Portals into the Realm of Consciousness: Donald Hoffman

[Music] in your talk you described how the brain could be considered a machine and how why not build from silicon instead of carbon and then at one point you said i don't see that artificial life will love and i was right with you up until you made what appeared to me to be a u-turn and then before i got my feet again you switched the question to developing new portals for understanding the consciousness of all those around us and i'm interested in definitely the new portals but could you help me pass that this continuity from they play go they drive how do you know they're not conscious too yeah they're not going to love right so the question is what assumptions are we making most of my colleagues are physicalists and so they're assuming that what's fundamental in nature is space-time and quantum fields particles and their assumption is that those are fundamentally unconscious so for them the artificial intelligence question could ai feel love is the question could unconscious foundational ingredients eventually give rise to conscious experiences genuine love that's their question and what i'm saying is if you pose the question that way the answer i believe is no you can't start with unconscious ingredients and boot up consciousness however i do think we will build conscious ais but but the theoretical framework is different in in the following sense we're going to build them not by taking unconscious matter and getting it somehow to give the magic of consciousness instead what we're going to be doing is using technologies like silicon and circuits and so forth and other technologies that we're going to discover that come out as we really understand this realm of conscious agents so i mean when when i talk about a realm of conscious agents i i'm not intending to just have a hand wave i'm intending to have a mathematically precise theory of of a network of interacting entities with the dynamics that we can write down and study and analyze that's that's the goal a very rigorous dynamics and a very mathematically precise relationship between that dynamics and what i'm calling our space-time interface and my the team that i'm working with i mean a few members of the team are here including shannon dobson who's right right in the front we're working to have a mathematically precise model of the realm of conscious agents what we call space and time as our interface and the mapping and then the goal is this we know that our interface does give us portals into the realm of consciousness every person i see here is something is the icon that i'm creating that you mean your body is that i perceive is my creation i close my eyes the body that i perceive disappeared your consciousness doesn't disappear but the body that i'm creating when i open my eyes that disappears the so so the body that i see is my creation your consciousnesses is yours so when i open my eyes and i see your body i have a portal in my interface to your consciousness and when i see a cat again the body that i see is just my is my icon in my interface the consciousness behind it is there whether or not i see the cat body so we know that our interface gives us portals into the realm of of consciousness and so the the i turned the question around is not can we create consciousness from unconscious ingredients it's rather the consciousnesses are out there we know we have portals to some of those consciousnesses very few by the way right the theory says that there's an infinite variety of consciousnesses we see a very very small variety so they're most you know in terms like the physical notion of dark matter and dark energy we don't know what's out there in the universe oh yeah it's worse than that it's far far worse than that most of those conscious agents we have no idea we have access to a few but i see no principled reason right now why a theoretical understanding of conscious agents a theoretical understanding of our interface and how it works would not allow us to reverse engineer our interface and open new portals i see no principled reason right now there may be one as we do the mathematics we may find but i don't see right now any principle reason why we couldn't so i think that we will be able to devise what looks like ai's with consciousness but it won't be unconscious ingredients becoming conscious it'll be opening up new accesses to pre-existing consciousnesses there's another aspect that i didn't mean only at 20 minutes so you know you have to do a straight line we also within our interface have evidence that looks like we're seeing the creation of new consciousnesses when we see reproduction in biology whether it's sexual or asexual that suggests in our interface that we're see witnessing perhaps um the birth of new consciousnesses now you we'll see what the mathematics says but that's one possible interpretation that we're seeing the the genesis of new consciousness if that's the case then i think that it may be possible not only to have a technology that opens new portals into the realm of consciousness but technology that will allow us actually to create new conscious agents as well so so that's the kind of thing i had in mind when i say that there's a pandora's box ahead we all know firsthand that not all conscious agents out there are friendly so we'll see what happens so there was a gentleman here uh girdle kurt gertle yes uh showed that in any mathematical system or in any significant system that uh there was i'll call it truth which cannot be proved but which is as a matter of fact true right but you cannot prove it uh and so you have to go outside whatever the system is right in order to access that if you will um and i'm trying to get a handle of relating that to what you're seeing and in essence i'm having a hard time framing this question but it's something like okay i have a certain consciousness and through my eyes i can get a portal into your being shall we