The Mind-Brain Problem, Part I

Michaelangelo's The Creation of Adam. Michaelangelo's depiction of the deity seems to have been based upon an anatomically correct template of the human brain.

Earlier, I referenced the most common (almost ubiquitous) scientific presupposition about the brain and willful human consciousness: that the the human brain is the material, biological mechanism that is all that is necessary to create willful human consciousness. At the risk of oversimplifying things, let's just label this the "materialist" presupposition about the relationship between the brain and the mind. No physical brain = no mind. It's hard to imagine anyone taking seriously any alternative. But, there is one, and it's got a surprising history and cast of proponents and supporters. 

At the outset, one can be forgiven for wondering: how exactly is this relevant to artificial intelligence? Permit me the argument: If the materialist presupposition turns out to be incorrect, or even incomplete, in its articulation of the truth about how the brain and mind interact, the implications are profound for the development of AI. That would mean that creating a digital replica of the brain (made not of flesh but a highly sophisticated virtualization mimicking both macro brain structures from the thalamus, cortex and reticular formation, to the frontal, prefrontal and temporal lobes, corpus callosum, etc., etc., and micro structures, from neurons and synapses to a bath of neurotransmitters, etc.) might not be all that's required to create self-aware and human-equivalent consciousness. While such a replication does seem to happen quite reliably many thousands of times a day in biological flesh form across this planet as human babies are born and then develop into little humans with what appears reliably to our eye as self-aware consciousness, we would be wise to check our assumptions that digitally replicating these structures, components and processes would necessarily lead to consciousness. While there is absolutely no denying that the brain must be somehow very significantly involved in consciousness, if our understanding is incorrect or merely incomplete, what we don't understand represents the x-factor which could complicate, frustrate or even prohibit any development of artificial superintelligence which assumes self-aware consciousness as a foundational prerequisite.

Unanswered (and surely important too) is the question of the degree to which conscious and self-aware thought is dependent upon the vast amount of unconscious mental activity and even unconscious thought and ideation in the human mind. One imagines AI theorists and researchers simply wishing to avoid that thorny unanswered question by seeking to develop a digital model or replica of the entire brain so as to not unintentionally and unknowingly leave anything crucial out of the equation. From a purely materialist perspective, this all of course begs the question as to whether the first self-aware robotic entities might also possess significant unconscious thought, desires, etc. like their human models do - a very unsettling prospect...

While questioning the materialist presupposition seems on the face of things to be entirely laughable, there are glimmers and hints even in recent medical literature that all might not be entirely well in terms of fitting all the evidence to this most foundational of assumptions about how self-aware consciousness comes into existence. We'll explore this crucial question and the alternative model more in coming weeks, but for now, consider just one of the more recent cases that suggests that something might be incomplete in our understanding of the relationship between the brain and mind: a 44 year old-white collar worker who, due to hydrocephalis, is missing the vast majority of the mass of his brain, and, while possessing a below average IQ, tested comfortably above the clinical threshold for intellectual disability and has managed to lead a seemingly normal life. The case lays perhaps far too heavy a burden on the explanatory power of "brain plasticity" and suggests that the brain, the mind and consciousness and the relationships among them are all still quite mysterious to our understandings - scientific, medical and otherwise.

Even from a purely materialist perspective, stumbling blindly into such a depth of mystery while attempting to create an entity with such immense potential power does evoke exactly the sort of Faustian scene that Musk references with his "summoning the demon." So, wouldn't it be wise to first apply narrow forms of AI or even restrictive forms of general AI to the mind-brain problem to be absolutely sure we've actually answered some of these questions prior to attempting to create anything capable of artificial super intelligence? Maybe. But answering such questions even with the assistance of the lesser but benign and fully controllable forms of AI would take centuries of perfect and consistently applied limitation of already realized capability. In the face of the degree of extreme self discipline and self checking required, across successive generations of the very human collection of theorists, researchers and industry leaders involved, every last cent of my money is stacked on the wise (or the modest, disciplined, restrained or non-greedy) choice never being our first choice.

Those faced with such a choice when the time comes may not be clutching Musk's pentagram and holy water, but you can be damned sure they'll be blowing on the dice cupped in their sweaty hands. 

Part II (in coming weeks): what is the alternative model?