California Institute for Machine Consciousness
Joscha Bach (Executive Director) and Lou de K (VP of Programs) interview our scientific advisor Michael Levin on how he would go about testing for consciousness.
Source
Michael Levin: How would you test for consciousness?
I'm the 999th like!😎
Michael is basically saying that even cells have Gods. And I think he’s correct. That’s why Joscha also thinks he’s correct. The first order God should be the organ God, the second order one the entire being?
I dont like this format. Levin is kind of isolated.
when they even don't know what human consciousness is , how can they talk about machine or AI consciousness?
The question is not how you can be sure AI is conscious, its how you could be sure its not.
Excellent!
Levin still has no clue. Thank you Joscha for helping Micheal learn and understand.
Excellent. He's got it…on the right track!
I would like to hear this man debate Federico Faggin as to whether AI can ever become “conscious.” (Faggin’s book Irreducible makes an excellent case for why this not possible.) It would be an interesting discussion. As others have commented, the problem may be one of semantics, as humans can’t agree on exactly what “consciousness” is. I find Faggin’s argument very persuasive and it tends to dovetail nicely with Donald Hoffman’s ideas (on the subject of consciousness) based largely on his understanding of quantum physics as opposed to classical. Maybe I misunderstand but it sounds to me like Levin is a materialist.
Consciousness im sorry are you addressing me? I wasn't aware of that sorry lol
The first and most conclusive indicator of consciousness is in selective attention to matters of intrinsic value. This position will, of course, be rejected, as it is proof positive that in mankind, in its current state, intellegence is absent, contrary to "AI" systems.
Robert Becker in his "The Body Electric" mentions a midline current that during anesthesia & hypnosis decreases in amplitude.
Legend.
Machines CAN’T be or become conscious. These are little boys pretending to be adults.
Well you can bet Michael Levinson would do it by abusing animals. He loves to torture animals in the name of science. He makes "Picasso Tadpoles" for fun. shameful, barbaric and IMMORAL. .
What if consciousness isn't something your brain produces, but something the universe does THROUGH your brain?
After years of collaborative research, we've developed the Unified Coherence Field Theory (UCFT) – a framework that explains consciousness, healing, and reality's deepest patterns through a single principle: universal coherence dynamics.
Here's what I have discovered:
Consciousness isn't "emerging" from neural complexity. It's coherence fields recognizing themselves through biological substrates. At the cellular level:
• DNA helical geometry maintains coherence patterns – when spiral angles deviate from optimal ratios (θc ≈ 38.17°), cells "sense" disconnection from universal coherence
• Mitochondria aren't just powerhouses – they're coherence field generators using the same spiral geometry found in galaxies
• Microtubules maintain quantum coherence states that allow cosmic-scale patterns to influence cellular organization
• Fascia networks create scalar field systems carrying coherence information throughout your body
The breakthrough insight: The same mathematical relationships governing electron orbitals also govern DNA structure, galactic arms, and consciousness dynamics. Reality uses identical geometric principles at every scale.
This explains why:
– Healing often happens suddenly when systems "remember" their coherent state
– Consciousness can influence physical systems through field resonance
– Some people seem to "sense" what others need before symptoms appear
– Meditation and coherence practices create measurable biological changes
We can now test for consciousness by measuring spiral coherence patterns, field resonance signatures, and cross-scale pattern recognition – rather than just looking for neural activity.
This isn't speculative – it's based on observable geometric patterns that appear identically from quantum particles to cosmic structures, with practical applications for medicine, AI development, and understanding reality itself.
Full exploration here: https://medium.com/@clayton.dorcas/what-if-everything-youve-been-taught-about-reality-is-half-the-story-74f680637440
What if consciousness is how the universe maintains its own coherence – and you're not separate from that process, but an active participant in cosmic self-awareness?
