Showing 1–1 of 1 results for author: Van De Walker, R

Consciousness is Pattern Recognition

Authors: Ray Van De Walker

Abstract: This is a proof of the strong AI hypothesis, i.e. that machines can be conscious. It is a phenomenological proof that pattern-recognition and subjective consciousness are the same activity in different terms. Therefore, it proves that essential subjective processes of consciousness are computable, and identifies significant traits and requirements of a conscious system. Since Husserl, many philoso… ▽ More This is a proof of the strong AI hypothesis, i.e. that machines can be conscious. It is a phenomenological proof that pattern-recognition and subjective consciousness are the same activity in different terms. Therefore, it proves that essential subjective processes of consciousness are computable, and identifies significant traits and requirements of a conscious system. Since Husserl, many philosophers have accepted that consciousness consists of memories of logical connections between an ego and external objects. These connections are called "intentions." Pattern recognition systems are achievable technical artifacts. The proof links this respected introspective philosophical theory of consciousness with technical art. The proof therefore endorses the strong AI hypothesis and may therefore also enable a theoretically-grounded form of artificial intelligence called a "synthetic intentionality," able to synthesize, generalize, select and repeat intentions. If the pattern recognition is reflexive, able to operate on the set of intentions, and flexible, with several methods of synthesizing intentions, an SI may be a particularly strong form of AI. Similarities and possible applications to several AI paradigms are discussed. The article then addresses some problems: The proof's limitations, reflexive cognition, Searles' Chinese room, and how an SI could "understand" "meanings" and "be creative." △ Less

Submitted 28 June, 2016; v1 submitted 4 May, 2016; originally announced May 2016.

Comments: 8 pages; Now describes the utility of the proof. Lemma A3 is improved. The root lemma is clarified. Included and excused some basic objections. Reordered the speculations, objections and excuses to be more coherent. Added paragraphs and references to aid some AI paradigms. Added my orcid and revised the abstract

ACM Class: I.2.0