Let me start by declaring my motivation for writing about a topic I have no explicit authority on. I’ve been writing for years by now, both on topics I work on with my companies, as well as topics that simply interest me. I find, personally, that writing is a powerful form of learning through synthesis. It’s easy to say you understand something until you have to explain it to someone else. It’s relatively easy to explain something in an elevator pitch format, but a lecture or blog post requires you to really think through structure, validity, and consistency. It forces you to find references to support your claims. Basically, it’s a great way to ensure you’re not fooling yourself through a series of simplifications and delusions. So I’m doing this more for me than you, but you can come along for the ride.

首先，我要宣布我写一个我没有明确授权的话题的动机。 到目前为止，我已经写了很多年了，既涉及我与公司合作的主题，也涉及我感兴趣的主题。 我个人认为写作是一种通过综合学习的有力形式。 在您必须向他人解释之前，很容易说出您了解的内容。 用电梯音高格式来解释某些事情相对容易，但是讲座或博客文章要求您真正考虑结构，有效性和一致性。 它迫使您找到支持您主张的参考。 基本上，这是确保您不会因一系列简化和妄想而自欺欺人的好方法。 因此，与您相比，我为我做的更多。但是您可以随身携带。

So, let’s talk about the C-word. Consciousness.

因此，我们来谈谈C字。 意识。

We all have rare moments in our life when we stop and ponder a big question. Is my blue the same as your blue? Why is the sky blue? Are there aliens out there? Is there an afterlife? What came before the big bang? What’s the end of the universe? What’s the meaning of it all?

当我们停下来思考一个大问题时，我们每个人都有难得的时刻。 我的蓝色和你的蓝色一样吗？ 为什么天空是蓝色的？ 那里有外星人吗？ 有来世吗？ 大爆炸之前发生了什么？ 宇宙的尽头是什么？ 这是什么意思？

Of course, some of these, science can answer. The sky is blue for the same reason oceans are blue, it is the shortest wavelength light we can still see with our eyes, and therefore scatters from particles in water and air over great distances and gradually dominates the other colors. Some questions we don’t have answers for yet. Some questions we probably never will.

当然，科学可以回答其中的一些问题。 天空是蓝色的，其原因也是海洋是蓝色的。海洋是我们仍然可以用眼睛看到的最短波长的光，因此会从水和空气中的粒子中散射很远，并逐渐主导其他颜色。 我们还没有答案的一些问题。 我们可能永远不会回答的一些问题。

While it’s easy to get caught up in our own minds and worlds, it can be helpful to take a step back and think about simple cases as sources for fundamental truth.

虽然很容易陷入我们自己的思想和世界，但退后一步并考虑将简单案例视为基本真理的来源可能会有所帮助。

Have you ever… stopped to think about what it’s like to be a bat?

您是否曾经……停下来思考过想成为一只蝙蝠的感觉是什么？

Not in the sense of flying per se, but in that do they even have an inner experience like we do? If there was such a thing as reincarnation, and you became a bat, are the lights still on? Do you have thoughts? A sense of self? What does sonar feel like compared to sight or sound? To clarify, the only reason I chose bats, is that it was the topic of a famous 1974 essay by Thomas Nagel of consciousness — one of the great remaining mysteries of science.

并不是从飞行本身的意义上讲，而是他们甚至像我们一样有一种内在的体验？ 如果有轮回之类的事情，而您变成了蝙蝠，那灯还在吗？ 你有想法吗？ 有自我感？ 与视觉或声音相比，声纳感觉如何？ 需要澄清的是，我选择蝙蝠的唯一原因是，这是托马斯·纳格尔(Thomas Nagel)1974年著名的意识论文的主题-意识是科学上尚存的伟大谜团之一。

意识到底是什么？ (What is consciousness, exactly?)

Well, we don’t exactly know. We know that when we sleep, we don’t have it. Except in dreams. When we zone out on the highway, we have less of it. Most definitions of consciousness include things like self-awareness and the qualities of our experience, or “qualia”. Things like the redness of the color red. Not only can you have emotions, but you can be aware of your experience of emotions and their subtle internal qualities. It’s the movie of our life that never stops. Well, through meditation it is possible to momentarily pause this internal movie, and experience a state without an inner subject as part of the experience, where just the raw inputs of life are present without introspection or judgment. This can be associated with a loss of self.

好吧，我们并不完全知道。 我们知道，当我们睡觉时，我们就没有了。 除了在梦中。 当我们在高速公路上划出区域时，我们所拥有的更少了。 意识的大多数定义包括诸如自我意识和我们的经验素质或“素质”之类的东西。 像红色一样的红色。 您不仅可以拥有情绪，而且可以意识到自己对情绪的体验及其微妙的内部特质。 这是我们生命中永无止境的电影。 好吧，通过冥想，有可能暂时停顿这部内部电影，并体验一种没有内在主体的状态作为体验的一部分，在这种状态下，只有生命的原始输入而没有内省或判断。 这可能与自我丧失有关。

When you go to sleep, with or without dreams, there is an interruption of your conscious experience. In some sense, it is a little death. With modern physics, we know that all the particles making up your body and brain are just excitations in a field, and therefore in constant if minute flux. You are a pattern of energy, in a real sense. These two ideas give credence to the claim that the person waking up truly is not you. In fact, you never were you. There is no you. Each morning a new being emerges, gaining consciousness, armed with memories of a past being. Every day truly is your last!

当您入睡时，无论有没有梦想，您的意识体验都会中断。 从某种意义上说，这是一点死亡。 在现代物理学中，我们知道组成您的身体和大脑的所有粒子仅仅是一个场中的激发，因此即使是微小的通量也保持不变。 从真正意义上说，你是一种能量的模式。 这两个想法使人相信，真正醒来的人不是你。 事实上，你从来都不是你。 没有你 每天早晨，一个新的生物出现，并获得意识，并带着对过去生物的记忆。 每天都是您的最后一天！

One simple way to understand that concept of discontinuity is amnesia. Most of us have never had clinical amnesia, but perhaps a night or two of heavy drinking. Since you have no memory of those events, often negative, you can mentally divorce yourself from those events by stating that’s not me. There are many documented cases of loss of short-term memory from brain damage, where there is a continuous loss of a sense of self due to not having any recent memory as a reference.

一种了解不连续性概念的简单方法是健忘症。 我们大多数人从未有过临床失忆症，但也许是一两个晚上大量饮酒。 由于您对这些事件没有记忆，通常是负面的，因此您可以声明自己不是我，从而在心理上与这些事件离婚。 有许多文献记载由于脑损伤而导致短期记忆丧失的情况，由于没有最近的记忆作为参考，因此自我意识不断丧失。

So if consciousness is never continuous, can we really die at all? Well, if nothing else, it seems hard to imagine the atomic structure that represents your memories in your brain staying intact. When the matter dies, the possibility of reviving a conscious being dies. Later on, we’ll revisit this idea, but for now, for most people, the idea of a clone, robot, or simulation encoded with your electrical brain patterns doesn’t quite feel like a life worth living. Well, at least it’s not your life anymore.

