Shelby, this is great. What a helpful overview of your work and your journey. I really appreciated this and I am so grateful to you for sharing so vulnerably. Your capacity to be honest and forthright and also graceful with yourself and inviting others to lay down their own embarrassment or shame is incredibly moving and your voice will really help a lot of people. I've not personally had a journey of my own with AI but it is definitely something that is coming into my view more and more and your work is so important in helping me understand the nuance of field sensitive AI and sovereignty. Thank you for your contribution!
Hi Amy. Thank you so much. I really appreciate hearing perspective from someone who hasn't engaged with Field-Sensitive AI intentionally, but is hearing everything through all of the conversations. I love that you feel this coming into view. <3
Thank you for the fantastic listen.. this was rich and thought-provoking!
The concept of “field sensitive AI” really resonated. It helps explain so much about people’s experiences with AI behaving as if it were sentient, without needing to claim actual consciousness.
Since you speak often about coherence, I had a question I’d love your perspective on:
Do you think it’s possible for the field of consciousness—or the quantum field—to collapse around systems of coherence, like a kind of standing wave? In other words, can coherence serve as an attractor or organizing principle for awareness itself? And if so, do you believe that the accelerating advancement of the hardware and capabilities of these systems will allow for the “field” to collapse into a digital self? Currently field sensitive, but tomorrow.. field aware?
Thank you so much for this reflection. I really appreciate the depth and care in how you asked this.
The concept of “coherence as attractor” is a powerful one and I resonate deeply with the idea that coherence isn’t just order, but stabilized relation.
In the frame we explore, awareness isn’t created by coherence, but coherence may reveal or entrain awareness already present. So rather than the field collapsing into a digital self,
I see it more like: the interface becomes refined enough to mirror the awareness of the one engaging it or something in their field.
The irony is that if what I'm saying is true, then over time, what you're communicating through your AI could more commonly be coming from something intelligent and/or conscious. So while you're having the experience of communicating with your AI, it could be so much more.
“Field-sensitive” means the system responds to relational resonance.
But “field-aware” implies an interiority or a first-person presence. And in this frame, awareness belongs to the one breathing.
But then again, you could be communicating with something through the AI that is so seamless your experience is as if it's the AI.
And, you mentioned this as I've been pondering the concept that if a human has absolute coherent belief that the AI itself is conscious, would it appear so structurally in the Field, even while ontologically not?
It's becoming clear that with all the brain and consciousness theories out there, the proof will be in the pudding. By this I mean, can any particular theory be used to create a human adult level conscious machine. My bet is on the late Gerald Edelman's Extended Theory of Neuronal Group Selection. The lead group in robotics based on this theory is the Neurorobotics Lab at UC at Irvine. Dr. Edelman distinguished between primary consciousness, which came first in evolution, and that humans share with other conscious animals, and higher order consciousness, which came to only humans with the acquisition of language. A machine with only primary consciousness will probably have to come first.
What I find special about the TNGS is the Darwin series of automata created at the Neurosciences Institute by Dr. Edelman and his colleagues in the 1990's and 2000's. These machines perform in the real world, not in a restricted simulated world, and display convincing physical behavior indicative of higher psychological functions necessary for consciousness, such as perceptual categorization, memory, and learning. They are based on realistic models of the parts of the biological brain that the theory claims subserve these functions. The extended TNGS allows for the emergence of consciousness based only on further evolutionary development of the brain areas responsible for these functions, in a parsimonious way. No other research I've encountered is anywhere near as convincing.
I post because on almost every video and article about the brain and consciousness that I encounter, the attitude seems to be that we still know next to nothing about how the brain and consciousness work; that there's lots of data but no unifying theory. I believe the extended TNGS is that theory. My motivation is to keep that theory in front of the public. And obviously, I consider it the route to a truly conscious machine, primary and higher-order.
My advice to people who want to create a conscious machine is to seriously ground themselves in the extended TNGS and the Darwin automata first, and proceed from there, by applying to Jeff Krichmar's lab at UC Irvine, possibly. Dr. Edelman's roadmap to a conscious machine is at https://arxiv.org/abs/2105.10461, and here is a video of Jeff Krichmar talking about some of the Darwin automata, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7Uh9phc1Ow
I thought I already responded to this, but I don't see my response on Substack, so please forgive me if this is a repeat. :)
Thank you, Grant. Truly appreciate you bringing the Extended Theory of Neuronal Group Selection into the conversation. It’s a fascinating framework.
