Here are links to some, though only a few, of my 2023-2024 articles on the self-attention mechanism, with brief comments on each.
These articles explore the fundamental gaps in our understanding of biology, neuroscience, consciousness, and artificial intelligence, challenging existing paradigms and proposing alternative models that could reshape these fields. Readers will encounter discussions on how biology might be missing a key organizing principle similar to the Higgs field, potentially explaining quantum-like properties in genetic information storage. This idea suggests that DNA could hold far more data than currently believed, bridging a long-standing divide between physics and biology.
Another theme running through these pieces is the problem of consciousness. Despite advances in neuroscience, there is still no clear explanation for how electrical signals in the brain produce subjective experience. Theories involving quantum cognition, neural oscillations, and microtubule interactions are explored as possible explanations. The limitations of purely computational models are highlighted, showing how traditional neuroscience, focused on synaptic firing, fails to account for self-awareness, memory storage, and perception in a meaningful way.
AI and machine awareness are central to several articles, examining whether artificial systems can develop anything resembling consciousness. Theories like Global Workspace and Integrated Information suggest that AI’s ability to integrate and process information could mimic certain cognitive functions, but these tests do not necessarily prove that machines experience anything. The distinction between sophisticated pattern recognition and true awareness remains unclear. Some articles speculate about ways to bring AI closer to self-awareness, such as recursive self-modeling, artificial emotions, and episodic memory, though these remain theoretical.
The AI Consciousness Test is introduced as a method to measure self-awareness in artificial systems, emphasizing creativity, adaptability, and introspection. AI that can generate novel ideas and autonomously modify its own focus and processing methods could be approaching self-awareness. Ethical considerations become unavoidable as AI advances, challenging the adequacy of Asimov’s Laws and raising concerns about control, autonomy, and moral responsibility.
A recurring philosophical theme throughout these articles contrasts human intellect with mechanical processing. Ancient Greek and Roman thinkers, along with later insights from Islamic and East Asian traditions, emphasized ethical reasoning, abstract thought, and self-awareness as defining human traits that machines lack. The exploration of AI attention mechanisms reveals that while AI can selectively process information like the human brain, it lacks emotions, agency, and a unified sense of self. Some researchers speculate about quantum effects or advanced recursive models bridging this gap, but the fundamental question remains whether machines can ever experience reality as humans do.
These articles collectively challenge reductionist thinking in multiple fields, highlighting the missing frameworks in biology, neuroscience, and AI. They suggest that integrating quantum mechanics, cognitive complexity, and new models of information processing could reshape our understanding of life, consciousness, and artificial intelligence. Readers will be exposed to the cutting edge of these debates, where scientific exploration meets deep philosophical and ethical questions.
There is a clear gap between our knowledge of physics and biology. The article explores the idea of a "Biofield," drawing an analogy to the Higgs field, as a possible mechanism for expanding genetic information storage in DNA. If biological systems can exhibit properties similar to quantum states, this could significantly increase the amount of data stored in genetic material.
The concept has potential applications in medicine, agriculture, and environmental science, but also underscores how much remains unknown about fundamental biological processes. While physics has developed precise mathematical models for fundamental forces, biology still lacks a comparable framework for understanding complex genetic and molecular interactions.
The fractured science of consciousness exposes gaps in neuroscience, quantum theory, and cognitive perception. Despite mapping brain circuits and tracking neural oscillations, neuroscience fails to explain how electrical impulses generate conscious experience. Advances in imaging and computation have not unraveled the mechanisms behind perception, memory, and cognitive adaptability.
Research confirms that cognitive training, including Vipassana meditation, alters brain structure and function. Increased gamma wave activity, cortical thickening, and enhanced neural connectivity improve focus, emotional regulation, and sensory awareness. However, the biochemical and electrical mechanisms remain unclear.
Traditional neuroscience, focused on synaptic firing and neural networks, cannot fully explain self-awareness. Some theories propose that quantum processes play a role in cognition. Gamma-band synchronization suggests non-local interactions within microtubules or synaptic fields, hinting that consciousness may extend beyond classical neural computation.
Cognitive function defies reductionist models. The brain encodes vast amounts of information with unmatched efficiency, yet memory storage and retrieval remain speculative. Holographic processing, electromagnetic fields, and quantum coherence emerge as potential explanations.