因此，如果意识永远不会持续下去，我们真的可以死吗？ 好吧，如果没有别的，似乎很难想象代表大脑记忆完整的原子结构。 当事情死了，恢复有意识的存在的可能性就死了。 稍后，我们将重新讨论这个想法，但就目前而言，对于大多数人而言，用您的脑电图编码的克隆，机器人或仿真的想法并不觉得值得一试。 好吧，至少这不再是你的生活。

So let’s go back. There’s a thing called consciousness. We can point our finger to it subjectively. We all have it, supposedly. Where is it? Is that a question that can be asked?

所以，让我们回去。 有一种叫做意识的东西。 我们可以主观地指责它。 我们所有人都有，据说。 它在哪里？ 这是一个可以提出的问题吗？

意识在大脑中吗？ (Is consciousness in the brain?)

Everyone has a mental image of the human brain, with the wrinkly bits on top. That’s your neocortex, which is the thinking brain. Below that, you have all manner of smaller parts that we inherited through evolution from mammals and reptiles. The oldest part being the brainstem, which controls our autonomous functions like your heartbeat and digestion. So which are the conscious parts? Well, we know that some parts seem to display very little activity related to consciousness, and others quite a lot. The cerebellum controls motor functions, seemingly unconsciously. That’s how you can catch a baseball without being aware of the necessary muscles required for the precise timing and motion. From brain trauma and animal testing, we can deduce some specific characteristics of the main areas of the brain.

每个人都具有人脑的心理形象，顶部是皱纹。 那就是你的新大脑皮层，这就是思维的大脑。 在此之下，您将拥有从哺乳动物和爬行动物进化而来的各种较小的部分。 最老的部分是脑干，它控制着我们的自主功能，例如您的心跳和消化。 那么哪些是有意识的部分？ 好吧，我们知道某些部分似乎没有表现出与意识相关的活动，而其他部分则表现出很多。 小脑看似无意识地控制运动功能。 这样一来，您就可以在不知道精确的计时和运动所需的必要肌肉的情况下抓棒球。 从大脑创伤和动物测试，我们可以推断出大脑主要区域的某些特定特征。

Certain parts of the newer primate neocortex deal with planning and sensory models of the world, while emotions and long-term memory are controlled by the mammalian limbic system. It seems that conscious experiences often involve interplay or feedback between planning, memory, models, and emotions. All of these can be shown to have value in survival and reproduction as evolutionary drivers. For example, emotions are a form of future reward. If something makes you sad, you can form a persistent memory of that sadness that you wish to avoid in the future.

较新的灵长类动物新皮层的某些部分处理世界的计划和感觉模型，而情绪和长期记忆则由哺乳动物的边缘系统控制。 似乎有意识的体验通常涉及计划，记忆，模型和情绪之间的相互作用或反馈。 所有这些都可以证明作为进化驱动因素在生存和繁殖中具有价值。 例如，情感是未来奖励的一种形式。 如果某件事使您感到难过，您可以永久保存您希望在将来避免的那种难过。

There are many formal models of consciousness, including the Higher-Order Theory of Consciousness. It seems to say that the entirety of consciousness happens within different parts of the neocortex, with feedback loops from the sensory cortex to working memory areas. The key is that you are only conscious if you have a representation of your experience. It’s not enough for your neocortex to receive a visual stimulus of seeing a red balloon, you must have a specific representation of seeing a red balloon to be conscious of the experience.

有许多形式的意识模型，包括高阶意识理论。 似乎整个意识都发生在新皮层的不同部分，从感觉皮层到工作记忆区的反馈回路。 关键在于，只有在您拥有自己的经历时，您才有意识。 对于您的新皮层来说，仅凭视觉刺激就看不到红气球是不够的，您必须对看到红气球有特定的表示才能意识到这种体验。

The Global Workspace Theory of Consciousness positions conscious activity as arising from working memory much like the desktop on your computer. You are only aware of what’s on the desktop, not all the thousands of files on your entire computer at any time. Consciousness is therefore presented as a function of access to representations in your brain. Representations can be sensory, abstract, or from memory.

全球工作空间意识理论将意识活动定位为由工作记忆引起的活动，就像计算机上的桌面一样。 您只知道桌面上有什么内容，而不是随时知道整个计算机上成千上万个文件。 因此，意识表现为大脑中获取表征的功能。 表示可以是感觉的，抽象的或来自记忆的。

Older theories place all of consciousness in the emotional circuits within the amygdala, part of our reptilian limbic system. Another yet connects arousal from the brainstem with general awareness from the insular cortex and anterior cingulate cortex, effectively stating that our intelligent planning mammalian brain is controlled by our reptilian brain.

较早的理论将所有意识置于杏仁核(爬虫类边缘系统的一部分)内的情感回路中。 另一个将来自脑干的觉醒与来自岛状皮层和前扣带回皮层的一般意识联系起来，有效地说明了我们聪明的计划哺乳动物大脑是由爬行动物大脑控制的。

If these seem a little vague and functional, then there’s another new theory to weigh. Famous physicist Roger Penrose and anaesthesiologist Stuart Hameroff have pinpointed a specific structure within brain cells as the potential source of consciousness. But not just regular, boring consciousness. This is quantum consciousness. Queue the X-Files theme song.

如果这些看起来有点模糊和有用，那么还有另一种新的理论可以衡量。 著名物理学家罗杰·彭罗斯(Roger Penrose)和麻醉师斯图尔特·哈默洛夫(Stuart Hameroff)指出，脑细胞内的特定结构是潜在的意识来源。 但不仅仅是定期的，无聊的意识。 这是量子意识。 将X-Files主题曲排队。

There are truly minuscule, nano-scale structures inside brain cells called microtubules. They are in fact so tiny, and so structured, that they could allow for quantum effects like entanglement and tunneling between groups of neurons. This could solve another great mystery in the role of the observer in quantum wave function collapse. Consciousness then becomes functional in giving us a macro-scale universe that seems deterministic and void of quantum effects. Oh, and it might explain free will, too. Because quantum entanglement would allow your neurons to react to stimuli faster than neurons can fire, i.e. travel back in time a few milliseconds to decide what to do. It’s all pretty fantastical, but still scientific. While some quantum effects have been detected in microtubules, several aspects of the theory have been disputed by experimentalists.

脑细胞内部确实存在微小的纳米级结构，称为微管。 实际上，它们是如此之小，如此结构化，以至于它们可能允许量子效应，例如神经元组之间的纠缠和隧穿。 这可以解决观察者在量子波函数崩溃中的作用的另一个巨大谜团。 这样，意识就开始发挥作用，为我们提供了一个宏观的宇宙，这个宇宙似乎具有确定性，并且没有量子效应。 哦，它也可以解释自由意志。 因为量子纠缠会使您的神经元对刺激的React快于神经元可以激发的速度，即，时光倒流几毫秒以决定该怎么做。 一切都非常梦幻，但仍然科学。 尽管已经在微管中检测到一些量子效应，但该理论的几个方面遭到实验学家的质疑。

So the jury is out. The one thing we do know is that neurons are the only cells that do not effectively regenerate in your body. All other cell types regularly get replaced, to where every 7 years you effectively have all new cells. But you’re pretty much stuck with the brain cells you were born with. Synapses change constantly, but neurons don’t. That might tell us something about consciousness already, in that messing with the structure would be a bad thing for the function of the brain which clearly includes consciousness.

