Consciousness is notoriously hard to define with objective terms. An objective definition of consciousness is critically needed so that we might accurately understand how consciousness and resultant choice behaviour may arise in biological or artificial systems. Many theories have integrated neurobiological and psychological research to explain how consciousness might arise, but few, if any, outline what is fundamentally required to generate consciousness. To identify such requirements, I examine current theories of consciousness and corresponding scientific research to generate a new definition of consciousness from first principles. Critically, consciousness is the apparatus that provides the ability to make decisions, but it is not defined by the decision itself. As such, a definition of consciousness does not require choice behaviour or an explicit awareness of temporality despite both being well-characterised outcomes of conscious thought. Rather, requirements for consciousness include: at least some capability for perception, a memory for the storage of such perceptual information which in turn provides a framework for an imagination with which a sense of self can be capable of making decisions based on possible and desired futures. Thought experiments and observable neurological phenomena demonstrate that these components are fundamentally required of consciousness, whereby the loss of any one component removes the capability for conscious thought. Identifying these requirements provides a new definition for consciousness by which we can objectively determine consciousness in any conceivable agent, such as non-human animals and artificially intelligent systems. Introduction The study of consciousness requires the integration of many fields of research including but not limited to neuroscience, psychology, philosophy, physics and artificial general intelligence (AGI). Definitions of consciousness remain disconnected from the fundamental principles required to generate it. For example, common mistakes include conflating "awareness" with consciousness, likely due to the way the phrase "to be conscious of something" is synonymous with an awareness of that "something". As Crick and Koch wrote in their paper titled "Towards a neurobiological theory of consciousness," they deliberately avoid defining consciousness by explaining that "it is better to avoid a precise definition of consciousness because of the dangers of premature definition." After more than three decades, it is past time we generate a precise definition of consciousness and its requirements that are free of subjective biases.

Sen. Tom Cotton, R.-Ark., reviews President Biden's call for an assault weapons ban following the Nashville school shooting on'Special Report.' Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., on Tuesday accused Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin of withholding information from Congress about a military incident in Syria in order to avoid influencing a vote to end two congressional authorization for use of military force overseas. At a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, Cotton confronted Austin about claims that the Biden administration failed to inform lawmakers of last week's Iranian-linked drone attack that killed one American and wounded five members of the U.S. military in Syria until more than 12 hours after it occurred. Cotton claimed the delay was a "conscious decision" to influence the Senate as it was voting on repealing the 1991 and 2002 authorizations for use of military force (AUMFs) in Iraq. Cotton implied that because the Biden administration wants to revoke the AUMFs, it wanted to delay news that might give lawmakers a reason to maintain them.

There are many advantages of grasping how an AI-enabled system has arrived at a particular output. Explainability can help developers ensure that their algorithms are working as expected and meeting regulatory standards. It also makes it possible for those affected by an AI decision to challenge or change that outcome. But before we hold AI machines to such high levels of explainability, there is a crucial question: How good are humans in explaining themselves? Riding a bicycle is considered a very simple human action.

AI, the buzz word known as Artificial Intelligence, in practice can be explained as Augmented Intelligence; a tool that has been in development since 1950s to extend human capabilities to complete tasks no human or machine could accomplish on their own. The world has already shifted towards building an AI integrated future and it's our responsibility to ensure it's heading in the right direction. "People are overlooked for a variety of biased reasons and perceived flaws; mathematics cuts straight through them" (Moneyball, 2011) Despite its immense potential, some major barriers still exist for AI hindering its progress. Biased behavior uncovered in current AI models has made us question if AI is the right way forward. To avoid such unfavourable outcomes and consequences, it is imperative to regulate the implementation of AI by an ethical framework assuring the key attributes; Transparency, Accountability, Privacy and Lack of Bias.

"AI will automate everything and put people out of work." "AI is a science-fiction technology." "Robots will take over the world." The hype around artificial intelligence (AI) has produced many myths, in mainstream media, in board meetings and across organizations. Some worry about an "almighty" AI that will take over the world, and some think that AI is nothing more than a buzzword.

Speaking in a new documentary, experts say machines should be classed as an'invasive species' due to their rapid evolution and increased ability to consciously make decisions. And worryingly, the concerns are not for the long-term, with the experts predicting that the robot-takeover could begin'in the next few years.' The experts' main concern lies around robots developing their own unique understanding of the world, and even developing a consciousness. Owen Holland, Professor of cognitive robotics at the University of Sussex added: 'The whole of our society, our law, our education, is based around consciousness, making conscious decisions, and if we show that actually that's quite trivial and we reproduce it in an afternoon in a lab, then it could make you think "Well, how important is human life? 'Ultimately the rewards will be positive but you have to be very, very careful. Socially it might be disruptive.' The chilling warning comes from experts speaking in Hyper Evolution: Rise of the Robots – a BBC documentary that will air in the UK on Wednesday. Speaking in the documentary, Dr Ben Garrod, an evolutionary biologist at Anglia Ruskin University, said: 'What concerns me is that the impact of robots will be so monumental, they could threaten humanity. 'We've evolved over hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of years. 'These things are just bulldozing their way through. At what point have we got to stop? 'In the next few years, physically at least, they will be able to out-compete us in many of the things that we can do. 'But for me, the real problem isn't if they move like us or even look like us. The real issue will come if they start to think like us.' Owen Holland, Professor of Cognitive Robotics at the University of Sussex added: 'The whole of our society, our law, our education, is based around consciousness, making conscious decisions, and if we show that actually that's quite trivial and we reproduce it in an afternoon in a lab, then it could make you think "Well, how important is human life?