We look at consciousness through the lens of Theoretical Computer Science, a branch of mathematics that studies computation under resource limitations. From this perspective, we develop a formal machine model for consciousness. The model is inspired by Alan Turing's simple yet powerful model of computation and Bernard Baars' theater model of consciousness. Though extremely simple, the model aligns at a high level with many of the major scientific theories of human and animal consciousness, support ing our cl aim that machine consciousness is inevitable.

The ability of large language models (LLMs) to engage in credible dialogues with humans, taking into account the training data and the context of the conversation, has raised discussions about their ability to exhibit intrinsic motivations, agency, or even some degree of consciousness. We argue that the internal architecture of LLMs and their finite and volatile state cannot support any of these properties. By combining insights from complementary learning systems, global neuronal workspace, and attention schema theories, we propose to integrate LLMs and other deep learning systems into an architecture for cognitive language agents able to exhibit properties akin to agency, self-motivation, even some features of meta-cognition.

Summary: Study suggests quantum processes are part of cognitive and conscious brain functions. Scientists from Trinity College Dublin believe our brains could use quantum computation after adapting an idea developed to prove the existence of quantum gravity to explore the human brain and its workings. The brain functions measured were also correlated to short-term memory performance and conscious awareness, suggesting quantum processes are also part of cognitive and conscious brain functions. If the team's results can be confirmed – likely requiring advanced multidisciplinary approaches –they would enhance our general understanding of how the brain works and potentially how it can be maintained or even healed. They may also help find innovative technologies and build even more advanced quantum computers.

This month, we get stuck into AI and consciousness. This topic has long been much-discussed, and especially so recently with one tweet in particular sparking a debate online. Joining the discussion this time are: Tom Dietterich (Oregon State University), Stephen Hanson (Rutgers University), Sabine Hauert (University of Bristol), Holger Hoos (Leiden University), Sarit Kraus (Bar-Ilan University) and Michael Littman (Brown University). Stephen Hanson: So, the topic of consciousness has come up a lot recently in discussions on the Connectionists. This area of cognitive science was pretty much wiped out in the first five years of NeurIPS [Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems].

People often ask me whether human-level artificial intelligence will eventually become conscious. My response is: Do you want it to be conscious? I think it is largely up to us whether our machines will wake up. The mechanisms of consciousness--the reasons we have a vivid and direct experience of the world and of the self--are an unsolved mystery in neuroscience, and some people think they always will be; it seems impossible to explain subjective experience using the objective methods of science. But in the 25 or so years that we've taken consciousness seriously as a target of scientific scrutiny, we have made significant progress.

Evolutionary Cognition Over the past several decades, evidence has accumulated showing that some nonhuman animals have conscious awareness. Some argue that despite high-level cognitive function, this may be occurring without conscious awareness of self. Unfortunately, we cannot ask animals to report their experiences. Ben-Haim et al. exploited the human faculty for crossover double dissociation between nonconscious and conscious processing and applied it to rhesus macaques. People perform in completely opposite ways when they are aware of stimuli compared with when they are not. In the authors' visual tests, the macaques showed nearly identical responses to those of humans, indicating that the monkeys reacted differently when they were consciously aware that they had seen a stimulus compared with when they were not. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 118 , e2017543118 (2021).

Years before smart homes became a thing, I replaced all the switches in our house with computerized switches. At first, it was just a way to add wall switches without pulling new wire. Over time, I got more ambitious. The system runs a timer routine when it detects no one is home, turns on the basement light when you open the door, and lights up rooms in succession on well-worn paths such as bedroom to kitchen. Other members of the family are less enthusiastic. A light might fail to turn on or might go out for lack of motion, or maybe for lack of any discernible reason. The house seems to have a mind of its own.

You might think that digital technologies, often considered a product of "the West", would hasten the divergence of Eastern and Western philosophies. But within the study of Vedanta, an ancient Indian school of thought, I see the opposite effect at work. Thanks to our growing familiarity with computing, virtual reality and artificial intelligence, "modern" societies are now better placed than ever to grasp the insights of this tradition. Vedanta summarises the metaphysics of the Upanishads, a clutch of Sanskrit religious texts, likely written between 800 and 500 BCE. They form the basis for the many philosophical, spiritual and mystical traditions of the Indian sub-continent.

People often ask me whether human-level artificial intelligence will eventually become conscious. My response is: Do you want it to be conscious? I think it is largely up to us whether our machines will wake up. The mechanisms of consciousness--the reasons we have a vivid and direct experience of the world and of the self--are an unsolved mystery in neuroscience, and some people think they always will be; it seems impossible to explain subjective experience using the objective methods of science. But in the 25 or so years that we've taken consciousness seriously as a target of scientific scrutiny, we have made significant progress.

To understand human consciousness, we need to know why it exists in the first place. New experimental evidence suggests it may have evolved to help us learn and adapt to changing circumstances far more rapidly and effectively. We used to think consciousness was a uniquely human trait, but neuroscientists now believe we share it with many other animals, including mammals, birds and octopuses. While plants and arguably some animals like jellyfish seem able to respond to the world around them without any conscious awareness, many other animals consciously experience and perceive their environment. In the 19th century, Thomas Henry Huxley and others argued that such consciousness is an "epiphenomenon" – a side effect of the workings of the brain that has no causal influence, the way a steam whistle has no effect on the way a steam engine works.