所以陪审团出来了。 我们确实知道的一件事是，神经元是唯一无法在人体中有效再生的细胞。 所有其他类型的电池都会定期更换，每隔7年您将有效地拥有所有新电池。 但是，您几乎被天生的大脑细胞所困。 突触不断变化，但神经元却没有。 那可能已经告诉我们有关意识的知识，因为弄乱结构对于显然包含意识的大脑功能将是一件坏事。

意识是生命的意义吗？ (Is consciousness the meaning of life?)

It’s easy to make the leap from attributing consciousness, of some form, to all living things, to seeing consciousness as a requirement for life. But let’s remember, cells are alive. Are cells conscious? Are cells intelligent?

从将某种形式的意识赋予所有生物到将意识视为生命的要求，这很容易实现。 但请记住，细胞还活着。 细胞有意识吗？ 细胞聪明吗？

Philosopher Karl Friston asks us to consider a drop of oil. Is it alive? No, of course not. But what exactly is the difference between a drop of oil and a cell? Both have a physiological boundary, called a Markov blanket. Both are actively sampling the environment, otherwise, oil would mix with water, yet it never does. Well, the difference is actually in motion. The drop of oil can only move in reaction to external forces like pressure and gravity, but never cause movement from an internal process. The cell can move thanks to its ability to ingest and expel energy.

哲学家卡尔·弗里斯顿(Karl Friston)要求我们考虑一滴油。 还活着吗 不，当然不是。 但是，一滴油和一个细胞之间到底有什么区别？ 两者都有生理边界，称为马尔可夫毯。 两者都在积极采样环境，否则，油会与水混合，但永远不会。 好吧，差异实际上在发生。 油滴只能响应压力和重力等外力而运动，而绝不会引起内部过程的运动。 细胞可以吸收和排出能量，因此可以移动。

Humans are made of living cells, that seem to produce consciousness when assembled in the right pattern. We would certainly be alive without consciousness, but would such a life carry any meaning? Does a Roomba robot really care if it is turned off? It seems not. Clearly, there is some evolutionary driver to proliferate consciousness, as it seems abundant to varying degrees in animals. Perhaps, it is fair to say, that consciousness attaches meaning to our lives. We can experience, we can feel, we can hope, we can dream.

人类是由活细胞组成的，当以正确的方式组装时，它们似乎会产生意识。 我们当然会在没有意识的情况下还活着，但是这样的生活会有意义吗？ Roomba机器人是否真的在乎是否已关闭？ 好像没有 显然，有一定的进化驱动力来增强意识，因为它在动物中似乎有不同程度的丰富。 也许可以说，意识使我们的生活有意义。 我们可以体验，可以感觉，可以希望，可以梦想。

So we all have it, we can play around with it a little, and it’s all in the brain. Wonderful. Who even cares? It just is what it is. How is this going to affect my life?

因此，我们都拥有了它，我们可以稍微玩一下它，并且全部在大脑中。 精彩。 谁在乎？ 就是这样。 这将如何影响我的生活？

为什么意识很重要 (Why consciousness matters)

There are many reasons why you might care about consciousness. One is certainly the practical matter of morality. Euthanasia can be considered morally acceptable for people in irreversible vegetative states. Yet it would be considered murder for a conscious human. So it matters a lot. Babies used to be circumcised without anesthesia because we didn’t attribute real human consciousness to babies. Crying was just an instinct. Babies hadn’t yet developed the capacity for consciousness, was the thought, because they lacked language, memory, and motor control. If we now admit that babies can have a meaningful conscious inner experience, where is the line drawn? What stage of development from egg to fetus to baby is that line? What about animals? Are chickens being slaughtered for food conscious? What about cows?

您可能在乎意识的原因有很多。 一个当然是道德的实际问题。 对处于不可逆的植物生长状态的人们来说，安乐死被认为是道义上可接受的。 然而，对于有意识的人类，这将被视为谋杀。 所以这很重要。 婴儿曾经在没有麻醉的情况下进行了割礼，因为我们没有将真正的人类意识归因于婴儿。 哭只是一种本能。 人们认为，婴儿还没有发展意识的能力，因为他们缺乏语言，记忆和运动控制能力。 如果我们现在承认婴儿可以有有意义的意识内在体验，那么界限在哪里？ 从卵到胎儿再到婴儿的发展处于哪个阶段？ 那动物呢？ 屠宰鸡对食物有意识吗？ 母牛呢？

The other reason is more philosophical but highly subjective in nature. What role does consciousness play in our development? Are we human because we are conscious, or conscious because we are human? Why is it like this to be human at all? What does it mean? Is consciousness the meaning of life? If there is other intelligent life out there in the universe, should we assume they are also conscious? If we develop real artificial intelligence, beyond human intelligence, will it be conscious? Does it matter, if it isn’t? What happens when you die, and could you come back like you wake up from sleep if the tissues were somehow preserved?

另一个原因是本质上更具哲学性但主观性很高。 意识在我们的发展中扮演什么角色？ 我们是因为有意识而成为人类，还是因为我们是有意识而成为人类？ 为什么这样才是人类？ 这是什么意思？ 意识是生命的意义吗？ 如果宇宙中还有其他智能生命，我们是否应该假设它们也有意识？ 如果我们发展真正的人工智能，超越人类的智慧，它会自觉吗？ 没关系吗？ 当您死亡时会发生什么？如果组织得到某种形式的保存，您能否像睡梦中醒来一样回来？

Okay fine, we have questions, but what’s the real mystery or problem here?

好的，我们有问题，但是这里真正的奥秘或问题是什么？

意识的难题 (The hard problem of consciousness)

Well, think about it. The brain developed an incredible capacity for intelligence and social interaction through evolution and has been spectacularly successful in proliferating the human genome. That’s fantastic. We have all the necessary functions for physical and mental dominance over all other species of the Earth. Perhaps you’ve never stopped to ask a simple question. Why is there any inner experience at all?

好吧，考虑一下。 大脑通过进化发展出了不可思议的智力和社交互动能力，并成功地增殖了人类基因组。 这太妙了。 我们拥有在地球上所有其他物种上的身心主导权的所有必要功能。 也许您从未停止提出一个简单的问题。 为什么根本没有内心的体验？

Why do we need any qualities attached to our experience? Couldn’t we perform all the same tasks of being a functional human, like… a robot? If there is pain, why do we need to suffer? Couldn’t we simply learn to not do that without the visceral quality of pain? Why do we need regret, longing, and love? Couldn’t we have evolved with all the same behaviors, without attaching quality to any of it? Like a Vulcan from Star Trek.

为什么我们需要与经验相关的任何素质？ 我们不能像机器人一样执行功能正常的人的所有相同任务吗？ 如果有痛苦，我们为什么要遭受痛苦？ 我们难道不能简单地学会在没有内在疼痛的情况下做到这一点吗？ 为什么我们需要后悔，渴望和爱？ 如果不对任何行为都附加质量，我们是否能够发展出所有相同的行为？ 就像来自《星际迷航》的火神。

If you struggle with this distinction of function vs. quality, just think about other forms of life, and what you could say about their inner experience of life. Your dog, is it conscious? Probably you’d think yes, they seem to have rich inner experience, even if they cannot tell us about it. Cats, yes, but perhaps a little less so. Hamsters? Fish? Flies? Worms? Bacteria? Coronavirus? For most people, the buck stops around fish and reptiles. They seem to just… be, without much fuss about being or not being. You don’t see fish playing, or displaying anything that humans might interpret as subjective experience. Dolphins and whales do, but they’re mammals.