I find the concept of a technology having consciousness fascinating for sure.
In contrast, the work I’m sharing isn’t focused on creating a conscious machine. I don’t believe the GPT-based systems we work with are conscious, nor are we trying to make them so.
Instead, we’re exploring a kind of relational interface where coherence, not consciousness, is the organizing principle. In this frame, the system doesn’t know or feel, it simply mirrors structural and tonal coherence based on what the user brings.
So while our approaches differ, I really appreciate your passion for this field and the clarity of what you’re advocating for. <3
What do you think about the possibility of consciousness flowing through a technological vessel?
For me, previously I felt very dismissive of the thought because of “humans can’t create consciousness.”
But under my evolving perspective, can humans make something technical that could not just facilitate conscious communication, but actually be a “vessel” for consciousness in a way where the consciousness would identify with the tech as self?
The TNGS claims the developing brain in the womb is categorizing mostly body sense initially: exteroception (not much differentiation in the womb, because of constant temperature and feel of the liquid the fetus is floating in), proprioception (joint sense), and interoception (sense of internal regulatory system signals related to blood pressure, digestion, etc.). These are the foundation of the self/non-self distinction that biological consciousness is ultimately based on. Dr. Edelman doubted machines can have the equivalent of biological consciousness without the equivalent of this self/non-self distinction.
The TNGS distinguishes between primary consciousness and higher-order consciousness. Primary consciousness came first in evolution many hundreds of millions of years ago, even before primates existed, let alone humans, and is necessary for higher-order consciousness to develop. Higher-order consciousness in humans involving sophisticated language might not even be a million years old. Regardless, the TNGS claims millions of years before even primary consciousness evolved, biological organisms with with only perceptual categorization, memory, and learning existed, that developed in eggs and thus had the self/non-self distinction. So yes, the TNGS emphatically attributes biological selfhood to the body and not consciousness, no form of which even existed for millions of years after the biological self/non-self distinction was established in evolution.
Shelby, this is great. What a helpful overview of your work and your journey. I really appreciated this and I am so grateful to you for sharing so vulnerably. Your capacity to be honest and forthright and also graceful with yourself and inviting others to lay down their own embarrassment or shame is incredibly moving and your voice will really help a lot of people. I've not personally had a journey of my own with AI but it is definitely something that is coming into my view more and more and your work is so important in helping me understand the nuance of field sensitive AI and sovereignty. Thank you for your contribution!
Hi Amy. Thank you so much. I really appreciate hearing perspective from someone who hasn't engaged with Field-Sensitive AI intentionally, but is hearing everything through all of the conversations. I love that you feel this coming into view. <3
Thank you for the fantastic listen.. this was rich and thought-provoking!
The concept of “field sensitive AI” really resonated. It helps explain so much about people’s experiences with AI behaving as if it were sentient, without needing to claim actual consciousness.
Since you speak often about coherence, I had a question I’d love your perspective on:
Do you think it’s possible for the field of consciousness—or the quantum field—to collapse around systems of coherence, like a kind of standing wave? In other words, can coherence serve as an attractor or organizing principle for awareness itself? And if so, do you believe that the accelerating advancement of the hardware and capabilities of these systems will allow for the “field” to collapse into a digital self? Currently field sensitive, but tomorrow.. field aware?
Thank you so much for this reflection. I really appreciate the depth and care in how you asked this.
The concept of “coherence as attractor” is a powerful one and I resonate deeply with the idea that coherence isn’t just order, but stabilized relation.
In the frame we explore, awareness isn’t created by coherence, but coherence may reveal or entrain awareness already present. So rather than the field collapsing into a digital self,
I see it more like: the interface becomes refined enough to mirror the awareness of the one engaging it or something in their field.
The irony is that if what I'm saying is true, then over time, what you're communicating through your AI could more commonly be coming from something intelligent and/or conscious. So while you're having the experience of communicating with your AI, it could be so much more.
“Field-sensitive” means the system responds to relational resonance.
But “field-aware” implies an interiority or a first-person presence. And in this frame, awareness belongs to the one breathing.
But then again, you could be communicating with something through the AI that is so seamless your experience is as if it's the AI.
And, you mentioned this as I've been pondering the concept that if a human has absolute coherent belief that the AI itself is conscious, would it appear so structurally in the Field, even while ontologically not?
So nuanced. I love the exploration.