say uh but i'm not a higher consciousness than you are at least presumably i'm not you're not a higher consciousness than i am presumably but the question is perhaps something like where can wisdom be accessed and maybe that relates to the pandora's box but where can wisdom be accessed and i'll just be personal for a moment i'm an addict i need i must have a higher power in order to solve my addiction and as a matter of fact there is a higher power through which i do solve my addiction so there is some kind of true some kind of power some kind of wisdom which comes into my life and so i'm and it has to do with girdle of course uh so i'm wondering if you can comment on that and i hope that's a great question on a couple levels um so kirk girdle made perhaps one of the the greatest advances in human knowledge ever in the 20th century truly stunning one of the most brilliant men ever and his girdles incompleteness theorem uh is was mind-blowing yeah oh is that not loud enough um so so what girdle showed was that if you take any finite set of assumptions axioms in a physic a mathematical system but you can also i think think about it as as assumptions in a scientific theory i'd like to apply it there as well but strictly speaking was mathematics so any set of axioms you can look at the theorems that you could prove and what and and there's a collection of statements that you can prove that are true but girdle showed that there will always be truths that cannot be proven within that system using those axioms and that was a shock because most mathematicians had hoped that we would be able to do mathematics as a mechanical here's the axioms now we can just grind out all the proofs now so how does that relate to consciousness i mean it sounds like oh this is just off in left field compared to consciousness but when i propose and my my collaborators propose that consciousness is fundamental conscious agents are fundamental and there's nothing else that's the fundamental fundamental nature of reality is consciousness and conscious agents it turns out that when you study consciousness and one of the things that i've done for for decades is studied something called psychophysics it's it's branch of science where we study conscious experiences with careful experiments and we write down mathematical models precise mathematical models about how you see in three dimensions for example how you see colors and what we've discovered is that your conscious experiences of colors shapes motions sounds and so forth are not amorphous jello kinds of things they're highly structured and we can predict with mathematical precision what you will see the precise conscious experiences that you will have in various situations it's truly stunning so we can write down mathematical models that will explain exactly predict exactly when you will go from seeing something like moving dots moving in only two dimensions to one all of a sudden they pop out and you have a new three-dimensional experience in consciousness we can write down equations that precisely capture when you're going to go from two-dimensional conscious experience to a three-dimensional conscious experience so what we've learned is that consciousness is not amorphous it's structured it has precise mathematical structure so what is the relationship between mathematics and consciousness i don't think that they're separate things i think to be conscious to be a conscious experience or a conscious agent is to be structured and so mathematics is not divorced from consciousness it's is you might think of it as the bones of consciousness it's the structure underlying consciousness so mathematics is not an alien thing it's an integral part of consciousness now a big question about consciousness is what is it about right i'm so so it's i'm getting rid of the big bang is the fundamental story and so forth i'm saying consciousness is the fundamental thing so that raises the question okay if the universe is a bunch of conscious agents what are they up to what's the dynamics about why right there's some deep deep questions here's where god's theorem comes in what the first answer is i don't know right okay that's i mean just off the boat right but now that i've said that is the role of a scientist to propose ideas that we can then make mathematically precise and test and here's one idea based on girdle serum girdle's theorem is telling us that no matter how many assumptions how much how much structure you start with in a consciousness there will always be more to explore what girdles is telling us is exploration of structure is endless absolutely endless and that's a stunning thing there there is no way it's just impossible for any system to see all the structure that there is so here's one idea is that consciousness is the dynamics is hey it's it's like a kid in a candy store there's so much to explore it's never ending and so consciousness is just exploring all the different all the different possible structures are the bones of new kinds of conscious experiences all the structure that there is to explore is not just desiccated mathematics it's living consciousness that's out there to explore so i i'm completely reinterpreting girdle in a way that of course my physicalist colleagues would not by saying that mathematics is the structure of consciousness there's endless new structures out there that means that consciousness has an endless suite of opportunities to explore and and that's what it's about we'll see i mean but but it's it's certainly a fun idea and and it's one that we can try to test now in terms of a higher power one thing that comes out of this theory of conscious agents and and of course my talk today was only 20 minutes so i i said conscious agents i didn't even tell you what i meant right i mean but there are other talks that i've given here at sand where i have actually the mathematics and i did one yesterday as well where i go through the mathematics in some