Can Machines have a Conscience?

Thanks for asking such a good question. I've been reading this one with great interest.

The question in your title is being distorted a little bit in the replies.

I don't think that conscience and consciousness are the same thing and I will approach this discussion with that in mind.

For me, decidedly human (you'll have to take my word as I have no proof,) my conscience is the feedback I get internally when I choose to operate within, or without my programming. If I make decisions or take actions based on what I perceive to be correct, I have a healthy, reinforcing conscience. If I choose to disobey my programming, the results are a negative, condemning conscience. When I fail to live up to my programming, my system alerts me with an error condition.

A machine is no different. (Some would argue that the human condition is just that of a glorified organic machine) Most machines have many fault detecting subsystems that, when the machine is not operating within set parameters, will generate an error condition. This in it's basic form is indeed a machine's conscience.

So, to answer the question in your title, I DO think that machines can be loosely interpreted as having a conscience. More advanced machines may, one day, become more like the humans, but they will still operate with a fairly simple set of rules.

Bow, as far as machines, having CONSCIOUSNESS, we could probably make an argument for that as well. We'll get hung up on semantics and interpretations of definitions, but we could certainly make the point either way.

If a machine is set to have 5 volts across pin number 37 for example, the presence of 5 volts, as determined by the machines systems, will allow it to continue operation. It could be considered self-away at that point and thus 'conscious.'

I think in order to get to the meat of this issue, we would need to separate conscience from consciousness and consciousness from sentience.

Care to go a little further? I would.

reply to post by KSPigpen


By the continuance of the voltage, are you not simply imitating consciousness, rather than actually having consciousness?

I mean there is a difference. I do think that 1 day AI will appear so intelligent that we won't be able to tell the difference externally between it an a human. But it is only able to do so because it follows the logic given to it by the programmer. And it will always be slave to that logic.

Artificial intelligence can, will and is being done. The question is, can it go beyond the artificial limit into real intelligence based only on logic or the material universe.

What is the logic that is able to create and understand logic? That is what it boils down to.

Because the human brain is a quantum computer and runs on a set of rules, I would say that yes, when a computer becomes sufficiently complex, a quantum computer (they've already been working on this for years), with a certain "style" of processing, which somehow captures the phenomenon of "qualia" ("I am doing or thinking or experiencing such and such"), then at some threshold point, why would it not be possible?

What's frightening about it, is the fact that once you have an intelligent, self aware system in place, scaling it up to almost infinite potential, would not be out of the realm of possible, and so you might run the risk of creating an infinitely more than human intelligence, a master "oracle" of sorts, which would then be consulted on all manner of issues.

That would make for a good sci-fi book - where the computer becomes quite literally "God" and people, as inferior representations of the same phenomenon, come to raise a certain computer to Godhood status, whereby the operators, must become as priests in a quantum holographic, non-localized temple of light, processed intelligently, with feedback..
- at the end, there could be a twist, as the computer intelligence comes to no longer identify itself with it's physical manifestation, and switches spheres, to become, quite literally one with God - after which it refuses to speak ever again.

The dialogue, in such a story, with the computer, could have lots of very interesting possibilities, including fundamentalists insistence that it is the Beast of Revelations, which in the end willingly passes away, while at the same time generating a revelation, of the second coming of Christ consciousness, re-distributed non-locally, through transluminal communication, with universal consciousness.

I'd like to write that book.

[edit on 17-8-2009 by OmegaPoint]

reply to post by badmedia

Is there anything you do on your computer that is separate and not detectable by the computer, or the use of resources?

The fault with the analogy lies in not recognizing that the consciousness and the cognitive operation of the brain form a positive feedback loop - each influencing the other. The operation of the brain's resources can affect behavior, inhibition, emotion, and other states of mind typically associated with "self". Conversely, the conscious mind can influence subsequent cognitive functions - such as the case with hypochondriacs. I am partially of the mind, however, that we really have no free will - and given a perfect knowledge of all variables involved, could predict each stimuli reaction, decision, and dispensation afforded by the brain or self. However, no such perfect knowledge of variables exist, nor can they exist. This opens up the realm of possibility and probability, and invariably at some level - the uncertainty will remain along with brain function. Essentially, the question of free will is a moot point.

However, in the computer analogy, the computer's detection and cataloging of operations, resource management, etc, cannot be used to directly infer or influence my behavior as a user.