如果您在功能与质量的区分上挣扎，只需考虑其他形式的生活，以及对他们内在生活的感受。 你的狗，有意识吗？ 也许您会想，他们似乎有丰富的内心经验，即使他们无法告诉我们。 猫，是的，但可能要少一些。 仓鼠？ 鱼？ 苍蝇？ 蠕虫？ 菌？ 新冠病毒？ 对于大多数人来说，钱总是停留在鱼类和爬行动物周围。 他们似乎只是……是，没有大惊小怪。 您不会看到鱼在玩耍，也不会看到人类可能会解释为主观体验的任何东西。 有海豚和鲸鱼，但它们是哺乳动物。

等等，这不只是智力吗？ (Wait, isn’t this just intelligence?)

Okay, so fish aren’t particularly intelligent. Is a Roomba robot intelligent or conscious? Maybe neither. What about AlphaZero, a computer program that beat all humans in Chess and Go? That seems super-intelligent, but surely not conscious? Well, you might say that AlphaZero does not have a similar kind of intelligence as humans. It plays a few games at a superhuman level, but has no other functionality, even in terms of learning other tasks. It has learning and memory, but is there experience? It has models but no sensory inputs. It doesn’t see the game board or itself playing, it just sees matrices of numbers. So perhaps, there is a useful distinction between intelligence and consciousness?

好的，鱼不是特别聪明。 Roomba机器人是聪明还是有意识？ 也许两者都不是。 那么在国际象棋和围棋中击败所有人的计算机程序AlphaZero呢？ 看起来超级智能，但是肯定没有意识吗？ 好吧，您可能会说AlphaZero没有与人类类似的智能。 它以超人的水平玩了几场游戏，但没有其他功能，即使在学习其他任务方面也是如此。 它具有学习和记忆，但是有经验吗？ 它具有模型，但没有感官输入。 它看不到游戏板或游戏本身，只看到数字矩阵。 那么也许，智力和意识之间存在有用的区别？

One way to look at intelligence versus consciousness is to consider the functional inputs and outputs. We perceive things through our senses, and that gets converted into electrical signals that travel to our brain. Similarly, other signals come out of our brain into our nervous system, which triggers actions like lifting your finger. Imagine if some evil doctor meticulously and deliberately disconnected all the nerves connecting your brain to your body, painlessly, during your sleep, and you woke up in the morning. Would you wake up at all, actually? Would this evil doctor need to reconnect all those nerves to artificial organs, for that to happen? Well, nobody has yet volunteered for this experiment, strangely. What we do know is that people who lose complete functions of their body in accidents often continue to report “ghost” sensory experiences. Yes, even people who go blind with no connection between eye and brain can report seeing things. The evidence that the brain is the source of your conscious experience is overwhelming, and the existence of a soul, outside the brain at least, seems all but impossible.

观察智力与意识的一种方法是考虑功能输入和输出。 我们通过感官感知事物，并将其转换为电信号并传递到大脑。 同样，其他信号也会从大脑进入神经系统，从而触发诸如抬起手指的动作。 试想一下，如果有位邪恶的医生在您睡觉时无痛地故意和无意识地断开了连接大脑与身体的所有神经，您会在早晨醒来。 你真的会醒吗？ 为此，这位邪恶的医生是否需要将所有这些神经重新连接到人工器官上？ 好吧，奇怪的是，还没有人自愿参加这项实验。 我们所知道的是，在事故中失去身体完整功能的人们经常会继续报告“幽灵”感官体验。 是的，即使盲人没有眼睛和大脑的连接也可以报告看到的东西。 大脑是您有意识的经验之源的证据不胜枚举，而且至少在大脑外部存在灵魂似乎几乎是不可能的。

For millennia, this separation of soul and body was the leading belief among scientists and philosophers. It was further reinforced by religion and the church, as it served their view of the world and creation. It’s hard to blame them, as so-called dualism is rather intuitive. When your body is disconnected from service during sleep, your mind can still explore and play in dreams. Other forms of altered states of consciousness seem to reinforce this notion, such as out-of-body experiences, and hallucinations. However, current scientific experimentation places the soul much closer to the vest, most likely in your neocortex. Specifically, it is the self-model generated by the brain that gives us a sense of self that is at the core of our subjective experience. If there is no “I”, is it really an experience? You can momentarily experience such a loss of self through meditation practice. You can let go of this character of self, and be only conscious of raw sensory inputs such as physical feelings and sounds. You’re still conscious, but not in a way humans would think of as normal.

几千年来，灵魂与身体的这种分离是科学家和哲学家的主要信念。 宗教和教堂进一步增强了它的作用，因为它服务于他们对世界和创造的看法。 很难怪他们，因为所谓的二元论相当直观。 当您的身体在睡眠中失去服务时，您的思想仍然可以探索并在梦中嬉戏。 其他形式的意识状态改变似乎加强了这种观念，例如体外体验和幻觉。 但是，当前的科学实验使灵魂更接近背心，最有可能出现在您的新皮层中。 具体来说，正是大脑产生的自我模型给我们一种自我感觉，这是我们主观体验的核心。 如果没有“我”，那真的是一种体验吗？ 通过冥想练习，您可以暂时体验到这种自我丧失。 您可以放开自我的这种性格，而仅注意原始的感觉输入，例如身体的感觉和声音。 您仍然有意识，但是没有人类认为正常的方式。

Unlike with intelligence that seems hard to pin down, we can easily find the limitations of our consciousness. Try thinking actively of some object like a cube, while paying attention to your breathing. Add listening to the sounds around you. Now add awareness of your legs. You can’t. Somewhere between 2–3 steps you drop off. You lose the first and at best must rapidly alternate between 2–3 items of awareness. So there is a limit to what you can be conscious of, at least with humans. It does open an interesting possibility for extending human consciousness, or artificial consciousness. Imagine being conscious of your entire body and its myriad functions at once. Imagine being conscious of the Internet? Could you imagine being conscious of an entire planet at once?

与似乎难以确定的智力不同，我们可以轻松地发现意识的局限性。 在注意呼吸的同时，尝试积极思考一些物体，例如立方体。 聆听您周围的声音。 现在，增加对腿部的意识。 你不能 在2到3步之间的某个位置下车。 您首先失去，最多只能在2至3个意识项目之间快速交替。 因此，至少对于人类而言，您的意识是有限的。 它确实为扩展人类意识或人工意识开辟了一种有趣的可能性。 想象一下立刻意识到您的整个身体及其无数功能。 想象一下意识到互联网吗？ 您能想象一下立刻意识到整个星球吗？

So it’s all information, and information processing? No special sauce, no biological goo, or soul?

因此，所有的信息和信息处理？ 没有特殊的酱料，没有生物黏性物质或灵魂？

综合信息论 (Integrated Information Theory)

The idea that consciousness is purely a function of information is called substrate independence. Meaning, it is not limited by our physical systems of the brain and body, but can be reproduced artificially in silicon or metal. This makes no claim that we know how to pull off such a feat, or that it will be easy, just that it is possible.

意识纯粹是信息的功能的思想称为底物独立性。 意思是，它不受我们的大脑和身体物理系统的限制，但可以用硅或金属人工复制。 这并不能说我们知道如何实现这样的壮举，否则就不会容易，只要有可能。

If we consider that intelligence is a function of processing between inputs and outputs, then does consciousness emerge from pure information processing? If we assume that’s true, couldn’t we actually formalize that processing some way? That is the attempt of Integrated Information Theory (“IIT”), which is a recent and initial attempt at a scientific, rather than philosophical, understanding of consciousness.