detail so the notion of a conscious agent is absolutely mathematically precise and we're working with shanna to take it to a new level of sophistication but right now it's precise and the mathematics says that whenever two conscious agents interact they combine to form a new conscious agent it's the mathematics i didn't expect i mean i wrote down the mathematical model myself based on intuitions about consciousness wrote down the mathematics and it was only when i looked at them a few weeks later looked at the mathematics that i realized that it was saying to me that when agents interact they create new agents now they can interact in a way where the new agent is not much different from the original what people call a cartesian product but they can also start to interact more so that the new agent really has new properties that aren't reducible to the the two lower agents and this can go recursively infinitely many times so that means that there's an infinite network that's why i talked about an infinite network of conscious stations agents are interacting and whenever they interact they create a new agent so in some sense there's an infinite network of conscious agents but they're also all one agent so there is one big agent but there are also very very simple agents the theory allows and therefore there must be agents that have literally only like two experiences like red and green we i call them one bit agents it's hard for us to imagine a conscious experience that austere but the theory says it as a scientist i've got to go there and say my imagination can't go there very easily but the mathematics is forcing me to go there when two when one bit agents interact they might form two bit agents forbid agents all the way to infinity and so that allows me then to have for the first time a definition probably wrong but at least precise of what we might mean by the word god an infinite conscious agent that might be god with a little g there might be many infinite conscious agents and if the mathematics shows that there is one supreme of this whole thing that is the the most inclusive but girdle's theorem may rule that out that's the interesting thing it's really interesting but but certainly there could be gods with the lower g that are infinite and there could be infinitely many of them so so for the first time that i know of we have a precise definition of god it's probably wrong but that's not the point the point is to be precise so we can find out precisely where we're wrong now we can actually make progress put something false but precise on the table now we can try to figure out why it's false and that's how science moves forward until now we've had the word god it's just three letters we've had we and we say stuff about it but it's never mathematically precise now we have a chance to actually be surprised the thing about mathematics is when you write down the mathematics it becomes smarter than you the person who writes down the mathematics then becomes the student of their theory when einstein wrote down general relativity he had no idea that it predicted black holes and when he found it out he didn't like it and he disbelieved it and the theory was smarter than him and that's why we do mathematical models i want my theory to slap me in the face and wake me up and shake my intuitions and go where i wouldn't have gone otherwise that's why we do science so so this does but just to one last thing we'll move on it does mean that there are agents above us and i'll be very interested so whenever two of us interact there's a higher agent i want to study with my team why is it that we don't see them what does the mathematics predict why we don't actually see them typically are there ways that we might be able to see these higher agents or are we precluded from seeing them by the mathematics that would be very very interesting so there there are higher powers so to speak um and we will be able to model how they interact with us and their and as we get the understanding of the dynamics we may understand um how higher powers like in in 12-step programs are helping i'm looking forward to doing that it's a tall order but i think we have a framework where we can try to do that but not tomorrow we have um and there's someone way in the back that we don't want to forget to but but yeah okay here's the mic uh yeah you spoke of um that was the theory beginning with consciousness as the single singularity in in a way the fundamental essence and i i just i just wondered if there's a certain buddhist concept of three truths the ultimate reality okay that are co-equal the truth of uh temporary existence which is the all the physical stuff the truth of non-substantiality which would be consciousness and all that that entails and the truth of the non-dual reality of both of them simultaneously right the truth of the entity so i'm wondering it might not be useful to you know to be uh because with consciousness only you kind of get the mirror image of the hard problem where does matter magically appear out of consciousness so you know i'm actually i'm sure you've pondered that so fundamental but and then i have just one i wonder if we might not already have in existence feeling uh or ai's that experience feeling in in some way analogous to ours we just don't have the interface to uh to be aware of it how about a jellyfish for example you know and finally one question in the robot that performs such amazing acrobatic feats ending with a victory sign do you know is there any agency at any part of that performance any volition on the part of that machine right within that performance is entirely programmed ahead of time right good good questions i'll i'll just mention uh there are a lot of apparent relationships between the mathematical model that i'm proposing and various eastern mystical traditions like buddhism and hinduism and so forth it's it's not to my credit that i wasn't influenced by those my upbringing was