Generalised AI – too many open questions

The human brain is arguably the most complex organism there is with more than 100 billion of neurons and 10x more glial cells, functioning on their own and in interactions with others (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2776484/). (Some studies mention between 86-100 billion and as many glial cells. There is a sustained research in glial cells too.) The human brain is small but its mystery is deep and layered; it is viewed as outstanding among mammalian brains, and the most cognitively able. After several centuries of human evolution, we are struggling to comprehend it, even as we have mastered many areas. Fortunately, we are living at a time when there is sustained research in neuroscience in general and brain in particular, with concurrent studies in mind and feelings. In the last few decades, especially after the new paths created by quantum physics, there has been a growing interest in understanding what is mind, what is consciousness.

Searching for new insights

Some neuroscientists such as Anil Seth argue that we should focus on mapping what goes on in the brain and what is experienced by people rather than brood about consciousness. In fact, Seth argues that as we understand the functioning of the brain better, we will stop caring about consciousness or feelings. Many mental health challenges have been identified as arising out of neurological factors, much to the chagrin of psychology. There are neuroscientists like Dr Ivor Cutler who deny consciousness per se or rather the need to explain something called consciousness. According to such research, neuroscience is sufficient to explain how human beings think. For example, some neuroscientists argue there is no place for the concept of feelings and hence pain has no meaning. Psychologists obviously disagree. You are welcome, if you are interested, to a whole range of such research.

In a provocative book titled ‘Galileo’s Error’ with ‘Foundations for a new science of consciousness’ as the sub-title, Philip Goff, a philosopher teaching at Durham University, discusses the problem of consciousness and how we can attempt to grasp it. This debate has a rich history going back to Professor Gilbert Ryle’s book ‘The concept of mind’ (1949) more than seven decades ago, arguing that the ‘mind’ is a philosophical illusion, that there are no mental processes but only intelligent acts. The brain is a physical fact; the mind is not. Or at least, it is difficult to establish what it is other than the brain. We all ‘know’ what mind is until we are asked what it is, very similar to Thomas Aquinas’ observation about time: ‘I know what it is until I am asked a question’.

One conclusion that Professor Goff makes is that the physical sciences are unable to explain consciousness. They are not meant to, at least since Galileo is considered to have defined the foundations of modern science. While they have enjoyed phenomenal success in unravelling the many mysteries of the universe, explaining consciousness (and mind) seem beyond its reach. So far. Even quantum physics’ attempts since the 1990 paper by Sir Roger Penrose to explain consciousness by a modelling other than classical computing remains a contested territory.

Now there is a new theory which claims that not just human beings but even animals experience consciousness defined as “the ebb and flow of thoughts and feelings”, according to research by Eva Jablonka at Tel Aviv University and Simona Ginsburg at the Open University of Israel (https://www.bbc.com/reel/video/p0d5zwbb/when-and-why-did-consciousness-evolve-on-earth-). As BBC describes, “Their theory hinges around a process called ‘unlimited associative learning’ and the evolution of this ability may have been a decisive factor in why our earliest ancestors not only survived but thrived”. Clearly, we are in for a period of sustained intellectual excitement. Meanwhile, the contest, as anyone would expect, is not just between two different disciplines but even within the disciplines themselves – neuroscience, physics, psychology etc.

Working memory

Let us take a specific case of working memory (which could be relevant to reinforcement learning). It has been held for long that neurons maintain working memory information through steady, persistent activity. Now, Mikael Lundqvist and Earl K Miller have challenged this view through a series of studies (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-18577-y.) Referring to their research, David Orenstein of the Picower Institute for Learning and Memory, in an article titled ‘How the brain focuses on what’s in mind’, (September 13, 2022 – https://news.mit.edu/2022/how-brain-focuses-whats-mind-0913?utm_source=pocket-newtab-intl-en), observes that they demonstrated through “direct measurements of hundreds of neurons and rigorous modeling that bursts of gamma frequency rhythms in the prefrontal cortex coordinate neural representation of the information held in mind. The information representation can be measured in the synchronized spiking of populations of individual neurons. Bursts of beta frequency rhythms, meanwhile, implement the brain’s manipulation of that information”. In sum, not steady but bursts of frequency rhythms maintain working memory. This is just example among an enormous number of studies.

