[ExI] very rough model of simulator and one version of consciousness

sam micheal micheals at msu.edu
Tue Jan 20 15:36:03 UTC 2009

now, with the model below - i have to make a couple statements: it is 
Extremely rough - no assumption is made about correctness nor 
completeness. so i would prefer readers send suggestions about component 
corrections or extensions - not simply dismissal like regan seems to 
prefer. regan would seem to prefer to reject point by point - just to 
dismiss my ideas - without reading or understanding. perhaps it is their 
job to confuse and obfuscate - so i would take any of their statements 
with a large "grain" of salt; don't just take regan's word for it - 
*read for yourself and decide for yourself*. the other point about the 
model is that there is no assumption made that it is anything similar to 
human consciousness - i am NOT saying this is how we think or are aware. 
it is only a guess. it is only a model of the guess. so plz don't assume 
i am saying "this is a complete and accurate model of human 
consciousness" - it is NOT.

A COnscious MAchine Simulator -- ACOMAS

Salvatore Gerard Micheal, *modified* 15/JAN/09



   2 cross verifying senses (simulated)

      hearing (stereo)

      seeing (stereo)

   *motivation subsystem (specs to be determined)*

*   information filters (4 controlled hierarchically)*

   *supervisory symbol register (same as below)*

   short-term*/primary* symbol register (8^3 symbols arranged in 8x8x8 

   rule-base (self verifying and extending)

   *rule-base symbol register (same as above)*

   3D visualization register *(10^12 bits arranged in 10000x10000x10000 

   models of reality (at least 2)

   morality (unmodifiable and uncircumventable)

      don't steal, kill, lie, or harm

   goal list (modifiable, prioritized)

   output devices

      robotic arms (simulated -- 2)

      voice-synthesizer and speaker

      video display unit

   local environment (simulated)

   operator (simulated, controlled by operator)



 test feasibility of construct for an actual conscious machine

 discover timing requirements for working prototype

 discover specifications of objects

 discover implications/consequences of enhanced intelligence

  (humans have 7 short-term symbol registers)

 discover implications/consequences of emotionless consciousness


Specifications -- The registers are the core of the device -- the 
(qualified) 'controllers' of the system (acting on goal list), the 
reasoners of the system (identifying rules), but all constrained by 
morality. The goal list should be instantaneously modifiable. For 
instance, an operator can request "show me your goal list" .. "delete 
that item" or "move that item to the top" .. "learn the rules of chess" 
and the device should comply immediately. Otherwise, the device plays 
with its environment -- learning new rules and proposing new experiments.


The purpose of the cross verifying senses is to reinforce the 'sense of 
identity' established by these, registers, and model of reality. The 
reason for 'at least 2' models is to provide a 'means-ends' basis for 
problem solving -- one model to represent local environment 'as is' and 
another for the desired outcome of the top goal. The purpose for 
arranging the short-term register in a 3D array is to give the capacity 
for 'novel thought' processes (humans have a tendency to think in linear 
sequential terms). The reason for designing a self verifying and 
extending rule-base is because that has a tendency to be a data and 
processing intensive activity -- if we designed the primary task of the 
device to be a 'rule-base analyzer', undoubtedly the device would spend 
the bulk of its time on related tasks (thereby creating a rule-base 
analyzer device and not a conscious machine). The 'models of reality' 
could be as simple as a list of objects and locations. Or, they could be 
a virtual reality implemented on a dedicated machine. This applies to 
the 'local environment' as well. For operator convenience, the simulated 
local environment should be in the form of a virtual reality. So the 
operator would interact with the device in a virtual world (in the 
simulated version). In this version, the senses, robot arms, and 
operator presence -- would all be virtual. This should be clarified to 
the device so that any transition to 'real reality' would not have 
destructive consequences.