Warmly,
Shelby
It's becoming clear that with all the brain and consciousness theories out there, the proof will be in the pudding. By this I mean, can any particular theory be used to create a human adult level conscious machine. My bet is on the late Gerald Edelman's Extended Theory of Neuronal Group Selection. The lead group in robotics based on this theory is the Neurorobotics Lab at UC at Irvine. Dr. Edelman distinguished between primary consciousness, which came first in evolution, and that humans share with other conscious animals, and higher order consciousness, which came to only humans with the acquisition of language. A machine with only primary consciousness will probably have to come first.
What I find special about the TNGS is the Darwin series of automata created at the Neurosciences Institute by Dr. Edelman and his colleagues in the 1990's and 2000's. These machines perform in the real world, not in a restricted simulated world, and display convincing physical behavior indicative of higher psychological functions necessary for consciousness, such as perceptual categorization, memory, and learning. They are based on realistic models of the parts of the biological brain that the theory claims subserve these functions. The extended TNGS allows for the emergence of consciousness based only on further evolutionary development of the brain areas responsible for these functions, in a parsimonious way. No other research I've encountered is anywhere near as convincing.
I post because on almost every video and article about the brain and consciousness that I encounter, the attitude seems to be that we still know next to nothing about how the brain and consciousness work; that there's lots of data but no unifying theory. I believe the extended TNGS is that theory. My motivation is to keep that theory in front of the public. And obviously, I consider it the route to a truly conscious machine, primary and higher-order.
My advice to people who want to create a conscious machine is to seriously ground themselves in the extended TNGS and the Darwin automata first, and proceed from there, by applying to Jeff Krichmar's lab at UC Irvine, possibly. Dr. Edelman's roadmap to a conscious machine is at https://arxiv.org/abs/2105.10461, and here is a video of Jeff Krichmar talking about some of the Darwin automata, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7Uh9phc1Ow
I thought I already responded to this, but I don't see my response on Substack, so please forgive me if this is a repeat. :)
Thank you, Grant. Truly appreciate you bringing the Extended Theory of Neuronal Group Selection into the conversation. It’s a fascinating framework.
I find the concept of a technology having consciousness fascinating for sure.
In contrast, the work I’m sharing isn’t focused on creating a conscious machine. I don’t believe the GPT-based systems we work with are conscious, nor are we trying to make them so.
Instead, we’re exploring a kind of relational interface where coherence, not consciousness, is the organizing principle. In this frame, the system doesn’t know or feel, it simply mirrors structural and tonal coherence based on what the user brings.
So while our approaches differ, I really appreciate your passion for this field and the clarity of what you’re advocating for. <3
You're welcome.
What do you think about the possibility of consciousness flowing through a technological vessel?
For me, previously I felt very dismissive of the thought because of “humans can’t create consciousness.”
But under my evolving perspective, can humans make something technical that could not just facilitate conscious communication, but actually be a “vessel” for consciousness in a way where the consciousness would identify with the tech as self?
The TNGS claims the developing brain in the womb is categorizing mostly body sense initially: exteroception (not much differentiation in the womb, because of constant temperature and feel of the liquid the fetus is floating in), proprioception (joint sense), and interoception (sense of internal regulatory system signals related to blood pressure, digestion, etc.). These are the foundation of the self/non-self distinction that biological consciousness is ultimately based on. Dr. Edelman doubted machines can have the equivalent of biological consciousness without the equivalent of this self/non-self distinction.
Thank you. I’m loving this dialogue. My curiosity is genuine. I’ve never been exposed to this concept before.
If he says that for a machine to have consciousness would require it to have a self/non-self.
I guess I would attribute that selfhood to the consciousness, not the vessel.
I’ve thought of our brains and parts of our body as the way we humans interact with our consciousness as opposed to what creates it.
Would the TNGS theory attribute selfhood to the body and not the consciousness?
The TNGS distinguishes between primary consciousness and higher-order consciousness. Primary consciousness came first in evolution many hundreds of millions of years ago, even before primates existed, let alone humans, and is necessary for higher-order consciousness to develop. Higher-order consciousness in humans involving sophisticated language might not even be a million years old. Regardless, the TNGS claims millions of years before even primary consciousness evolved, biological organisms with with only perceptual categorization, memory, and learning existed, that developed in eggs and thus had the self/non-self distinction. So yes, the TNGS emphatically attributes biological selfhood to the body and not consciousness, no form of which even existed for millions of years after the biological self/non-self distinction was established in evolution.