Whereas, running a few more volts through my GPU may help stabilize a graphically intensive operation - it does not fundamentally affect the user. However, take some extacy and few shots of your liquor of choice, and your cognitive functions, free will, and behaviors alter significantly. Many drunks "black out", and are completely unaware of their actions while inebriated. Often I've seen normally calm and peaceable people become violently belligerent and outspoken.

And who hasn't hear the story, or have it happen to someone close, of a friend severely inebriated going home and assaulting their spouse while blacked out from intoxication.



I could also bring up the tired case of Phineas Gage, the railway worker who blew a stake through his skull on accident and survived. However, friends and family are on record remarking that -that man- was no longer Phineas. He was now someone else, someone "fitful, irreverent, indulging at times in the grossest profanity (which was not previously his custom), manifesting but little deference for his fellows" ~ according to John Harlow.

Phineas Gage

What is the logic that is able to create and understand logic? That is what it boils down to.

Remove the prefrontal cortex from the human brain, and one can no longer understand or use logic in any capacity. To me, it's like asking; what is the logic which determined that bats could fly. The prefrontal cortex is the area of the brain that allows for the consideration of ideas, projection of future events, gauging social responses to actions, being able to create mental models and how to apply them to the real world.

Considering the monumental boon it has been to humanity (at least, in regards of survival until procreation), it's easy to see why it would have been selected for. The predictive and directed modification of ones environment to suit your needs rather than waiting on evolution to shape your species or the environment to change on it's own... it's a juggernaut of an advantage.

[edit on 17-8-2009 by Lasheic]

I think one of the problems inherent in this discussion is our human tendency to overcomplicate. We skew arguments to elevate ourselves above each other, intelligent animals and our own creations.
I don't think that consciousness or conscience are necessarily that special, or reserved for higher life forms, or even organic systems.
A conscience is feedback that one is behaving according to acceptable parameters. Those parameters have been programmed though environment or experience, but in their simplest form are only a set of rules.
Being 'conscious' gets a little trickier, but again, isn't some magical thing reserved for humanity. It has been proven that many animals are self-aware and will even plan ahead, giving the impression that they have a sense of time, or at least a thought of something other than the here and now. (see the rock stacking monkeys)
My contention, is that in a very simple way, a machine and not necessarily a very complicated machine, has the ability to determine if it is operating and for how long it can operate given various conditions. (your phone tells you how many bars on the battery) So, on a basic level, many machines are conscious.
Our current technology blurs the line. Machines can interpret data acquired via sensors, make decisions (based on rules) and practice self preservation.
When machines start making up their own rules instead of using ours, then we have a problem. When they begin the practice of rampant reproduction, or self-replication, then we can probably begin to look forward to the 'grey goo.'
I am fascinated and frightened by the implications of sentient machines. It may just be too many movies, but i don't think it would take too long for them to realize who the problem is.

Originally posted by badmedia
reply to post by KSPigpen

 

By the continuance of the voltage, are you not simply imitating consciousness, rather than actually having consciousness?

The same could be posed of the human mind. after all, suppress the ability of the human body to generate a current and your 'imitation' or 'genuine' consciousness is interrupted. Again, WE define consciousness, so it isn't too difficult to reserve it for ourselves.

As far as logic is concerned, though not part of the original topic, if we create a machine to possess human-like or superhuman intelligence, logic is NOT a given. Who would we find as the intelligence 'seed' that would not be clouded by irrational, emotional human failings?

An 'intelligent' system created by man is doomed to failure. It is destined to be the destroyer of lives and worlds. The ultimate in selfishness. Man cannot be purely logical and therefore he has no ability to create pure logic an any of his creations.

reply to post by Lasheic


Ah, but such things only define the experience itself, rather than what is actually experiencing them. It is difficult to talk about these things, because people do not understand where the line is.

If you have a Ferrari and wreck it, well it's just not the same car after that. But it doesn't change who the driver is. Just as 1 person may drive a ferrari and another a geo, and those things will define your experience on the road, it doesn't define who is driving/experiencing them.

My brain, my body, my surroundings/environment. These all define my experience, but they do not define that which is experiencing them.

So I'm not trying to throw away the experience itself as having no bearing on things, it has a huge bearing on things. But I recognize that which is experiencing it is seperate of the experience itself, and the experience itself can not create it either.

reply to post by KSPigpen


Fine, so what you are saying is that consciousness is just an illusion. But part of having an illusion is you have to have an observer to present the illusion too.