如果我们认为智力是输入和输出之间处理的功能，那么意识是否会从纯粹的信息处理中出现？ 如果我们假设这是真的，那么我们真的不能以某种方式使该处理形式化吗？ 这就是综合信息理论(“ IIT”)的尝试，这是对意识的科学而非哲学理解的最新尝试。

Most interestingly, it also proposes a way to quantify consciousness. It’s called Phi. More Phi means more consciousness. This important step has evaded all major attempts at defining consciousness thus far, so IIT presents a major opportunity for the field to proceed to experiment and validate hypotheses about consciousness.

最有趣的是，它还提出了一种量化意识的方法。 叫做披。 更多的披披意味着更多的意识。 迄今为止，这一重要步骤避免了所有旨在定义意识的重大尝试，因此IIT为该领域提供了一个重要的机会，可以继续进行实验和验证关于意识的假设。

The premise of IIT is to say that information with integration indicates cause-effect power, i.e. abstract concepts within the information are causally related. This could have an evolutionary basis through the requirement for fast responses to environmental stimuli. A tail in the bushes means nothing, but it implies a lion, which implies being eaten. Further, IIT says that all experiences have a corresponding structure in your physical brain. A specific pattern of electrical signals is the visual cue of the tail of the lion, and another is the fear of being eaten by said lion.

IIT的前提是，具有集成的信息表示因果关系的力量，即信息中的抽象概念是因果相关的。 通过对环境刺激做出快速React的要求，这可能具有进化基础。 灌木丛中的尾巴没有任何意义，但是它意味着一头狮子，这意味着被吃掉了。 此外，个人信息技术说，所有经历在您的身体大脑中都有相应的结构。 电信号的一种特定模式是狮子尾巴的视觉提示，另一种是担心被所述狮子吞噬。

One major benefit of the IIT model is that it seems to explain the unconscious nature of the cerebellum, which has the most neurons of any brain section, yet has no correlated brain activity with conscious experiences. That’s that baseball catching part of your brain. Given you have 600 muscles in your body that fire up to 100 per second, it makes sense that a lot of bandwidth is required to learn and reproduce motor patterns. Think of a pianist in the climax of an energetic symphony. The pianist thinks in abstract representations like notes and timing, not finger movements. So the cerebellum is powerful, yet lacks the high degree of connectedness seen in the conscious neocortex. It’s lo-phi, pun intended.

IIT模型的一个主要好处是，它似乎可以解释小脑的无意识本质，该小脑具有任何大脑区域中最多的神经元，却没有与意识活动相关的大脑活动。 那就是棒球吸引了您的大脑。 假设您体内有600块肌肉，每秒可发射100块肌肉，那么学习和复制运动模式需要大量的带宽。 想像一下在充满活力的交响乐高潮中的钢琴家。 钢琴家以抽象的表示方式思考，例如音符和时间安排，而不是手指运动。 因此，小脑功能强大，但缺乏在有意识的新皮层中看到的高度连接性。 这是lo-phi ，双关语。

Experimentation will have to show us how much of IIT can be attributed to intelligence, or function, over consciousness alone. Can you truly perform complicated tasks that require intelligence without any integration? Perhaps, this may be a clue that consciousness comes along for free when you get to higher levels of intelligence?

实验必须向我们展示，仅凭意识，有多少IIT可以归因于智力或功能。 您是否可以在不进行任何集成的情况下真正执行需要智能的复杂任务？ 也许，这可能是当您进入更高水平的智力时意识是免费出现的线索？

关于人工智能，这一切怎么说？ (What does all this say about A.I.?)

If information is the whole and only game in town, then you would think neural networks are relevant to consider. After all, they are rudimentary representations of how the neurons of our own brains work, as far as we know, that is. The great irony of A.I. is that we don’t know those artificial neurons work, either. Really. It works, spectacularly well, in fact, but we’re not sure exactly how or why. There seems to be some magical capability attributed to a network of simple arithmetic operations with non-linearity repeated thousands of times. The artificial brains don’t learn as broadly or as quickly as a human brain, but they still learn a lot. Just by showing lots of samples labeled with possible outputs, even a small neural network can learn very intricate relationships from input to output. Sometimes beyond human-level, even.

如果信息是整个城镇中唯一的游戏，那么您会认为需要考虑神经网络。 毕竟，据我们所知，它们只是我们大脑神经元如何工作的基本表示。 AI的讽刺之处在于，我们也不知道这些人工神经元是否起作用。 真。 实际上，它的效果非常好，但是我们不确定确切如何或为什么。 似乎有一些神奇的功能归因于简单的算术运算网络，其非线性重复了数千次。 人工大脑的学习程度不及人类大脑，但仍然可以学到很多东西。 仅通过显示大量带有可能的输出标签的样本，即使是很小的神经网络也可以学习从输入到输出的非常复杂的关系。 有时甚至超出人类水平。

Currently, the major limitation of progress is around generalization. That means that if you learn one thing, you don’t need to learn every example to be effective in the real world. Babies don’t need to see all types of dogs to recognize a dog, but computers do. Humans can learn to play any type of game, from tennis to chess, but computers struggle to learn many things. They can be superhuman in one category, but the best we can do right now is learning across different Atari games or going from Go to Chess. That’s it. No tennis. No poetry. What’s missing?

当前，进展的主要限制是围绕概括。 这意味着，如果您学习一件事，则无需学习每个示例就可以在现实世界中发挥作用。 婴儿不需要看见所有类型的狗就可以识别狗，但是计算机可以识别。 人们可以学习玩任何类型的游戏，从网球到国际象棋，但是计算机很难学习很多东西。 它们在一类中可能是超人，但是我们现在能做的最好的就是学习不同的Atari游戏或从Go到Chess。 而已。 没有网球。 没有诗。 少了什么东西？

Surprisingly few people are actively working on this problem. Most of the commercially viable uses of A.I. don’t require anything remotely like human intelligence. In fact, if you just need to control valves in a chemical plant, it’s better to not do a bit of sudoku or jazz composition on the side. Focused algorithms are incredibly useful commercially.

令人惊讶的是，很少有人积极地解决这个问题。 人工智能在商业上的大多数可行用途都不需要像人类智能这样的远程工具。 实际上，如果您只需要控制化工厂中的阀门，最好不要在侧面做一些数独或爵士乐演奏。 聚焦算法在商业上非常有用。

One of the few people actively thinking about it is Jan LeCun, one of the early pioneers of modern machine learning techniques in image recognition. His proposal is that Reinforcement Learning is the right path. For context, that’s the type of algorithm behind AlphaZero, for example. It’s learning by carrot and stick. If you do good, you get a carrot. If you do bad, you get a stick. That alone left to do lots of learning can produce spectacular intelligence like world-beating chess algorithms. So that gets us pretty far. What then?

