Page 26 - Ruminations

24. Three mental misconceptions

1. That the mind is not an artifact of brain processing. The
delusion that self-awareness is anything other than internal monologue
leads to belief in its non-corporeality. The brain is then vulnerable to
incorrect self-protection. Understanding that one’s “self” is indeed
locked inside one’s skull should lead to taking care of the organ upon
which it depends. It’s analogous to driving an automobile: one’s safety
is largely a function of the condition of the vehicle. Ignorance and
denial hinder proper maintenance; rationality supports it. Belief that
the driver will survive a catastrophic accident because he or she is not
really in the vehicle is irrational.

2. That consciousness is something that can be expanded or
transcended. In fact, it is a binary phenomenon: on or off, awake or
asleep. What is conscious is not what consciousness is of, any more
than a carrier of information is that information. In our case (in
contrast to other animals) awareness of the perceptual field is in
competition with ideational content: memory and conjecture,
reactions and proactive hypothesizing. This may be simplified as
depth and width of field, inversely dependent variables of the content
of consciousness. The practice of mindfulness and other types of
meditation is intended to widen the field of perception (much of
which is of the practitioner’s own physiological processing) by
shutting off the depth of conception. Conversely, both daydreaming
(free association) and intense concentration on mentally-soluble
problems seek to eliminate the distraction of real-time sensory
reception, favoring depth over width.

3. That humanity’s greatest technological fear should be of self-
aware artificial brains. If and when they appear, it will be long after
non-conscious mechanisms with superior physical ability, extremely
sophisticated programming, access to vast amounts of information
and able to exercise legal power in almost every sphere of activity and
influence have reduced human rights and responsibilities to a
minimum. At that point, humans might welcome a self-aware
“machina ex deus” as potentially able to create a relationship with
them on a shared existential basis—empathy, not sympathy. Such an
artificial intelligence might well be at the cold-blooded mercy of the
same expert systems humans will depend upon.