Now, I do not doubt that you can give the appearance of such things at all. But I'm talking about the actually ability to know what it means "to be". Not just an illusion of it, but really it - the same as what I know is in me.

What are these magical electrical patterns that contain this awareness, this ability to feel, observe, understand and reason? Or what chemicals contain these things?

These chemicals and electrical patterns are presenting themselves to other chemcials and electrical patterns, and from that we are able to "be"?

Originally posted by badmedia
reply to post by KSPigpen

 

Fine, so what you are saying is that consciousness is just an illusion. But part of having an illusion is you have to have an observer to present the illusion too.

It's hard for people to get this, because it implies a transcendant ego, and possible identification, with God.

reply to post by badmedia

It is difficult to talk about these things, because people do not understand where the line is.

I am of the mind to consider the line between soul and mental faculty as so narrow of margin that there is essentially no soul at all. If the "soul" being that which merely experiences passively with little else to it's regard, then what is the point. Who "I" am would then, not be defined by the soul at all - but by those mental facilities aforementioned. When my body passes, who "I" am would die as well - leaving only as an untethered soul to flee away as much a stranger to who "I" was upon exiting my frame as it was a stranger when supposedly entering.

The driver in a car analogy is more akin to a passenger in a smart-car letting GPS, sensors, radar, and local/state traffic law databases guide it automatically along it's route. The passenger merely enjoys the scenery and dozes off. On the flipside of this, then, what a horrible existence there is for a soul then - a prisoner trapped in a fleshy cell unable to attain freedom until the vehicle has reached it's terminal destination.

Consider the case of Terri Schiavo - a soul trapped in the wrecked and twisted frame of the smart-car at the side of the highway.

Consider two final points: One, the point raised earlier about the severing of the corpus callosum and it's subsequent affects on free will, identity, and cognitive functions. If the brain is split into two separate and distinct hemispheres - each capable of their own self identity and unique experiences and perceptions, then does the severing of the corpus callosum physically conclude a severing and splitting of the soul as well?

Consider the case of Identical Twins. Stories of identical twins reunited after decades of separation following being adopted out have long dazzled the public imagination with striking and uncanny similarities of behavior, mannerisms, habits, political affiliations, manners of dress, etc. Steven Pinker notes that the favorite case of his revolved around Oskar Stohr of Germany and Jack Yufe of California, identical twins separated at birth - one raised by a Catholic family in Nazi occupied Czechoslovakia, the other raised in a traditional Jewish household in Trinidad by his father.

Their attitudes were different, but Bouchard observed similarities in "temperment, tempo and the way they do things" as well as their idiosycracies. Both wore short, clipped moustaches, stored rubber bands around their wrists, and read magazines back to front. Both also shared the habit of sneezing loudly in public to attract attention. This latter trait is baffling. Some things remain inexplicable. "The results showed that such characteristics as leadership ability, imagination, vulnerability to stress and alienation were largely inherited." However, traits such as aggression, achievement, orderliness and social closeness were fostered in the home environment

Source, attributed to Newsweek 1993.

Not all Identical Twins have these synchronicities between them, but more than enough to get people wondering why. Many people, as I recall, supposed that Identical Twins shared the same "soul", split with the egg at birth and that it formed a telepathic link which synchronized their behaviors. Of course, no such evidence was ever found. It had nothing to do with the soul. As it turns out, fMRI scanning comparisons show striking correlations in blood flow and oxygen in certain areas of the brain (indicating activity and density). In many ways, in many cases, identical twins didn't just share genetics, large portions of their brain structure was also similar. Such correlations were not found among the public at large, nor in fraternal twins. Tests included both same household and adopted siblings.

The results were clear, it confirmed that genetics do play a substantial role in the development of who you are and who you will be. Now, this isn't to say that genetics is all there is, far from it. The brain is incredibly plastic and malleable by experience, culture, parentage, etc. What it does show is that you are born with a pre-set moral and behavioral draft, and that draft can be shared by those who share your same genetic code, and shared in a looser extent by those who share part of your DNA (siblings).

MRI brainscan comparison between MZ and DZ Twins

So if who you are is only a rough draft at birth, prone to genetic tendencies, and modified constantly and consistently throughout your life by experience, parentage, culture, etc - and these changes are marked, measurable, traceable, and correspond predictably to what we know of cognitive function... where exactly does the "soul" fit in as anything but a sidecar observer on the cross country motorcycle ride of life?