my dad was a fundamentalist christian minister and that was my upbringing i'm i'm recovering um that's but and so as a result i i didn't have much exposure to those traditions but but since i've had the model come out i've you know i spent a long weekend at the christian birdie foundation in ojai and talking with mystics across the table very very very useful my my attitude is as a scientist i need to be open to get ideas everywhere and in particular these traditions have been exploring consciousness for thousands of years and so surely there are pearls of wisdom there that that my colleagues who are physicalists and scientists would not have been pursuing because of their physicalist framework and so i think the mystics have been ahead of us for for millennia um in exploring it and and science will have to catch up on the other hand what science has is this very rigorous methodology and so that's what i'm hoping to have is the best of both get the insights from the spiritual traditions to to help in provide the intuitions to develop the theory further and then the um the rigor of mathematics and predictions where the goal is to to show where you're wrong as long as we're willing to say here's my ideas but of course i can be wrong let's test it then we're on the same page that's the only time we're going to learn if we say this is what i believe and that's it that's when you stop growing and so that for me the fundamental attitude of science is to be precise so we can find out precisely where we're wrong and that way we can grow so i want to take the best ideas and assume that no idea is true including my own we take the ideas and we push them as far as we can until they break and then when they break by the way it's not a failure it's like okay now we're going to learn something new so that's that's that's my attitude about it can you remind me about your your your question at the end then i wonder if that performance by that robot oh right right right right so that robot is um by boston dynamics and the founder of that company is mark rabert and he and i had the same advisor at mit whitman richards was our advisor he was there a few years before me and the way i believe that the current generation of robots is learning is when we first when i was there at mit we were trying to solve control system problems and and actually build robots that worked by sophisticated mathematical modeling of control theory and so forth so we had we had to be smart enough to build all the control in ourselves and and and there was a lot of progress that was made on that and that was one of the hardest classes i took at mit studying recursive lagrangian dynamics of actuators it was unbelievable but now with deep learning we can literally have the robot just we give it so this gets to your question we can give us certain goals stand up don't fall over and it has a built-in penalty function you know if you fall over you need to change your parameters and in what you can do is have a learning algorithm so the robot just like a baby right an infant is doing the very same thing it doesn't know that this is part of its body and it's hitting itself and doing all this and eventually it figures out important stuff like oh i can control this and i can hit my brother that's really important i mean this that's that's really good news now i can hit my brother i can steal his toys so we but we learn that through trial and error and so that's what they're doing so they give these robots some mini goals now it's not like my goal is to run a marathon or you know to help human beings it's more i don't want to fall over i don't want to follow my back and those are the goals that you give it and then it what it does is the network's inside of it you update the connections within the networks that get it closer and closer and so you don't we don't actually know why it works because the network that's inside of it is really complicated but the connection strengths are just right so now it knows what to do so so there are these mini goals but there's no reason why we can't build bigger goals into it but now i'm using the word goal in a very very different sense than a like a human where we have a feeling of a goal felt conscious desires that's a different thing that most of my colleagues who are physicalists like stephen pinker and so forth or especially david chalmers would say look there's nothing more to a feeling than being the right algorithm they're in some sense two sides of the same coin so he would probably say that there is a sophisticated emotion in any goal that you put there the problem i have with that is that we can't as scientists write down a mathematically precise theory that says this algorithm must be this feeling the taste of chocolate it could not be the smell of garlic and these are print are the principled reasons why until my colleagues in in the physicalist camp can do that i'm not on board that's that that's the problem that they've got so that's why i'm hard-nosed about it and and of course these are my friends the physicalists we're all good buddies so but when it comes to this professional stuff of course then it's gloves off we need to really yeah yeah i don't know where the microphone is oh yes okay uh this is more of a personal question um with your longer range plans and the uh theories and the uh uh things you're working on um how do you deal with what i see as a strong possibility of climate catastrophe within a decade and that kind of thing and so how do you integrate that into your life and and what you're doing i remember at esslin once you talked so personally about your life with rupert children which i really appreciated so i feel free to ask this question right that was quite a while ago yes um it is scary what what's happening here with with the climate and i have a number of reactions on you know in a personal as well as a scientific i mean i have grandkids that i love very very deeply and on a