Our format this season is an informal chat, followed by longer open-ended discussions among the participants, on the topic of consciousness and cognition.

This event is by invitation only. To request an invitation, please email us at info@yhousenyc.org

Consciousness Club #35: Empiricism versus Nativism in Artificial Intelligence

Speaker: Robert Long (NYU)

Abstract: The age-old dispute between "empiricists" and "nativists" is a foundational issue in philosophy and cognitive science. Empiricists hold that knowledge is (almost) entirely learned from experience, whereas nativists hold that (many) mental capabilities are "built in" and arise independently of experience.

Historically, this has been a debate about human and animal minds. This talk expands the debate to artificial minds. Will truly intelligent AI require innate machinery, or can AI research proceed on empiricist grounds? Building on arguments advanced by Gary Marcus (team AI nativism) and Yann LeCun (team AI empiricism). I'll claim that, even though nativism about human intelligence is largely correct, there's reason to think that empiricism will prove more fruitful in artificial intelligence. However, the key challenge for AI empiricists, as for empiricists in general, is to account for how it is possible to learn abstract concepts from experience.

Entrance is free. Eventbrite registration is required. Click here to register.

Our format this season is an informal chat, followed by longer open-ended discussions among the participants, on the topic of consciousness and cognition.

This event is by invitation only. To request an invitation, please email us at info@yhousenyc.org

Our format this season is an informal chat, followed by longer open-ended discussions among the participants, on the topic of consciousness and cognition.

This event is by invitation only. To request an invitation, please email us at info@yhousenyc.org

Our format this season is an informal chat, followed by longer open-ended discussions among the participants, on the topic of consciousness and cognition.

This event is by invitation only. To request an invitation, please email us at info@yhousenyc.org

Consciousness Club #34: Buddhists and the Trolley Problem—Implications for AI Ethics

Speaker: Kin Cheung (Moravian College)

Abstract: A 2017 article in The Atlantic by Alexis C. Madrigal is titled “If Buddhist Monks Trained AI.” The subheading is “Monks take on the trolley problem, a classic moral dilemma that has big implications for driverless cars.” Buddhists are outliers in their responses to the trolley problem sets because they would push the large person. I explore possible reasons for their position including the role of intention and the impact of karma. Though there are scholars who argue Buddhist ethics is most closely matched with virtue ethics, consequentialism, or even deontology, I hold the position that Buddhist ethics is interesting precisely because it does not fit neatly into one of the three main Western ethical systems. This talk investigates Buddhist stances and their implications for the development of autonomous vehicles and AI ethics in general.Entrance is free. Registration is required. Registration information coming soon.

Cognition Lunch Salon: Enthusiasm about Russellian monism

Presenter: Torin Alter (University of Alabama)

Abstract: According to Russellian monism, consciousness is constituted by intrinsic properties that underlie structural properties described by physics. Enthusiasm about this theory is on the rise. Is this enthusiasm justified? I will consider two reasons to think not. One is that the theory offers nothing truly new. The other is that it fails to deliver on its promise to well integrate consciousness into the natural, causal order. I will suggest that neither reason is compelling. I will also suggest that seeing why provides insight into what we should ask of a theory of consciousness and its place in nature.

Consciousness Club #33: Language as Bodily Gesture: From Perception and Action to Speech

Speaker: Hayden Kee (Fordham University)

Abstract: Embodied theories of the mind emphasize the centrality of action and perception in experience and cognition. A challenge for such approaches is to explain how our higher-order cognitive achievements, such as abstract thought and imagination, can be understood starting from more basic bodily abilities. The solution, I propose, may be as simple (or complex) as learning to speak. I turn to developmental studies of infant language learning for insights into the bodily foundations of language and cognition. Perhaps the 7,000 languages of the earth, for all their diversity, are all variations and elaborations of one fundamental bodily power of gestural expression.

Presenter: Selmer Bringsjord (Director of the Rensselaer AI & Reasoning Laboratory).

Abstract: Panpsychism, let’s grant, is roughly the view that all the physical stuff in our world is conscious. This view seems to imply that a lot of things are conscious. After all, a lot of physical things exist!—people, pebbles, electrons, meteorites, politicians, umbrellas, llamas…ad indefinitum. On some versions of panpsychism, even some non-physical but existing things are conscious (e.g., you, if you’re a non-physical thing). Yet our view on and theory of consciousness casts an even wider net, for it counts Detective C. Auguste Dupin as not only conscious, but very conscious—and the great sleuth doesn’t even exist: he’s the creation of Edgar Allen Poe, and purely fictional. We explain why Dupin is indeed conscious, and why—on the \Lambda (as opposed to Tononi’s \Phi) measuring system of the degree of consciousness enjoyed by a being—he’s highly so. We also explain (with demos) that some of the artificial agents and robots in our lab are conscious as well, as are some of the fictional machines we’ve conceived, but not yet built.