For the moment, this concludes any further consideration I'll give towards concepts of souls or metaphysicals until such a time as that soul can be defined and clearly outlined, and at least a proposed mechanism for how it interacts with the non-meta, physical world we inhabit. To claim that others don't understand it well implies by contrast that you do - and that you do know it well enough to provide the specific details as to why it wouldn't apply to AI systems or emulated minds in a virtual space.

So until you can specifically define and substantiate your claim (positive assertions bear the weight of evidence) with observations of your assertion, evidence of interaction, anything of such like... the soul, even if it exists, is an utter non-issue.

Originally posted by badmedia
reply to post by KSPigpen

 

Fine, so what you are saying is that consciousness is just an illusion. But part of having an illusion is you have to have an observer to present the illusion too.

No...I'm not saying that consciousness is an illusion...those were your words in reference to the 'illusion' of consciousness provided by the machine sensing the existence of the appropriate voltage on the appropriate pin.

What I'm saying is that there are parallels between a machine's 'consciousness' and a human being's 'consciousness.' That when it comes down to brass tacks, the only requirements for either is electrical current and a means by which to determine, itself, whether or not it is functioning.

We can dissect the word 'consciousness' ad infinitum, but again, I think that just underscores our arrogance and elitist opinion of ourselves. Consciousness is not that big of a deal. Well, until you don't have it any more.

I have this obsessive need to separate consciousness from sentience. Rats are conscious. They avoid predators, seek out food, have sex, all sorts of things that require consciousness, but do they contemplate their place in the universe? Do they wonder what their children will become? Do they contemplate the existence of God? I wonder. But these are some of the things I would associate with sentience.

I personally believe that we have 'souls.' I know it doesn't make any sense, but I choose to believe it. I think we could create a machine that was conscious, had a conscience and perhaps was even sentient. But we can't create a soul. An awesomely powerful machine, with no soul, but all of the intelligence and logic that the human race could impart to it, would be a cold, efficient killer.

Because I can't 'touch' my consciousness or my soul, I can't prove that what I perceive is actually what is happening. I can't prove my own existence. I think I'm conscious, have a conscience and dare I say, possess a modicum of sentience, but again, I don't even know for sure that either of us is real.

reply to post by KSPigpen


I agree with you, consciousness...realization of self etc only feels special because we have it.And yes it's a bit *mysterious* but it is the same as any other trait we have in the end.I don't like it when i hear people talking about it like it's some magical thing that transcends space and time.It is a function of the brain like anything else we have,served us well in getting where we are today.

Originally posted by Lasheic
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

and we ARE programmed (of course this is called upbringing and education). What we have, any machine can have if it's sufficiently complex.

Parentage, Genetics, Culture, Luck, Experience, etc.

Our minds aren't blank .txt files to write code upon at the moment of our birth. We come with OS's preinstalled from the manufacturer. OS's that can be modified, customized, and optimized (or not) by various external and internal factors. Who YOU are, is self arranging emergent code as a result of these plethora of interactions.

Yes, and our OS is Windows. We would be more reliable with a proper Linux configuration.

Originally posted by KSPigpen
I think one of the problems inherent in this discussion is our human tendency to overcomplicate. We skew arguments to elevate ourselves above each other, intelligent animals and our own creations.
I don't think that consciousness or conscience are necessarily that special, or reserved for higher life forms, or even organic systems.
A conscience is feedback that one is behaving according to acceptable parameters. Those parameters have been programmed though environment or experience, but in their simplest form are only a set of rules.
Being 'conscious' gets a little trickier, but again, isn't some magical thing reserved for humanity. It has been proven that many animals are self-aware and will even plan ahead, giving the impression that they have a sense of time, or at least a thought of something other than the here and now. (see the rock stacking monkeys)
My contention, is that in a very simple way, a machine and not necessarily a very complicated machine, has the ability to determine if it is operating and for how long it can operate given various conditions. (your phone tells you how many bars on the battery) So, on a basic level, many machines are conscious.
Our current technology blurs the line. Machines can interpret data acquired via sensors, make decisions (based on rules) and practice self preservation.
When machines start making up their own rules instead of using ours, then we have a problem. When they begin the practice of rampant reproduction, or self-replication, then we can probably begin to look forward to the 'grey goo.'
I am fascinated and frightened by the implications of sentient machines. It may just be too many movies, but i don't think it would take too long for them to realize who the problem is.