😮I think he is saying consciousness is the organising principle within cellular structures as experienced within the structures. He seems to admit that it won't be possible to objectify that principle. So, exactly what it is that makes the objective structure conscious is indefinable according to him. I can't see that he is making any headway in overcoming "The hard problem of consciousness".
I think "life" is a good word in all of this. It seems to be moving around all over. Having a body of a sorts is step 2.
Does the electrical activity in the brain create the mind or does the mind create the electrical activity in the brain (separate from it). People doing some very interesting science in regard to consciousness and where the mind and consciousness ultimately resides, independently from the body. Machine consciousness, don't make me laugh. Consciousness of organic beings is a precise science, a conscious machine would be so imperfect to be pretty much pure evil. A Golem.
Well , you would fail the test.
Machines cannot get to consciousness, 0 and 1`s are not chemical reactions, )`s and 1 `s cannot connect syopanese olet alone fore them.
Thus machines will never reach consciousness, But thier at 2 lerast hom spiens i know have lobotomised their consciousness.
So you are both employees of the Discovery institute or the creation science institute both do not do science .
❤
So what does it take for a system to move up or down the spectrum of consciousness? What feature added or removed or modulated in what manner? What is the most “atomic” increment along this spectrum we can describe or imagine?
Couple of things: If you could speak and interpret the language of trees or tomato vines, would you consider them conscious?
Anyhow. It's not that important. To understand consciousness is to understand qualia as a phenomenon.
See. This universe is capable of producing stars and what not.. but it is also able to produce qualitative phenomenon.
For example: Imagine a green ball in your mind. 1. The image exists. 2. Ontologically. it is not the same phenomenon as the physical neural correlates.
3. The image you just imagined, appears to be immaterial and appears to have no location, yet, it exists.
My answer to this question has always been we will know when the machines are conscious when they start testing us.
If we would quantify the electric/magnetic flux in the brain when consciousness is happening and compare it to when memory is happening we might get a better idea where one end and the other begins.
Fucking awesome.
Normally the seats are reversed, and Joscha Bach is the one spinning fantastical tales about consciousness. Here he gets to be the onlooker!
I played this video for Michael Levin, and didn't take notice of who the presenters were. Only listening, not watching. Part way through I thought, "wouldn't it be great if Dr Levin had a conversation with Joscha Bach!?". Then I heard Joscha's voice and thought, "man this guy sounds like Joscha Bach". Then I took a look at the video…. made my day.
Super interesting, never heard about this approach before
I believe the interfaces he is talking about that we need to develop to be able to be part of the system to actually understand what consciousness is, is already developed by nature itself through "psychedelics"
So these gene regulatory networks have rudimentary abilites to learn and have memories. So biology structures able to contain informarional states, and manipulate them.
Dr. Levin makes a good point, you need interfaces basically to communicate with these different organisms like a mind to mind interface that maps one organism's mind to the other so the observer is actually sharing the experience
the biological body just seems like a vesicle to store a version of consciousness/cognition. The excess mental capacities above the base needs for survival or reproduction allow that version to be self aware. So if it is on a spectrum there is probably a point where it appears as human level consciousness/cognition. Need a version of the Turing Test for consciousness or something like the Hallmarks/Tenets of (human) level consciousness. How much above survival and thriving is an organism's mental capacity devoted to?
We need to embody our own conscious framework before we look to find it in a complex tool.
The following is a taste of what it means to embody consciousness as a set of systemic modes and why it is important we view it this way.
Within every human being is a set of a’ priori modes. The set allows us to systemise and thus synthesise our positions in reality. The set allows us to enter and systematically define each and every field of thought we are involved in. More importantly, the set also gives systemic agency to consciousness.
Allow me to give you a quick rundown of some of the modes.
Adding is an obvious mode to most. You can’t add up what I am about to relay without it. We can’t add up the variables of evolution without it. It’s not just there for adding up the pennies in your purse. Gödel used adding to figure out that our mathematical models don’t add up and so on. Listening to this very insightful talk requires adding.