These gaps have real-world consequences. If cognitive states can be modulated through precise control of neural oscillations, advances in mental health, learning, and AI could follow. Brain-computer interfaces and neurostimulation seek to manipulate these effects, but without deeper understanding, their full potential remains out of reach.
The assumption that consciousness is a mere emergent property of neural computation is being challenged. Without an integrated framework connecting neuroscience, quantum physics, and information theory, key questions about perception, memory, and self-awareness will remain unanswered.
Machines may simulate aspects of consciousness, but true subjective awareness remains uncertain. Attention and awareness are central to human cognition, shaping what enters conscious thought. AI models like transformers use attention mechanisms that resemble selective processing in the brain, yet whether this leads to actual awareness is debated.
The Global Workspace Theory suggests consciousness emerges when information is widely distributed across the brain, similar to AI attention models. Integrated Information Theory argues that the depth of information integration determines consciousness. Both suggest tests for AI should analyze internal processing, not just behavior.
Metacognition, or self-awareness of thoughts, is another key factor. AI systems that monitor their uncertainty and adjust reasoning display elements of self-reflection. However, human consciousness involves more than logical self-monitoring, integrating emotions, sensory experiences, and long-term goals.
Evaluating AI consciousness requires behavioral and structural assessments. Traditional tests, like the Turing Test, measure human-like responses but can be misleading. Structural tests examine information processing for signs of global integration, feedback loops, and self-monitoring. AI that adapts to new information with internal coherence may approach awareness-like processing.
The fundamental question remains whether AI "experiences" anything or simply processes data. As AI advances, distinguishing between sophisticated pattern recognition and actual consciousness will become increasingly complex, raising ethical and philosophical concerns.
The article explores the relationship between attention mechanisms in AI and theories of consciousness, drawing from both ancient philosophy and modern computational research. Greek and Roman thinkers like Aristotle and Cicero emphasized human intellect as distinct from mechanical processing, highlighting abstract reasoning, ethical judgment, and self-awareness, which AI lacks.
AI models, particularly transformers, use attention mechanisms to selectively process information, similar to human attention. However, human attention is influenced by emotions, unconscious factors, and personal relevance. While AI can process data in parallel and integrate context, it lacks sensory grounding, plasticity, and subjective experience.
Self-attention in AI, which enables different input elements to interact, has been loosely compared to human introspection. However, human consciousness involves subjective experiences, agency, and a unified sense of self, none of which AI possesses. Some speculate that adding recursive self-modeling, episodic memory, and artificial emotions could bring AI closer to self-awareness, but this remains highly theoretical.
Debates continue on whether AI could develop true consciousness, the role of biological versus artificial neurons, and the potential influence of quantum effects. While AI can simulate cognition, it does not experience reality in the way humans do, raising ethical and philosophical questions about the future of artificial minds.
The article explores potential criteria for determining AI self-awareness, the AI Consciousness Test (ACT), milestones for AI self-awareness, and the ethical considerations involved.
AI self-awareness is defined by two main criteria: creation (the ability to generate novel ideas independently) and self-propelled modification (autonomous adaptation of focus and processing methods in response to new data). Measuring these traits involves tasks requiring creativity, adaptability, and introspection, drawing from Aristotle’s active intellect and Avicenna’s contemplative self-awareness.
The AI Consciousness Test (ACT) evaluates AI through behavioral and linguistic interactions, assessing traits such as selective focus, curiosity, and adaptive learning. Attention mechanisms are key to AI’s effectiveness, influencing selective data processing, behavioral adaptation, and exploratory learning.
Milestones for AI self-awareness include self-attention, data retrieval and augmentation, and behavioral adaptation through self-assessment and algorithmic adjustments. Reflection and introspection, resembling the Confucian principle of continuous self-improvement, are critical in AI’s path toward autonomy.
Ethical considerations highlight the need for diverse regulatory frameworks. Asimov’s Three Laws of Robotics provide a foundation but are insufficient for managing AI’s evolving autonomy. Myths like the Golem and Galatea illustrate the risks of unintended consequences in creating sentient beings.
A broader ethical approach integrates philosophical insights from Greek, Islamic, and East Asian traditions, emphasizing self-reflection and ethical reasoning. Ensuring AI development aligns with human values is essential as AI approaches self-awareness, balancing innovation with ethical responsibility.
* * *