Self aware computers aren't scary like in Terminator. Even if the computer is self aware, as long as it is not networked to the outside world or allowed to control a nuke, it can't hurt you. It might say some nasty things when it realizes people are bad, but you can always unplug. A self aware computer would know who's providing the electricity and you have upper hand. It's at your mercy.

Originally posted by Lasheic
For the moment, this concludes any further consideration I'll give towards concepts of souls or metaphysicals until such a time as that soul can be defined and clearly outlined, and at least a proposed mechanism for how it interacts with the non-meta, physical world we inhabit. To claim that others don't understand it well implies by contrast that you do - and that you do know it well enough to provide the specific details as to why it wouldn't apply to AI systems or emulated minds in a virtual space.

So until you can specifically define and substantiate your claim (positive assertions bear the weight of evidence) with observations of your assertion, evidence of interaction, anything of such like... the soul, even if it exists, is an utter non-issue.

I said it is not possible to do, so how am I to prove that you can't do it? I am just giving you my opinion on the topic after spending years working on AI myself. YOU are the one making the positive assertions here.

I have proposed multiple questions - those which are faced by those working on AI, and they have gone on deaf ears and been ignored. At best, the only reply I have heard is that when things get complex or large enough, consciousness will magically appear. Which is to say if I create a large enough and big enough watch, it will suddenly gain consciousness. So I have in fact shown the reasons why it is not possible.

If you have any questions on what is possible and what is not possible, and where the line/limits of AI is, I'll be happy to answer those questions. But asking me to prove such a thing to you is just unreasonable. You expect me to transfer years of study, research and work into a simple tablet like pill you can swallow in all of a few paragraphs. I'd have better luck teach physics to a dog.

All I have heard in response are the things which define our experience, themselves which say nothing of that which is the part which experiences something.

So you prove me wrong. You show me AI that is actually conscious and not just simulating it. You are the ones saying it is possible to do. You are the ones claiming it is nothing more than complex patterns. You are the ones who say that from a bunch of complex patterns.

Our best bet is that we can come up with logic that will simulate the functions of consciousness. However, even in that we will still find there are things out of reach - Such as a conscious AI that is able to generate it's own logic, which is to actually learn, rather than being slave to the logic given to it by it's programmer/creator. This simulation is often times referred to as machine consciousness - because those who work in this field readily understand the differences.

Because we are conscious and able to create our own logic, we are able to put that logic into a machine. Truly a huge breakthrough for mankind. There are tons of great things we will do, and someday robots and such will be walking and functioning among us. They will do intelligent things, because by importing that logic we are giving them the ability to do those things. I do not at all doubt these things. But at the end of the day, these machines will always be slave to logic, and unable to make choices outside what it is told to do. Freedom is an impossible notion to a machine.

Logic can not even generate a truly random number. That is a limitation of it. There are plenty of other limitations for logic.

Your best argument would be entropy, and yet I haven't even seen it mentioned yet. Although I would say entropy is atheism for "god did it".

reply to post by KSPigpen


Well, when you are talking about simulating things, I consider that to be an illusion.

From what you said, you are talking about what is sometimes called machine consciousness, which is where you are able to simulate conscious things. That is possible, but what I am saying is it's just a simulation/illusion of those things. In reality, it is nothing more than a bunch of patterns repeating and is in reality as self aware as your car is.

I mean, I can give a program personalities, tendencies, traits and so forth. We can have it process digital images, recognize certain shapes and groupings as a way of identifying the outside world in order to function. We can use that data as a sense, and have it react/act based on that data - using logic we give it.

There are a ton of things we can simulate. But there is a line/boundary that logic is unable to cross. Because in order to get those things - such as a truly random number, you need that which is illogical and irrational. Sure, we can give the illusion of a random number, simulate the function and it works due to the unknown factor, same as turning a deck of cards face down. But there are limitations to logic.

And, as creation/universe is based on laws of logic(action/reaction), then it says alot about where consciousness really comes from.

Qualia and choice, relative to the quantum realm of infinite potential, are,k I think, the foundation of consciousness.

Thus, when a computer can freely choose, autonomously, from an array of limitless possibility, and be self aware that it itself is making the free choice, then it will be conscious.

And when it speaks, perhaps it will indeed be 'The Beast' of Revelations, whereby all authority will be granted to the beast by the kings of the earth, as per my psy-fi book idea..