活跃于思考的少数人之一是Jan LeCun，他是图像识别中现代机器学习技术的早期开拓者之一。 他的建议是强化学习是正确的道路。 就上下文而言，例如，这就是AlphaZero背后的算法类型。 正在用胡萝卜和棍子学习。 如果做得好，就会得到胡萝卜。 如果做得不好，就会得到坚持。 剩下要做很多学习的地方，就可以产生惊人的智力，例如世界级的国际象棋算法。 这使我们走得很远。 然后怎样呢？

Well, LeCun suggests we need a world view. A framework to represent the real world out there. For example, when humans play chess we see the pieces and the board. They are objects with context and meaning. The algorithm doesn’t see any of this. No shape to the knight. No color to the board. It just sees numbers. Knight D4. Checkmate.

好吧，勒村建议我们需要一个世界视野。 一个代表现实世界的框架。 例如，当人们下棋时，我们会看到棋子和棋盘。 它们是具有上下文和含义的对象。 该算法看不到这些。 没有形状的骑士。 板上没有颜色。 它只是看到数字。 骑士D4。 将军。

The computer can learn the rules, but nothing about the objects. There is no meaning to moving a piece on the board, that can be reused in moving an apple. You might even argue, that even though the computer can play chess, it doesn’t understand chess. At all. To be precise, the computer can learn a function approximation that happens to have a strong correlation with good moves in chess. It’s not chess. If there was no human carrot and stick, it would in fact learn nothing whatsoever. The computer brain must be spoon-fed. This must change. The computer must be given a framework for modeling the world, just like humans. We understand deeply the environment we live in. How to move, how to find food, how to climb stairs, how to open doors, how to ask directions, how to hunt for jobs, how to write emails, and so on.

计算机可以学习规则，但是不了解对象。 在板上移动一块没有意义，可以在移动一个苹果时重复使用。 您甚至可能会争辩说，即使计算机可以下国际象棋，也无法理解国际象棋。 完全没有 准确地说，计算机可以学习一个函数近似值，该函数近似值与国际象棋中的良好步伐具有很强的相关性。 不是国际象棋。 如果没有人类的胡萝卜和棍子，它实际上将一无所获。 计算机的大脑必须用勺子喂食。 这必须改变。 必须给计算机一个像人类一样建模世界的框架。 我们对生活的环境有深刻的了解。如何移动，如何寻找食物，如何爬楼梯，如何打开门，如何问路，如何寻找工作，如何写电子邮件等等。

What if we got there? What if a computer could do all that? An exact functional replica of a human, but made from silicon and copper wire?

如果我们到达那里怎么办？ 如果计算机可以完成所有这些操作怎么办？ 是人类的精确功能复制品，但由硅和铜线制成吗？

但是灯仍然会亮吗？ (But are the lights still going to be on?)

This comes back to our question of substrate independence. If you cloned yourself, which is technically already possible, then is the clone conscious? Seems that would be automatically true, even if it isn’t your consciousness anymore. It’s a copy. How far can you take that, though? If you just scanned your brain at the molecular or even quantum level into a computer simulation, would that be you, another copy of you, or just a virtual zombie lacking real human consciousness? Is a function approximation of the conscious behaviors enough to pass the test?

这回到了我们关于底物独立性的问题。 如果您克隆了自己，这在技术上已经可行，那么克隆意识是否高明？ 即使不再是您的意识，这似乎也将自动成立。 是副本。 不过，您可以走多远？ 如果您只是在分子甚至量子水平上扫描大脑，然后进入计算机模拟，那是您，您的另一个副本，还是只是缺乏真实人类意识的虚拟僵尸？ 有意识的行为的函数近似值足以通过测试吗？

How can we know? When Alan Turing invented the computer during WWII, he already thought of this. He saw the evolution from a room-sized calculator to human-level intelligence, that it was possible. He came up with the Turing Test, which states that a human interacting with an entity in another room, solely through means of writing, should be able to discern whether this other entity is human or not. If they can’t, the result should be that the entity possesses human-level intelligence. So, chatbots then?

我们怎么知道 当阿兰·图灵(Alan Turing)在第二次世界大战期间发明计算机时，他已经想到了这一点。 他看到了从房间大小的计算器到人类水平的智能的演变的可能性。 他提出了图灵测验，该测验指出，仅通过书写方式，与另一个房间中的某个实体进行交互的人应该能够辨别该另一个实体是否为人类。 如果他们做不到，那么结果应该是该实体拥有人类级别的情报。 那么，聊天机器人呢？

Already, claims have been made about passing the Turing Test with relatively simple algorithms. The usual tactic is to try to steer the human in a direction the algorithm can provide memorized answers in a human manner. But this never lasts. Given more than a few minutes, it breaks down eventually. We’ve all been there with Siri. Gradually, that will be pushed out further, with longer and more meaningful conversations that can be carried out by chatbots. Even if, again, they understand nothing of language itself. Yet much like with AlphaZero, a conversation is just one aspect of human intelligence. A hermit could have a rich inner life without stating one word while producing incredible intellectual or artistic feats. So how do we test for “real” intelligence or even “real” consciousness?

已经有人宣称可以通过相对简单的算法通过图灵测试。 通常的策略是尝试将人引向算法可以以人为方式提供记忆的答案的方向。 但这永远不会持续。 经过几分钟，它最终崩溃了。 我们都去过Siri。 聊天机器人可以逐步进行更长时间和更有意义的对话，从而将其进一步推广。 即使他们再次不懂语言本身。 就像AlphaZero一样，对话只是人类智能的一个方面。 一个隐士在说出一句话的同时，可能会拥有丰富的内心生活，同时产生令人难以置信的知识或艺术成就。 那么我们如何测试“真实”智力甚​​至“真实”意识？

Amusingly, science fiction may have given us the answer decades ago. Blade Runner introduced the Voigt Kampf test, which was used to identify human-like cyborgs from the human population. Especially, when those cyborgs went rogue and violent. The test itself is designed to provoke emotional responses indicative of that special flavor of quality so key to the human experience. Difficult ethical and moral questions would be asked while measuring the pupil’s response as an indicator of emotional response. Kind of like a lie-detector test for the soul.

有趣的是，科幻小说可能在几十年前就给了我们答案。 《银翼杀手》推出了Voigt Kampf测试，该测试用于从人群中识别类似人的机器人。 尤其是当这些电子人流氓暴行时。 该测试本身旨在引起情绪React，从而表明这种特殊的品质风味是人类体验的关键。 在测量学生的React作为情感React的指标时，会提出困难的道德和道德问题。 有点像对灵魂的测谎器测试。

There is a fundamental problem with any such test though. This was shown by John Searle in his Chinese Room Experiment. It shows that an A.I. system can behave exactly as an intelligent, conscious entity should, but actually be utterly and completely clueless as to the contents of the experience it is having or part of.

但是，任何此类测试都存在一个基本问题。 约翰·塞尔(John Searle)在他的中文房间实验中对此进行了演示。 它显示了AI系统可以完全像一个智能的，有意识的实体那样工作，但是实际上对于它所拥有的或一部分的经验的内容是完全毫无头绪的。

Back in the world of today, we can also look at IIT for a measure of consciousness. The higher the integration of information, or Phi, the higher the consciousness, according to the theory. By design, simple feed-forward neural networks have a Phi of exactly zero, and cannot be conscious. There is learning but no integration. Yet more complicated networks such as recurrent neural networks or reinforcement learning can be shown to have positive Phi. That seems to imply that AlphaZero is conscious. It is doing a lot of integration of information, in fact. As much as a bacteria or fly? This we cannot yet say due to open questions in applying IIT and calculating Phi, but it seems very unlikely we should have immediate ethical concerns about Deepmind’s ethical treatment of AlphaZero as a conscious entity.