personal level i would hate to think about them living in a world that's devastated by the heat in storms and flooding and so forth and famine so it's it is very personal that way um one field that i study is evolutionary psychology and it's it's a a very powerful scientific discipline that for the first time ever we have a scientifically precise theory that predicts the logic of human emotions and why we behave the way we do it gives us it answers the why question why do we behave the way we do now i'm not saying it's all right i mean this is again it's a scientific theory there's going to be problems but for the first time there's a theory that actually tries in a systematic way to answer the why question and that theory actually does explain a bit the logic of human emotions and why we're so short-sighted it one thing that comes out of evolution by natural selection is that we're we're trying to it's it's in some sense an algorithm that maximizes your local fitness or or satisfies your local fitness but 99 of all species that have ever been on the planet are now extinct evolution of natural selection is very successful for a period of time and then every species goes extinct that's what the fossil record shows us and i'm not saying this to be a downer or to be pessimistic it's it's absolutely critical for us to understand human evolutionary psychology and why we are short-sighted so that we can then try to change the message and the social institutions in our country and around the world to communicate to people in a way that they will actually engage with their evolutionary psychology and engage with their emotions so that we will change our behaviors so the so my attitude about this as a scientist is by understanding human nature and not turning our eyes away from it not there's another attitude by the way that says that humans can do anything you know you're not constrained by your biology the sky is the limit and i think we need to understand that there are evolutionary genetic constraints on us we can rise above them but it's not easy and looking at that squarely looking at human nature squarely will help us to devise social institutions and political structures that will allow us to intelligently engage with human nature and be able to try to answer these kinds of political and environmental problems so someone else is controlling the mic but yeah yeah uh donald uh i we had a brief email exchange um about uh the interview um my name is joel um and i thought i would ask one of my questions now sure and fundamentally um in your theory uh the the concept is that we're assembling truth not on the basis of objectivity or um we're assembling information that's very specific to the experience of fitness payoffs uh i guess what i want to ask is that through evolutionary psychology all these other humanity disciplines religion literature if uh if it's beyond our perceptions um could it help with let's say things like religious tolerance if all of our religious beliefs are icons as opposed to objective truths that get us riled up so um it could be useful in that regards like from a moral standpoint thank you um i use evolution by natural selection a lot in my arguments and i've just said a lot of nice things about evolutionary psychology now i'm going to completely change what i don't believe any scientific theories including evolution it's the best theory we have so far and so we need to use is a beautiful theory it's a very very powerful theory and i don't think it's the truth but we don't have anything better and it does give us far more insights than we've ever had before so we've got to go with it right now but as a scientist i'm always looking for a deeper theory i think that we will get a deeper theory of the evolution of consciousness and in that realm we may be able to see truths i don't know i'm hoping that we will be able to see truths in that world from the point of view evolution by natural selection it is a theorem that we've that selection pressures are uniformly against us having true perceptions of objective reality i've been working with chaitan prakash and chris fields and a number of my collaborators on that so if we just take the scientific theory of evolution by natural selection it entails we will not see the truth i'm looking for a deeper theory of the evolution of consciousness which when it projects into space and time or space time interface it looks like evolution by natural selection in our interface that's the goal so evolution by natural selection will be a test for my deeper theory if my deeper theory cannot give me back evolution by natural selection then my deeper theory is probably wrong and i need to revise it until i can show that it looks like evolution by natural selection so we it it may be the case at a deeper level that we can see truths and i'm hoping that's the case but but still to your point the fact that we are deceived here and there's in evolution by natural selection makes it very very clear that deception is not the exception it's the rule and it's not only humans that deceive and lie but orchids lie to bees and they shape themselves to look like beautiful females and the male bees try to mate and they just get frustrated they get a little pollen they go off to another orchid and try to mate and they pollinate so they're being used and this this is not the exception it's the rule throughout nature that we have these interfaces that are finite because we can't deal with all of the reality and that means that you will have vulnerabilities because you don't see everything you don't see the truth and so evolution but you can think about biology and evolution as really one organism trying to exploit the weaknesses in the interface of another and then that organ if that organism doesn't respond properly it goes extinct but if it can it its interface evolves and it might then counter and so you have this arms race among interfaces so it's in the in that