PreprintCited by 3Philosophy and Theoretical SciencePsychiatry, Mental Health, NeuroscienceEmbodied and Extended Cognition

The conductor model of consciousness, our neuromorphic twins, and the human-AI deal

Open access
Benitez, Federico, Pennartz, Cyriel, Senn, Walter·2023

Abstract

Critics of Artificial Intelligence posit that artificial agents cannot achieve consciousness even in principle, because they lack certain necessary conditions for consciousness present in biological agents. Here we highlight arguments from a neuroscientific and neuromorphic engineering perspective as to why such a strict denial of consciousness in artificial agents is not compelling. We argue that the differences between biological and artificial brains are not fundamental and are vanishing with progress in neuromorphic architecture designs mimicking the human blueprint. To characterise this blueprint, we propose the conductor model of consciousness (CMoC) that builds on neuronal implementations of an external and internal world model while gating and labelling information flows. An extended Turing test (eTT) lists criteria on how to separate the information flow for learning an internal world model, both for biological and artificial agents. While the classic Turing test only assesses external observables (i.e., behaviour), the eTT also evaluates internal variables of artificial brains and tests for the presence of neuronal circuitries necessary to act on representations of the self, the internal and the external world, and potentially, some neural correlates of consciousness. Finally, we address ethical issues for the design of such artificial agents, formulated as an alignment dilemma: if artificial agents share aspects of consciousness, while they (partially) overtake human intelligence, how can humans justify their own rights against growing claims of their artificial counterpart? We suggest a tentative human-AI deal according to which artificial agents are designed not to suffer negative affective states but in exchange are not granted equal rights to humans.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.31234/osf.io/gbzd6

Cites

115 of 116 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 9

  1. Angell, J.R. (1906). The Affective Elements of Consciousness. Chapter 13 in Psychology: An Introductory Study of the Structure and Function of Human Conscious, third edition, revised. New York: Henry Holt and Company, (1906): 256-269 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2020.07.006 · DOI · Paper page
  2. Asilomar Conference on Beneficial AI (2017), https://ai-ethics.com/2017/08/11/future-of-life-institute-2017-asilomar-conference/, https://ai-ethics.com/2017/08/15/research-principles/
  3. Berg, P. (1975). Summary statement of the Asilomar Conference on recombinant DNA molecules. https://collections.nlm.nih.gov/ext/document/101584930X515/PDF/101584930X515.pdf https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2020.07.006 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asilomar_Conference_on_Recombinant_DNA · DOI · Paper page
  4. Kirk, Robert, "Zombies", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2021 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.)
  5. Nagel, T. (1974). What is it like to be a bat? The philosophical review, 83(4), 435-450.
  6. Storm, JF, Klink, PC, Aru, J., Senn, W., Goebel, R, Pigorini, A, Avanzini, P., Vanduffel, W., Roelfsema, PR, Massimini, M, Larkum, M, Pennartz, CMA (2023). An integrative, multiscale view on consciousness theories, in review (2023)
  7. Van Gulick, Robert, "Consciousness", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2022 Edition), Edward N. Zalta & Uri Nodelman (eds.)
  8. Whyte, C. J., Munn, B. R., Aru, J., Larkum, M., John, Y., Müller, E. J., & Shine, J. M. (2023). A Biophysical Model of Visual Rivalry Links Cellular Mechanisms to Signatures of Conscious Perception. BioRxiv.
  9. Yuk, H., Lu, B., Lin, S., Qu, K., Xu, J., Luo, J., & Zhao, X. (2020). 3D printing of conducting polymers. Nature communications, 11(1), 1604.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Benitez, F., Pennartz, C., & Senn, W.
Affiliations
  • University of Bern (CH)
  • University of Amsterdam (NL)
Published
2023-12-12
OpenAlex
W4389683501
Cited by
3
References
114
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 2
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
Horizon 2020 Framework Programme (#945539, 785907)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Philosophy and Theoretical Science
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Psychiatry, Mental Health, Neuroscience
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Embodied and Extended Cognition
Keywords
artificial consciousness, neuromorphic engineering, neural correlates of consciousness, AI ethics, AI alignment, self-representation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review