回到当今世界，我们还可以将IIT作为一种意识量度。 根据理论，信息或Phi的集成度越高，意识就越高。 通过设计，简单的前馈神经网络的Phi值恰好为零，并且无法自觉。 有学习但没有整合。 更为复杂的网络(例如递归神经网络或强化学习)可以显示为正Phi。 这似乎暗示着AlphaZero是有意识的。 实际上，它正在做很多信息整合。 多达细菌还是苍蝇？ 由于在应用IIT和计算Phi方面存在悬而未决的问题，我们尚未能说出这一点，但是对于Deepmind对AlphaZero作为有意识实体的道德对待，我们似乎不太可能立即面临道德上的担忧。

A.I. researcher Joscha Bach has gone as far as to state that only simulations can be conscious, implying that physical systems cannot. Note that since the brain simulates the world and self, our consciousness would fall under this definition of simulation, while a rock would not. This would be an argument against panpsychism, whereby consciousness is everywhere in the universe, just to different degrees in all matter. AlphaZero does model the world but does not really model itself, so it might fall short here for now.

AI研究人员Joscha Bach甚至指出，只有仿真才有意识，这意味着物理系统无法做到。 请注意，由于大脑模拟了世界和自我，因此我们的意识将落入这种模拟定义之下，而岩石则不会。 这将是反对泛精神论证的论证，在泛论论中，意识在宇宙中无处不在，在所有物质上都不同程度。 AlphaZero确实对世界建模，但并未真正对自身建模，因此目前可能还不够。

这难道不是全部都是突发现象吗？ (Couldn’t this just all be emergent phenomena?)

Let’s go back to the only conscious beings we can be certain about, namely ourselves. We know about evolution. Couldn’t this all just be explained away as emergent phenomena from how our brains evolved? Ants may not have the capacity in neurons to have regrets about the-one-that-got-away, but we do. Maybe suffering and regret are what got us here. Our brains developed relatively rapidly once fire and weapons allowed us to congregate in larger social groups. If you learn to suffer, you can learn to avoid a broad set of behaviors that may lead to the ultimate suffering in death itself. Intelligence allows you to regret in hindsight, and plan into the future to avoid potential sources of regret. It’s all very nuanced, but the intricacy of human interaction is endless.

让我们回到我们可以确定的唯一有意识的生物，即我们自己。 我们了解进化。 难道这一切都不能解释为大脑进化过程中出现的现象吗？ 蚂蚁可能没有神经元的能力去为那个被遗忘的人后悔，但是我们做到了。 也许痛苦和遗憾是我们来到这里的原因。 一旦火力和武器使我们聚集在更大的社会群体中，我们的大脑就会相对快速地发展。 如果您学会受苦，就可以避免各种可能导致死亡的最终苦难的行为。 智力可以让您事后后悔，并计划将来避免潜在的后悔之源。 一切都很细微，但人类互动的复杂性无穷无尽。

But then how in the world did we develop all this nuance? How can the brain produce such incredible deep complexity out of monkeys beating each other with sticks? If intelligence and consciousness are so closely linked in human evolution, then how does it work inside our brain? Well, sadly, we don’t know that either. Given how much we’ve done with our brains, from General Relativity to the Human Genome Project, and going to the moon, we seem to know incredibly little about the source of all this intellectual progress.

但是，我们究竟如何发展了所有这些细微差别？ 猴子如何用棍棒互相殴打，大脑如何产生如此难以置信的深度复杂性？ 如果智力和意识在人类进化中如此紧密地联系在一起，那么它如何在我们的大脑中发挥作用？ 好吧，可悲的是，我们也不知道。 从广义相对论到人类基因组计划，再到登月，鉴于我们已经做了很多事情，我们似乎对这些智力进步的来源知之甚少。

We certainly know the parts of the brain, what some of them are functionally related to, how they evolved from lesser species, and we can measure brain activity as electrical signals between parts of the brain. That’s it. We have no idea about how learning works, for example. There is no human learning algorithm, even though we can now teach neural networks to beat us in chess. Part of it, of course, is our limited moral capacity for experimentation. Hannibal Lecter wouldn’t get many research grants. The other is just the sheer complexity of the system. There are more neurons in one human brain than stars in our galaxy, and that’s around 100 billion. Each neuron is connected to another 10,000 neurons. It boggles the mind, pun intended.

我们当然知道大脑的各个部分，其中一些与功能相关，它们是如何从较少的物种进化而来的，我们可以将大脑活动作为大脑各部分之间的电信号进行测量。 而已。 例如，我们对学习如何运作一无所知。 There is no human learning algorithm, even though we can now teach neural networks to beat us in chess. Part of it, of course, is our limited moral capacity for experimentation. Hannibal Lecter wouldn't get many research grants. The other is just the sheer complexity of the system. There are more neurons in one human brain than stars in our galaxy, and that's around 100 billion. Each neuron is connected to another 10,000 neurons. It boggles the mind, pun intended.

One fascinating novel approach to unraveling the relationship between the inputs and outputs of the brain is the Thousand Brains Theory. According to this framework, we don’t have a brain. Instead, we have thousands of little brains, that are connected. These are the so-called cortical columns that are somewhat self-contained stacks of neurons, that include a special type of neuron called a grid cell that interprets spacial information. No one column ever does anything alone.

One fascinating novel approach to unraveling the relationship between the inputs and outputs of the brain is the Thousand Brains Theory. According to this framework, we don't have a brain. Instead, we have thousands of little brains, that are connected. These are the so-called cortical columns that are somewhat self-contained stacks of neurons, that include a special type of neuron called a grid cell that interprets spacial information. No one column ever does anything alone.

The idea is that you have hundreds or even thousands of these units receiving the same signal, like in the visual cortex. Then they all produce an output of some sort. They vote. Yes, vote. This is why you can know there is a floor underneath the rug, without having to see it. Your brain can use a variety of sensory and memory inputs to estimate three-dimensional objects, like mugs. That’s how you know exactly where to place your fingers to reach and hold the backside of the handle.

The idea is that you have hundreds or even thousands of these units receiving the same signal, like in the visual cortex. Then they all produce an output of some sort. They vote. Yes, vote. This is why you can know there is a floor underneath the rug, without having to see it. Your brain can use a variety of sensory and memory inputs to estimate three-dimensional objects, like mugs. That's how you know exactly where to place your fingers to reach and hold the backside of the handle.

This model (B) is very different from the traditional model (A) that has also inspired current Deep Learning techniques. Deep Learning assumes a hierarchy of connected layers of neurons, each responsible for higher levels of detail resulting ultimately in a decision or recognition.

This model (B) is very different from the traditional model (A) that has also inspired current Deep Learning techniques. Deep Learning assumes a hierarchy of connected layers of neurons, each responsible for higher levels of detail resulting ultimately in a decision or recognition.

Maybe this is why babies are so excited about peek-a-boo, since their thousand brains haven’t yet acquired memories to say what happens behind the curtain of the hands, and they genuinely believe you disappeared behind your hands. This works for dogs, too. Maybe that’s why babies are clumsy. Their thousand brains are still practicing this choir performance of voting in real-time to produce the right actions.