Memory is an extensively and intensely studied subject, all the more so with many people in the world succumbing to Alzheimer’s. Anyone keen on understanding this debilitating disease should read ‘The end of memory’ (what a title!) by Jay Ingram where he says towards the end that “we have nothing like a complete picture of how memories are formed and retained in the brain, so that the attempt to understand how they fail in Alzhimer’s is already handicapped”. And he says this after an extensive coverage of the research into Alzheimer’s!

The point I wish to make is that we don’t have definitive answers but only intellectual work in progress – intellectually exciting and also sobering, AI researchers ought to learn to be sober.

Quantum physics and consciousness

Apart from neuroscience, quantum physics has also grappled with the challenge of explaining consciousness. Incidentally, whether mind and consciousness can be combined is itself a problematic theme. In an article titled, ‘Is quantum physics behind your brain’s ability to think?’, Michael Brooks (December 2, 2015) says that “In 1989, Oxford mathematician Roger Penrose proposed that no standard, classical model of computing would ever explain how the brain produces thought and conscious experience (https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22830500-300-is-quantum-physics-behind-your-brains-ability-to-think/). Johnjoe McFadden, a molecular biologist at the University of Surrey in Guildford, UK, is one researcher who remains to be persuaded. He invokes Occam’s razor, according to which, the simplest possible explanation is often the most appropriate. As he says, “There are too many bits of it that need to hold together to make a coherent story. If any one aspect goes missing, it all falls apart.” Other researchers doubt we need any extra level of explanation to account for interesting psychological phenomena, even as they welcome alternative approaches in the spirit of scientific enquiry. (https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22830500-300-is-quantum-physics-behind-your-brains-ability-to-think/). The debate continues.

In a later article titled ‘Can Quantum Physics, Neuroscience Merge as Quantum Consciousness?’ (November 28, 2021), physicist and astronomer Marcelo Gleiser observes that “The hard part is understanding how active neurons conspire to create the sense of who we are — that is, translating bioelectrical activity and blood flow into self-awareness”. Cristiane de Morais Smith, Professor of Theoretical Physics, Ultrecht University joined with Professor Xian-Min Jin at Shanghai Jiaotong University, to test some of the principles underpinning the quantum theory of consciousness. They have written a paper examining whether quantum physics can help model the functioning of the brain, which can be accessed at https://www.nature.com/articles/s41566-021-00845-4, but only through educational institutions. However, Cristiane de Morais Smith did write an article ‘Physicists explain how the brain might connect to the quantum realm’ (July 19, 2021 – (https://theconversation.com/can-consciousness-be-explained-by-quantum-physics-my-research-takes-us-a-step-closer-to-finding-out-164582), where she refers to the fractal pattern we see in nature as (perhaps) holding a clue to understanding how the human brain functions. I invite you to read her article but will proceed further to the point I wish to make, which is that mind, consciousness are contested categories, not self-evident.

Intelligence – human and otherwise

The way human beings get to know something does not follow a linear path even in the absence of any damage to cognitive capabilities. Often, we forget what is important, gloss over the really crucial aspects, reject without thinking what is a decisive, ground-breaking development (the development of science, especially mathematics and physics, is strewn with such events). We mistake some things for what they are not, we suffer from biases which prevents us from seeing things with any clarity, we are vulnerable to noise as distinct from bias (Read Noise by Daniel Kahneman), we build a huge intellectual structure with shaky foundations and so on. Truth be told, whatever ‘knowledge’ we have accumulated could itself be contaminated by deep ignorance of which we are either blissfully unaware or willfully guilty. For example, research has shown that the period characterized as the ‘Dark Ages’ wasn’t dark at all! Across disciplines, we see this phenomenon.

Despite advances in neuroscience, psychology, philosophy, sociology of knowledge, cultural approaches to human intelligence, there is always a surplus that escapes understanding, inviting the interested to probe further. The time for euphoria is deferred – you must have noticed the insularity of most of these researches, communicating with others momentarily before folding back into insularity. Given that the production and distribution of knowledge is an intensely competitive phenomenon, often driven by institutional agendas, can we hope for anything else? I am tempted to quote Kafka: Oh, there is hope, an infinite amount of hope, just not for us.

Takeaways

The complex brain keeps challenges multiple disciplines

Questions over whether there is a mind, whether there are feelings

Neuroscience, quantum physics are trying to wade into the territory of psychology

We are nowhere near a complete understanding of even memory, let alone the complete brain

Insular debates within disciplines don’t augur for a coordinated, coherent research

AI researchers should learn to be sober