Everyone has heard of those science fiction stories in which very complicated machines (that is, technologically advanced) se umanizaceaĂ, acquiring the most valuable typical human character - consciousness, and even get to rule the world, rebelling against their creator- the man. The last highly successful film on this theme is The Matrix. On the other hand, if there is a field of current technology that advances beyond any prediction of the last decades, that is the field of IT technologies, so of the calculators.
The vitalist theory of consciousness
For those who have had Marxism dripped into their ears, however young and disinterested they were in the official ideology of the former communist countries, the phrase consciousness is a product of evolved matter sounds very familiar. But Marxism is only an exponent of materialism, its originality here, as in other fields, it is quite limited. Any materialist agrees with the idea that the emergence of consciousness is a consequence of the superorganization of matter. Biological evolution leads to superorganization of matter. It results from natural experiments carried out over millions of years. If life cannot be created for now, even undeveloped, in the laboratory, he doesn't know matter, more and more organized, it seems that it is possible. If this state of matter is reached, not necessarily through evolution, consciousness can be reached? The natural conclusion of this reasoning would be that even very complicated machines should be capable of consciousness. Deci, in these conditions, we could ask ourselves today, in the era of the explosion of computer science, as long as there is until the appearance of machines with consciousness? But the opinion of an evolutionary biologist is the following: machines built on current principles will never have consciousness.
Let consciousness be the prerogative of living matter (very organized), appeared by natural means? Not, a vitalist theory of consciousness is not necessary. But in order to create machines with consciousness, we must understand where it comes from in living matter. In biology, the newly appeared characters are useful for the survival of the individual or derive from some that were useful in the history of the species. Living nature does not want to perfect itself, to take prizes, she does useful things. And because he does it randomly, often has errors . Consciousness would be one of these errors of evolution.
Consciousness comes from within
What is consciousness actually?? What is the feeling of guilt?? Consciousness presupposes knowing the effects of one's actions, with their logical implications, material, but also affective. Before doing a certain thing, you visualize its physical effects, material, but also the way you will feel after performing this action. Consciousness presupposes a cognitive feedback, but also extraordinarily affective, that is, many relationships between the areas of the brain involved in knowledge, but also in affectivity. Of course, it depends on a big brain.
The feeling of guilt appears after the facts (conscious actions) they are in contradiction with the affective coloration that accompanies their consequences. Whether it seems like we hurt someone's feelings, that I have harmed someone or that I have produced actions that cause an impersonal harm, which is reflected in one's own self-image, guilt is a feeling that is more or less related to empathy, that is, that ability to put ourselves in the place of others. Psychopaths, often very intelligent people, they have no feelings of guilt. They are incapable of empathy, which also exists in animals, even in some apparently unfriendly species, like chimpanzees. One such individual told in a documentary aired on the Discovery Channel how he coldly watched a horrible accident of a child, which he had provoked.
So consciousness is related not only to intelligence, but also with affectivity. But where does the affection come from?? James-Lange theory, with the newer version, somatic marker theory, Antonio Damasio broadcast (presented in the book Descartes' Error, Humanitas publishing house) it assumes that affectivity comes from within, that is, the signals coming from the muscles (their state of tension), but also from the internal organs (blood pressure, puls, empty stomach, and many others) determine affectivity. That is, we feel good or bad emotionally according to the signals we receive from inside the body. These signals, as is known, are non-specific, you are not aware of the signals from the heart, for example. Anyway, even visceral pain, as is known, it's very hard to locate. So people have consciousness primarily because they have affectivity, that is, they receive messages from inside their body, which shows them its operating status.
But there is one more detail, in humans and chimpanzees these signals reach the brain (right anterior insula, a phylogenetically old formation, involved in vital functions), while in other vertebrates, they stop in the lower floors of the central nervous system. That is, these closely related species somehow inform their brains, which connect with the external environment, of what is happening inside them. An aspect less known by the man on the street is that the man not only has a huge brain, but he also has great sensitivity, both external (signals from the sense organs), as well as from the inside. That is, the man is very nervous, even more than his relatives, chimpanzees and now fossil species like Homo erectus.
Consciousness is economic
So consciousness comes from non-specific signals coming from inside the body, from muscles and viscera. If these signals were transmitted directly, clean, separated, BRAIN, then consciousness would still be possible? Probably not, then things would be completely different. In the current conditions, in different situations the animal faces, such as the classic example of flight or fight, physiological parameters change, and the higher animal and especially man, learn what affective states he has in situations of this type, he learns how his body responds, and tries to avoid certain such situations.
And yet, how affectivity appeared? Affection does not exist in reptiles, amphibians etc. It exists in birds, and in mammals it is highly developed. Why would it appear?? The hypothesis that I presented in the Civilization of Hunger is that these animals, among others, they are homeothermic, they have to adjust their temperature all the time, they have an energy that when they have, one way or another he has to save it. They need to a much greater extent the access to the data about the functioning of their body. The reptiles, when they don't have heat, they simply go to standby. In addition, mammals and birds have larger brains. So affectivity, as it is, has an adaptive advantage. Although things could have been much better, nature parades, as usual, what does he have. And man has come so far with affectivity and has also developed consciousness because all this is economic. A more sensitive body is better controlled. A more conscious behavior is also better controlled, therefore more economical. (These aspects, like many others related to consciousness, affectivity are explained in detail in Civilization of hunger/another approach to humanization.)
How to make conscious machines?
Only current cars, no matter how evolved it becomes, no matter how spacious their memory is, however fast, they don't get signals from inside their body. They only have a relationship brain, let's say. Their internal functions are not processed by it. More, they don't need it, because they don't have to make any effort to survive, they are constantly fed from the socket. Their mode of operation has nothing to do with living matter, which exists on completely different principles. Nervous system, in animals that get everything from the environment (parasitic worms) regress, becomes rudimentary, because he is no longer needed.
How could a car with consciousness? One that mimics consciousness could be made even now: a software could be installed to provide information about its operation, degree of heating, of loading, which in one way or another, to feel tired, angry etc. But for a consciousness as close as possible to reality, there would be many conditions to fulfill, it would be necessary to manage a certain amount of limited energy, it should be in a complicated network, that mimics society, etc. And cars can be much more efficient by avoiding consciousness¦
In Matrix, people were fed artificially, their operation was monitored by machines, which had taken over the functions of the brain. If people could monitor their internal functions through machines, would probably do it much better, but affectivity, but also consciousness would be seriously affected. That world is hard to imagine now. The people in the Matrix would have been completely different people¦Consciousness is just one of the human characteristics resulting from its biological imperfection. But our current world is based on, among others, on her existence.
The idea of this article came to me after a discussion I had on Saturday with a psychologist friend, And.