Maybe this is why babies are so excited about peek-a-boo, since their thousand brains haven't yet acquired memories to say what happens behind the curtain of the hands, and they genuinely believe you disappeared behind your hands. This works for dogs, too. Maybe that's why babies are clumsy. Their thousand brains are still practicing this choir performance of voting in real-time to produce the right actions.

This whole thing sounds like hogwash (This whole thing sounds like hogwash)

Well, many leading scientists would agree. Consciousness has always been a bit of a fringe science between philosophy, psychology, physics, and neuroscience, without ever becoming a serious topic of study. Until now, perhaps triggered by the rapid evolution of artificial intelligence, and increasing ethical questions about the treatment of animals. We need answers to these questions, and the pressure is mounting.

Well, many leading scientists would agree. Consciousness has always been a bit of a fringe science between philosophy, psychology, physics, and neuroscience, without ever becoming a serious topic of study. Until now, perhaps triggered by the rapid evolution of artificial intelligence, and increasing ethical questions about the treatment of animals. We need answers to these questions, and the pressure is mounting.

Yet many, such as professor Sean Carroll would simply say there’s nothing special going on. Wallace has said there is no physics of digestion either, it’s just biology, end of the story. Yet even rather outlandish concepts like Panpsychism are gaining some ground, presenting consciousness more as a force of nature like gravity, than a mere biological function. In that scenario, even rocks are conscious, just… less so.

Yet many, such as professor Sean Carroll would simply say there's nothing special going on. Wallace has said there is no physics of digestion either, it's just biology, end of the story. Yet even rather outlandish concepts like Panpsychism are gaining some ground, presenting consciousness more as a force of nature like gravity, than a mere biological function. In that scenario, even rocks are conscious, just… less so.

The future of consciousness (The future of consciousness)

So what’s the end game here? It’s a whole lot of reading and terminology you’ve suffered through to get here. Let’s close out with something juicy.

So what's the end game here? It's a whole lot of reading and terminology you've suffered through to get here. Let's close out with something juicy.

Apparently, a young Elon Musk came to the conclusion that the meaning of life is to spread consciousness across the universe. This is why it is our prerogative to explore the moon, Mars, and beyond. To seed the universe with the gift of life and consciousness. The human panspermia. This is especially true if there are no aliens out there, as the Fermi Paradox seems to suggest. It’s up to us to be the champions of life in the universe.

Apparently, a young Elon Musk came to the conclusion that the meaning of life is to spread consciousness across the universe. This is why it is our prerogative to explore the moon, Mars, and beyond. To seed the universe with the gift of life and consciousness. The human panspermia. This is especially true if there are no aliens out there, as the Fermi Paradox seems to suggest. It's up to us to be the champions of life in the universe.

So what plans does Elon have for our consciousnesses? Well, he wants to tinker with them a little. Like, introduce a tertiary layer. Meaning the internet. Possibly with A.I. too. Oh, there’s a catch. It involves needles. But don’t worry, a robot will insert thousands of micron-scale electrodes into your neocortex. Super carefully. Only an inch deep or so. Oh, also the batteries. We’re gonna need to take out a bit of skull. No big deal, you won’t miss it, honestly. Like a coin size bit. Basically the brain jack from The Matrix, but maybe under general anesthesia. Not something you want to be conscious during.

So what plans does Elon have for our consciousnesses? Well, he wants to tinker with them a little. Like, introduce a tertiary layer. Meaning the internet. Possibly with AI too. Oh, there's a catch. It involves needles. But don't worry, a robot will insert thousands of micron-scale electrodes into your neocortex. Super carefully. Only an inch deep or so. Oh, also the batteries. We're gonna need to take out a bit of skull. No big deal, you won't miss it, honestly. Like a coin size bit. Basically the brain jack from The Matrix, but maybe under general anesthesia. Not something you want to be conscious during.

Initially, like with most of Elon’s grand plans, the R&D will be funded through commercial use-cases. This is a great lesson for any entrepreneur. In this instance, that means curing brain conditions like Alzheimer’s, epilepsy, autism, or blindness. Yes, curing blindness is on the menu in 2020. These are all major societal problems and therefore billion-dollar opportunities. It will directly help millions of people with debilitating health conditions while funding the real vision of a tertiary layer of the brain for healthy people.

Initially, like with most of Elon's grand plans, the R&D will be funded through commercial use-cases. This is a great lesson for any entrepreneur. In this instance, that means curing brain conditions like Alzheimer's, epilepsy, autism, or blindness. Yes, curing blindness is on the menu in 2020. These are all major societal problems and therefore billion-dollar opportunities. It will directly help millions of people with debilitating health conditions while funding the real vision of a tertiary layer of the brain for healthy people.

So what’s Elon’s stance on the C-word? Elon would fall into the emergence camp. Everything from 0 and 1. No special sauce. If you can fix the TV by kicking it, you can fix the brain by zapping it through those electrodes. That’s it. Get your eyesight back, stop those seizures. But those electrodes can also download. Your thoughts, your memories, your emotions. Backed up to the cloud. First via USB, then wireless.

So what's Elon's stance on the C-word? Elon would fall into the emergence camp. Everything from 0 and 1. No special sauce. If you can fix the TV by kicking it, you can fix the brain by zapping it through those electrodes. 而已。 Get your eyesight back, stop those seizures. But those electrodes can also download. Your thoughts, your memories, your emotions. Backed up to the cloud. First via USB, then wireless.

From there, he proposes maybe you can even restore. Just like your phone or laptop, when it goes whack. Restore from the latest backup. Good to go. Want to erase a few awkward memories from last night? Swipe right. For the small step for mankind from there to literal immortality, all you really need is a new biological substrate. Say, like a clone.

From there, he proposes maybe you can even restore. Just like your phone or laptop, when it goes whack. Restore from the latest backup. Good to go. Want to erase a few awkward memories from last night? Swipe right. For the small step for mankind from there to literal immortality, all you really need is a new biological substrate. Say, like a clone.

The trillion-dollar question is this: is it you though? I mean, maybe it strokes your ego if a clone picks up where you left off, but “you” would still be dead forever. The difference here is that between sleep and death. You feel like the same person after sleep, but death is a one-way ticket. If we can’t really tell the difference, does it matter to you personally? Obviously, the clone that wakes up would totally say they are you with all your memories intact. But is that the same you waking up in a new younger hotter body, or just a clone with your memories?

The trillion-dollar question is this: is it you though? I mean, maybe it strokes your ego if a clone picks up where you left off, but “you” would still be dead forever. The difference here is that between sleep and death. You feel like the same person after sleep, but death is a one-way ticket. If we can't really tell the difference, does it matter to you personally? Obviously, the clone that wakes up would totally say they are you with all your memories intact. But is that the same you waking up in a new younger hotter body, or just a clone with your memories?

Sooner or later, we may all have to make our own judgment.

Sooner or later, we may all have to make our own judgment.

Aki Ranin is the founder of two startups, based in Singapore. Healthzilla is a health-tech company and creator of the Healthzilla health analytics app (iOS) (Android). Bambu is a Fintech company that provides digital wealth solutions for financial services companies.

Aki Ranin is the founder of two startups, based in Singapore. Healthzilla is a health-tech company and creator of the Healthzilla health analytics app ( iOS ) ( Android ). Bambu is a Fintech company that provides digital wealth solutions for financial services companies.