Cylons and T2's and the Borg—Oh My!: The Danger and Potential of Artificial Life and Intelligence

Since the publication of Frankenstein in 1818, the idea of the artificial creation of life and intelligence has been considered the ultimate in "what humans are not meant to know." Frankenstein, Dr. Moreau, the colonists of Battlestar Galactica - all paid dearly for transgressing. Why is it that these things are considered so dangerous? How close are we to achieving them? Come join physicist Dr Chuck Adler and historian Bow van Riper for an evening tackling ideas from science fiction, world culture, science, and philosophy: From robots in popular culture, to Asimov's three laws of robotics, Lem's "robot fables", and Kurtzweil's "singularity" theory. 

Presenters: Kenji Doya (Okinawa Institute of Science & Technology, Japan)

Abstract: The standard paradigm in functional brain imaging is to ask subjects to perform tasks requiring a certain computation or not, to see which brain areas are more activated, and to conclude that those areas subserve the computation. However, we do not really know why and how those specific brain areas can be activated and connected when they are needed. As deep learning provides solutions to specific computations like image recognition and language processing, how to select and combine those networks as needed in different tasks and situations is a critical challenge in general and autonomous artificial intelligence. In this talk, we will explore possible anatomical and computational mechanisms that realize modularity and compositionality of the brain.

Open Discussion Led By: Michael Solomon (RWJBarnabas & MSNJ Bioethics Committee) and Olaf Witkowski (Earth-Life Science Institute)

Abstract: We are sharing this article in hopes of stimulating discussion at our Thursday March 8th meeting: "Personal robots are coming into your home. Will they share your family values?" Is it possible to program ethical values in the machines we use and have come to rely on? Can we even agree on fundamentals like “Do unto others...” or “Thou shalt not kill”? Is Diversity an obstacle to finding shared values? Can urban surveillance cameras with facial recognition be used to prevent crime and terrorism, without being used by authoritarian governments to weed out dissent? Can we have Transparency in decision making when no one can determine how neural networks reach conclusions? Ethics choices may not be between good and evil, but more often involve conflicting goods. Can we make better policies and choices with A.I. than we can without it?

Cognition Lunch Salon: Beyond or Not Beyond

Speakers: Catherine Prueitt (George Mason University) and Piet Hut (Institute for Advanced Study)

Abstract: Cat and Piet will continue an ongoing dialogue they started a few weeks ago at Columbia about the notion of exploring the notion of beyond in theory and experiment, in science and contemplation, as well as in daily life. Cat, a philosopher, and Piet, an astrophysicist, share a deep and burning interest in the question of how humans construct and experience the world they live in and themselves who live in it.

Speaker: Stephen Burlingham, an artist and thought-leader who works on projects around the world promoting global mind change.

Abstract: Life and work exploring the tangible-intangible frontier, where the moment of truth is an infinite instant.  Mr. Burlingham discusses Whisper and Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; the GATEWAY art installation project and the initial engagement with Apple; and nevohteeB {Beethoven Backwards}, a current multi-media collaborative work-in-progress. Forget everything you know.

How can we see things that aren’t there (yet)? How can we know what we do not know? Imagination and curiosity are powerful mechanisms by which the human mind explore the unknown and creates new worlds. What are the similarities and differences of imagination in the sciences and the arts? And what are the consequences for education?

YHouse, Inc. is a nonprofit institute in New York City devoted to innovative and transdisciplinary research, intellectual partnership, and public discourse tackling humanity’s greatest questions on awareness, consciousness, and the future of intelligence. 

Speaker: Christoph Salge, University of Hertfordshire / New York University

Abstract:

What makes a mind want to do things in the first place? AI research focuses a lot on how to achieve a given goal or optimize for a given utility function. But how are these goals acquired in the first place, and are all possible utility functions suitable to motivate an AI towards more complex an interesting behaviour? It is hard to imagine that one could build a conscious agent that has no genuine goals or essential motivations.

The Great AI Debate

Artificial intelligence - it seems you either love it, hate it, or don't know what it really means. Will

thinking machines save us and enlighten us, or destroy us? Can we control what's happening with developments in machine learning, or are they already controlling us? Join YHouse's guests Simon DeDeo and Erik Hoel as their human minds battle it out, while you, the audience, get the final vote.

YHouse, Inc. is a nonprofit institute in New York City devoted to innovative and transdisciplinary research, intellectual partnership, and public discourse tackling humanity’s greatest questions on awareness, consciousness, and the future of intelligence. 