*Modifications: the specs for the visualization register at this time 
were "either or" -- either a restricted VR (as described in the specs-01 
document) or a bit-array. Since I'm not a VR programmer, it was simpler 
for me to specify my "best guess" at the requirements for a bit-array. A 
dedicated rule-base symbol register was added because that subsystem 
will likely be "register hogging" and won't allow the device to freely 
"pay attention" to anything else but rule-base development. The 
supervisory symbol register was added also to "free up" the primary 
symbol register for "attentive tasks". The purpose of that is exactly 
what it says: to take directives directly from the motivation subsystem 
and "tell" the rest of the system what to do. For instance, the 
rule-base register may be currently scanning the rule-base for 
consistency (since there were no immediate tasks assigned). The primary 
symbol register is telling the robotic arms to push a set of toy blocks 
over (since it is in play/experiment mode -- to see what happens). The 
supervisory symbol register just received a directive from motivation: 
try to make Sam laugh with a joke. A possible scenario is described in 
specs-01. (The directive would have to entail "researching" what a joke 
is -- in the rule-base, what qualifies as "laughing", and any other 
definitions required to satisfy the directive. If those researches were 
not satisfied, the directive would have to be discarded or questions 
asked of the operator: "Sam, what's a joke?") ..After outlining the 
'conscious part' in a schematic 'block diagram', I realized information 
filters would be required implemented in a hierarchical fashion (this 
basic design was approached in '95). Senses feed: motivation, 
supervisor, primary register, and visualization register. But through 
filters: motivation controls its own and the supervisor filter; 
supervisor controls the filters feeding the registers. Directives/info 
flows directly from: motivation to supervisor and supervisor to 
registers. Signals before and after filters would be analogous to 
sensations and perceptions: the hierarchical 'filter control structure' 
decides what sensations are perceived by lower registers -- thereby 
controlling sensation impact and actual register content. Whether or not 
humans actually think like this, I believe the structure is rich enough 
to at least mimic human consciousness. The crux, 'the Achilles Heel', 
becomes motivation. The motivation subsystem must be flexible and 
focusable. It cannot be overly flexible (completely random) or overly 
rigid (focusing only on the goal list). Its control of the filters 
(including its own) must be adaptable and expedient. Its purpose is to 
guide the system away from inane repetition, 'blind alleys' (unnavigable 
logical sequences and unprovable physics), and catastrophic failure; 
simultaneously, guide the system toward robust and reliable solutions to 
problems, expedient play/experimentation, and engaging conversation with 
the operator. If this sounds impossible, try to raise a baby without any 
experience! You learn fast! ;)*


My ultimate purpose of creating a conscious machine is not out of ego or 
self aggrandizement. I simply want to see if it can be done. If it can 
be done, then create something creative with potential. My mother argues 
a robot can never 'procreate' because they are not 'flesh and blood'. It 
can never have insight or other elusive human qualities. I argue that 
they can 'procreate' in their own way and are only limited by their 
creators. If we can 'distill' the essence of consciousness in a 
construct (like above), if we can implement it on a set of computer 
hardware and software, if we give that construct the capacity for 
growth, if that construct has even a minimal creative ability (such as 
with GA/GP), and critically limit its behavior by morality (such as 
above), we have created a sentient being (not just an 
artificial/synthetic consciousness). I focus on morality because if such 
a device became widespread, undoubtedly they would be abused to perform 
'unsavory' tasks which would have fatal legal consequences for inventor 
and producer alike.


In this context, I propose we establish 'robot rights' before they are 
developed in order to provide a framework for dealing with abuses and 
'violations of law'. Now, all this may seem like science fiction to 
most. But I contend we have focused far too long on what we call 'AI' 
and expert systems. For too long we have blocked real progress in 
machine intelligence by one of two things: mystifying 'the human animal' 
(by basically saying it can't be done) -- or -- staring at an 
inappropriate paradigm. It's good to understand linguistics and vision 
-- without that understanding, perhaps we could not implement certain 
portions of the construct above. But unless we focus on the mechanisms 
of consciousness, we will never model it, simulate it, or create it 


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20090120/8c9fa734/attachment.html>

More information about the extropy-chat mailing list