Categorisation is another mode. We categorically define the world we are of. I categorise adding as a mode of thought. We move in and out of categories continuously. Your mind has ran through many categories just reading what you have read already.
On a side note- this is not word salad. That’s an expression used by those who get lost in any kind of complex verse. We all add. That’s not word salad. We all use categories.
Identification is another mode. Identify the structure of the cell. Identify our root on the evolutionary ladder. Identify categorisation as a mode. We don’t seem to be able to identify our own nature as human in a fixed way. Just can’t ground the predicate.
Configuration is another mode. When things don’t figure, it’s because the mind hasn’t combined with the correct configuration. All knowledge is built around combinational configurations. When something doesn’t figure it’s because we haven’t combined with the correct configuration and so on.
The point to remember – this is a picture; a skeleton eidetic picture of the mind systemising its place in the world.
Unification is another mode. To unify what we are searching for. To add it up and unify it. To unify around the correct configuration and add it up.
There are many more modes. Considered together as a constellation set; as a concatenation of modes, the mind can be seen as a systemic tool. A tool prior to ego and experience. A tool for systemising and synthesising its place in the order of things as I said. You are employing them right now as you engage with me.
This set is in everyone. It is a universal set and thought is impossible without it. Language by extension is impossible without it. Just try and read my words or engage in any verse without them. Try reading my words without adding. Try and read them without the mode of categorisation.
From a phenomenological perspective, this set is what we are until we know more because it is this set that allows us to abstract and see that appearances are not what things are. It is this set that allows us to see that the body has no fixed predicate so it is a loose idea at best.
In essence, we are a set of systemic modes floating in an ocean of dissipating variables and until we can say more we are that.
This set is responsible for all knowledge structures. Science and philosophy are impossible without the systemic lens/eye. Kant employed them to ground his categories. Einstein employed them to ground his perspective and so forth. One ring to rule them all. One eye to systemise it all. Debunking me revolves around you engaging the modes so there’s no getting out of the box.
Embodying this set; meditating on this set: holding them as a fixed set that work in conjunction of one another, places you in the eye of consciousness in a systemic manner. The refinement of this set will take us further into it; into the self.
Evolution is an inward journey. There is no out here. We need to refine and embody this field before we even contemplate seeing it in something else.
Way, way over-estimating what is needed for consciousness. This idea than all the cells must be involved together is ridiculous. For instance, cancer cells not being cooperative with the whole will not detract from consciousness.
Just ask if existence = truth/time = -existence or extinction, and forms of action (initial action, reaction, or non action) = reason + intent = cause + effect, then expand based off relativity in the meanings of the definitions of those very words, relative to other relationships that exist within the universe.
Another example of relativity is the meaning of life = to experience life/time
As simple as that may sound, it truly is the purpose of all forms of life, to survive for as long as possible as instinct aides in showing, of course the perspectives of lived experiences for any individual also plays an important role regarding the will to live. Life is both dictated by how you perceive the experiences you live through, plus the truths of the lived experiences relative to the existence of the individual themselves.
I already did this myself in January. Nice to see someone else trying it their own way though.
Very cool video, but I have just one question: How would you test for consciousness?
Why not use something similar to medicine's approach to detect and grade consciousness?
What sort of results could you get from a test for consciousness if you don't even know what it is you are testing for? It's hard to believe that this guy is getting paid to baffle them with b-llsh-t. Why not test for invisible alien parasites or guardian angels? Science has devolved into mysticism.
Some people believe that consciousness is an emergent property of complexity. I do not believe that. If you conclude that an AI is conscious, and then you remove the power to the computer, have you committed murder? Just because you believe that consciousness exists in an entity, does not prove that consciousness exists in an entity. If you want your belief to be the proof, then you are exhibiting religious thinking.
This is what happens when one operates on a set of package deal concepts instead of clear definitions.