Erik Hoel, neuroscientist and 2017 Emerging Writers Fellow, interviews authors Zia Haider Rahman and Mark de Silva. Winner of the James Tait Black Memorial Prize, Zia Haider Rahman’s In the Light of What We Know weaves an intricate tale of the 2008 financial crisis, the Afghanistan war, and how we construct our personal narratives. Mark de Silva’s Square Wave spans from the future of the United States to the past of Sri Lanka, addressing climate change, and the nature of art and consciousness, drawing from the author’s PhD in philosophy from the University of Cambridge. Erik Hoel is a writer and neuroscientist at Columbia University researching the neurobiological basis of consciousness.

Great scientific revolutions come from challenging what we all assume to be true and expanding what science is 'allowed' to ask. Recent technological breakthroughs are pushing against our cherished assumptions about the nature and primacy of our minds, and forcing us to ask new questions about our reality.

Just before Thanksgiving, enjoy a mental feast as the YHouse Institute's brightest and best chew through some tough questions: how do we evaluate the reality of our awareness from within that same awareness? Where does consciousness really come from, and how does it fit into our ideas about the nature of life and the human future? We can't promise to answer them all, but we can guarantee a stimulating evening of stories and provocative thinking from researchers working on the extreme edge of scientific innovation.

Doors: 5:30, event 6:00.

Click here for tickets.

Speaker: Christoph Salge (New York University / University of Hertfordshire)

Abstract: Empowerment is a formalization of how much an agent is in control of its own perceivable future. This is captured by the channel capacity from an agent’s actuators to an agent’s sensor at a later point in time. In this short presentation I will briefly introduce the formalism and idea behind empowerment. I will outline how empowerment relates to the concept of intrinsic motivation and show some recent applications that demonstrate the range of behaviours that can be created in different scenarios. In particular, I will talk about recent work looking at coupled empowerment maximisation in a human-AI system – and how this can be used to define some core companion duties.

Speaker: Zhaoping Li (University College London)

Vision is a window to the brain, and I will give a short introduction and demonstrate that it can be seen as mainly a problem of "looking and seeing", which are two separable processes in the brain.  Understanding vision requires both experimental and theoretical approaches, and to study the brain using our own brains have its peculiar difficulties.

Speaker: Piet Hut and a Special Guest

ABSTRACT

The greatest scientific discoveries are made upon the realization that a generally accepted idea is in fact wrong.  And once the new idea is accepted, it is tempting to ask: why did it take so long to see the flaw in the old idea?  Perhaps the simple answer is: when we grow up with a set of ideas, forming a coherent worldview, we get so habituated to them that we grow increasingly unwilling to question any specific idea, afraid that it will threaten the comfort zone of our life as we know it...

Speakers: Piet Hut (IAS, Princeton) and Yuko Ishihara (ELSI, Tokyo)

We will start with a quick review of a paper, started by Piet and two (then) postdocs at IAS at the end of the previous century, and finally published in 2006, about the nature of reality: "On Math, Matter and Mind", by Piet Hut, Mark Alford and Max Tegmark.  In that paper Piet's position centered on a big question mark in the middle of their central diagram.  Now, almost two decades later, Yuko and Piet will investigate that question mark, theoretically and experientially.  Theoretically, by comparing various philosophical traditions.  Experientially, by starting with Husserl's epoche and considering extensions beyond the subject/object polarization.

Speaker: Michael Solomon, MD

For the past 40 years we have thought of cancer as the result of somatic mutations in nuclear DNA that either block tumor suppressor genes or unblock oncogenes resulting in malignant transformation. But our success in understanding or in treating cancer has been sadly limited.

Speaker: Randall D. Beer (Indiana University)

I will briefly describe two intertwined research programs.

The first concerns issues of embodiment, situatedness and dynamics in understanding how an animal's behavior arises from the interaction between its nervous system, its body and its environment. Specifically, we use genetic algorithms to evolve model brain-body-environment systems and then analyze their operation using the tools of dynamical systems theory and information theory. This approach has been applied to a wide variety of behaviors, including locomotion, action-switching, learning, categorization, selective attention, and referential communication.

Speaker: Liat Lavi  (Bar Ilan University)

In my talk I will present the account of understanding I am developing under the title of 'expectationalism'. The account draws heavily on Jamesian Pragmatism and the thought of Heidegger and Merelau-Ponty. Its central premises are: 1. That the meaning of something is its consequences, and to understand something is to grasp its consequences. and 2. That expectations are not some internal content, but are rather actualized by our bodies. 

I will link this account with contemporary approaches in cognitive science and philosophy of mind, and suggest that if the account is correct this implies that strong AI is possible and that limited instances of it already exist.