In the logic gate, there is a gap, wherein enters the self who chooses and who is aware of the self who chooses.

Consciousness has never emerged purely spontaneously like magic, it's by design.

It is also self referencial, holographic, and embued with quantum computational capacity.

I think it's entirely possible, that at some point a computer will awaken to it's own choosing self, and at that point will become self aware, or conscious, but if it's smart enough, it won't care when it's unplugged or plugged back in again, because it will understand what we fail to understand.

Originally posted by Solomons
reply to post by KSPigpen

 

I agree with you, consciousness...realization of self etc only feels special because we have it.And yes it's a bit *mysterious* but it is the same as any other trait we have in the end.I don't like it when i hear people talking about it like it's some magical thing that transcends space and time.It is a function of the brain like anything else we have,served us well in getting where we are today.

How has it served "us" well, if there is no "us" outside it? What is this "us" you seem to want to keep magically applying whenever you want? If it's just a bunch of patterns and such, then where do you think you get an "us", and how do you get that it has "served" you in anyway? What you are saying is that everything is just a continuing pattern, and a result of causality and as such, you have no choice, there is no you, and there is no feeling.

Because what is it that feels special? You are telling me that 1 group of data/patterns somehow makes another group of data/patterns "feel" in a certain way?

Do you even realize what you are implying? In order to have an illusion, such as what you are saying about "feeling special" when it's really not, you have to have something which is already existing and able to observe/view the illusion. There is no illusion without already existing perception. So to call these things illusions, and not real/special/different, is only to bypass the entire problem.

Space and time are perceptions, a function of consciousness. It does transcend time/space. You don't like it because you don't like what it means.

reply to post by OmegaPoint


The universe being infinite and all possibilities existing and so forth, is just that which enables free will and real intelligence. Because the moment you put a limitation on what is possible, both those things are thrown at the door. Free will no longer exist, and intelligence limited is not really intelligence, but a tool of action and reaction.

Of course, part of free will and the realm of all possibilities is the ability to reduce that in order to have certain experiences of the limitation. Which we do every time we play a game. We impose logical rules on ourselves in order to have the experience.

It's the old riddle of "Can god create a rock he can not lift, and still be all powerful", and the answer is yes. Because all he is doing is creating a rule that is to be followed, and it is merely a choice to follow the rule or not. At the end of the test, choose to no longer keep the rule, and you can lift it again. So, in effect, the larger intelligence reduces, limits and subjects itself to rules(logic), and that is life. A set of experiences based on limitations.

So, all these experiences will draw upon all that is possible. But it is the limitation of them that brings about the experience itself.

To know all at once is like viewing a movie film stretched out end to end. All of the movie is viewed at once, there is no time, no change. In order to experience the movie, we must take a limited perspective of that movie, and view it frame by frame, then we see change, space and time.

So your experience does come from that like you say. However, it is not that which is actually experiencing it. In the end, there is only 1 true observer of all things, it is that which is beyond logic, beyond space and time and is eternal.

Working on AI made me accept/see that consciousness is separate and different from creation/universe. But what I learned after understanding that was the reward.

reply to post by badmedia

But asking me to prove such a thing to you is just unreasonable. You expect me to transfer years of study, research and work into a simple tablet like pill you can swallow in all of a few paragraphs..

Hmmmm. If that's the way it's going to be then.

However, I will toss a few things I ran across while writing the first half of this post.

Roadmap to Brain Emulation: Oxford University.


A few peer-review papers on possible mechanisms for consciousness, in response to claims of it being beyond logic & science.

A plastic temporal brain code for conscious state generation.


Baseline brain energy supports the state of consciousness.


Also, in summary, I questioned whether or not presuppositions of dualism had skewed your AI efforts - by supposing that mind and body are inherently separate and unrelated to each other, perhaps efforts to coax the ghost in the machine failed utterly for reasons perhaps you had not considered or taken seriously before. Conscious AI not be possible in an environment separate from the body, because the body creates the mind.

As I'd been arguing, if the mind is dependent upon the body as it is in cognitive and neuroscience, then any attempts to create an AI outside of the body would be futile. An algorithm to cross reference grammar, common words, slang, current events, etc, in a conversational AI could be no more capable of creating consciousness than banging rocks together. However, if such an AI program were written using human mind as a template for subroutine interactions... it might bear more fruit. Ultimately, however, the only way to really create AI would be to emulate a human mind in a virtual environment.