© nokiamind.body.ppt / 10.8.2003 / pha page: 1 conscious machines and the mind-body problem dr....

© NOKIA mind.body.PPT / 10.8.2003 / PHa page: 1

Conscious Machines and the Mind-Body Problem

Dr. Pentti O A Haikonen, Principal Scientist, Cognitive Technology

Nokia Research Center

or putting a


Human Minds vs. Robot Minds

Is it possible to create artificial minds that are equivalent to human minds in every respect?

Especially, the human mind seems to have an immaterial quality, can

this be reproduced in material ways?

The notorious mind-body problem has been taken to prove that

machines cannot possibly have a real mind.

In the following the mind-body problem will be clarified and solved and it

will be concluded that robot minds equivalent to human minds are

possible.


The Mind-Body Problem

René Descartes (1596 - 1650): Mind and body are two separate substances; immaterial and material ones.

-Our everyday naïve experience would seem to confirm this, but

then, how does the immaterial self control the material body?

By definition this interaction is impossible.

-Modern material theories of cognition reject the immaterial

substance, hence the interaction problem vanishes and the mind-

body problem may be considered as solved.

But…..but what?


The Real Problem

I claim that the mind-body problem has been misunderstood ever since Descartes and this misunderstanding manifests itself in most issues of consciousness.

Materialism may have dissolved the problem of interaction, but the REAL PROBLEM remains: Why do we perceive our mind and thoughts as immaterial?

No theory of consciousness is complete without a solution to this problem.

No artificial “conscious machinery” is plausible if it does not perceive its “mind” as immaterial.


Brute Force Solutions

1. Deny and ignore the whole issue

2. Declare that no “subjectively immaterial states” are required

3. Propose some exotic mystical physics as the solution


The Proposed Explanation

For the observing self the appearance of the mind “without any material processes” and “without the awareness of any material processes” can be the same. Therefore the apparent immateriality of mind does not prove that the mind actually was immaterial.

Therefore,

it is proposed that “the subjectively immaterial states” are material after

all and in spite of this can be perceived as immaterial both in the

biological brain and in the machine.

It will be seen that no exotic physics is needed, the phenomenon is not a

fancy result of evolution either, instead it is the simplest state of affairs.


Perception is the Key to the Mystery

We see the world around us instead of perceiving the image on the retina or the neural signals that carry the information to the cortex; why?

We hear sounds coming from our environment instead of perceiving the

vibrations of the eardrums or the neural signals that carry the information

to the cortex; why?

We perceive our inner thoughts as the “inner speech” and “inner imagery”

and not as the neural firing patterns that they actually are; why?

The material neural basis for all of these remains TRANSPARENT.


Modulation and Circuit Transparency

FM or AM? Tubes or transistors? No matter, it is the music that we listen to.

It is the modulation; the carried information that matters, not the radio wave,

the carrier medium or circuitry. These remain transparent and can only be

examined by additional means!

But, without the carrier and proper circuitry there would be no music!

An everyday example


Modulation and Circuit Transparency in Neural Networks

Neural networks are not different:

The neural signals act as the carrier medium and the neurons are

the basic circuitry.

If the information is carried as modulation and if all processing acts

upon this modulation only, then the carrier and the circuitry remain

transparent.

The neural system will not be able without any additional means to

perceive the material carrier or circuitry; therefore the naïve

conclusion of immateriality may arise.


It is the tip position of each pin that matters; not the length nor the material of the pin. Any further process that utilizes only the tip position information (the modulation) will not perceive the material of the pins. Thus only the detected information matters and the rest of the mechanism remains transparent.

Neural Signal Modulation

A Mechanical Model


Meaning and Intentionality

Meaning and intentionality in sensory perception

Neural signals originating from sensors are modulated by the sensed information.

This modulation represents the

sensed information; the modulation

patterns are about the information,

they are the information directly as

the carrier mechanism is not sensed

by the system.


Modulation Patterns as SymbolsInitially, repeatable modulation patterns arise as causal responses to sensed entities, which they thus come to depict.

However, the power of cognition arises from the use of symbols; mental

entities must stand for something beyond their primary causal meaning.

This calls for cross-associations between modulation patterns, which

now turn into symbols in the human sense.

This is different from the symbolic i.e. rule-based computational

intelligence and connectionist neural networks!

These symbols that consist of arrays of neural signals are soft, their

appearance may vary, yet they may retain their connections. Partial and

“close-enough” patterns will do.


The Relation between the Material Neural System and the Mind

Modulation domain: Spatially and temporally distributed modulation patterns

Carrier domain: Neurons, cross-connections, architecture, etc.

Neural firing patterns to an external observer

The carried information to the system self; mental entities

The decoding problem


The Seat of Mind and Consciousness

According to this theory the mind resides in the modulation domain.

Modulation patterns convey the mental entities.

The organization of the hardware determines the possible modulation

patterns and the interactions between these; cognitive functions and

system reactions, the cognitive capacity of the system.

The mind is not a collection of cognitive functions, instead the mind is

content in the modulation domain.

This approach allows hardware-independent theories of mind and

consciousness where mind and consciousness appear as immaterial to

the system self. To study the mind we should not so much study the

hardware but the interactions in the modulation domain!


Conclusions

Mind-body issues can be explained by standard engineering concepts.

The mind is a content level entity; We can put a ghost in the

machine by creating content in the modulation domain in a suitable

machinery.

This content will appear as immaterial to the system self.

Available cognitive functions etc. determine the capacity and general

operation of the mind, but as such are not the same as the mind.

The mind as content is accumulated via perception and learning etc.


Conscious Machines and the Mind-Body Problem

Dr. Pentti O A Haikonen, Principal Scientist, Cognitive Technology

Nokia Research Center

or putting a


- end of show -

© nokiamind.body.ppt / 10.8.2003 / pha page: 1 conscious machines and the mind-body problem dr....

Documents