs of animals are moved at will [...].”

Maybe he was onto something. On the other hand - and as far as I can tell - to say that all of this is highly controversial is quiet an understatement. As a side note: The only one who I have ever heard referencing Newton’s proposal outside of a seminar on the history of science is Chomsky, who frequently points out that Newton tried to find this “spirit” till the end of his life - to no avail. Maybe time will tell.

Best

Sven