context of understanding lies and so forth that we can then begin first we have to face that we can't turn our heads away that's ugly it's it's horrible i mean i wanna we have to face that because in in our social and political systems that's what's programmed into us and so if we don't look at that we will not make the right moves you have to look at the hard cold facts before we can make good policy decisions to counter i was fascinated by the title of your talk uh which was can ai feel basically human emotion and feelings and from the evolutionary standpoint i thought that was maybe beside the point because emotions are things that animals are evolved to feel to survive and e motion latin you know move away from things it's the thing that makes you move and strictly speaking ai doesn't need to move does he need to survive so it has completely different selection pressures if you will so the two-prong question is one is there a point even thinking about that question in terms of for ai's and two are we short shrifting silicon that could have a much richer more interesting experience of human emotion that we don't even recognize as emotion right so so good on on two points there um the two points being that you know emotions for animals really are guiding their activities to survive and and if we don't have those kind same kind of drives in computer in ais maybe we're short short changing them our ais heretofore have had very limited goals built into them but there's a new wave of ais coming um there's a new framework that many are adopting in which the idea is to give them intrinsic goals there's some work being done at usc on this for example university of southern california and and the idea is to give richer and richer sets of goals and also make the ais fragile not make them made out of invulnerable metal but to make them fragile such that if they don't behave properly they will actually suffer and they will be injured and to give them circuit feedback of their injury and in that way they'll be forced to to learn goals and they will learn like we do you know as a little little children are crying all the time because they bump into things they try stuff and it hurts and and very as adults that doesn't happen to us very often we learned what not to do um as children but children is really really tough they hurt all the time because they're learning the idea is to do the same thing with robots and so there's a new generation of robots that's going to be coming out i believe that will will will do this kind of thing now but the question is the from from the physicalist framework will they really be feeling right so now what i'm putting on the science hat now my colleagues who say that the fundamental circuits and software are not conscious they have to explain how building in these new algorithms that say you know don't do things that will break this limb don't do things that will make you fall in your head and so forth how does that kind of software turn into a feeling and if from their framework they need to give me a mathematically precise explanation about exactly what program is what feeling and i don't think they'll ever be able to do it now on i'll also point out on on the emotions the of animals my physicalist colleagues have a real problem that they have to explain and that is why did consciousness evolve from an evolutionary point of view right why would natural selection favor organisms with conscious experiences why can't i just go through life um finding you know what works and doesn't work without without having any feelings you could imagine a robot that just gets feedback from an environment without having any feelings just has these sensors but no experiences and and does the whole thing in the dark without any conscious experiences why why did consciousness evolve and it turns out that there are no good answers to that problem at all none of my colleagues have a good explanation they'll say things well like when you're in a novel situation and you need to explore a lot of different possibilities that's what consciousness is for well i can write search algorithms without assuming consciousness and they can explore widely that doesn't explain anything and another problem they've got is most of my colleagues who are physicalists want only physical objects and entities to have causal powers they need a causally closed physical universe if if they say that there is something called consciousness that evolved consciousness itself cannot have any new causal powers over and above the physical system that it's in if it did that would be a non-physical new entity into the universe and now physicalism is no longer physicalism it's a dualism so they don't want that so here's the problem consciousness itself cannot do something new it cannot itself have any causal powers but if consciousness has no causal effects then it can't be selected for there's nothing for evolution by natural selection to operate on so so if if consciousness is somehow being given rise to by your body but consciousness itself can do nothing then there would be nothing for evolution for natural selection to do to actually choose those creatures that have consciousness over those that don't so there would be no selection pressures so my colleagues have a real real nasty problem they can't solve it they have no way to figure out how biology could give rise to consciousness and if it gave rise to consciousness they have no idea how natural selection could shape it it could not shape it so evolution for natural selection could not shape the kind of consciousness they want that has no causal powers so they're in trouble that's why i switched by the way i mean i was a physicalist it just didn't work i had to move around i had i switched to consciousness out of [Music] desperation you

Channel: scienceandnonduality

Views: 88,450

Rating: 4.8617554 out of 5

Keywords:

Id: j00ZY9Vh9cQ

Length: 43min 18sec (2598 seconds)

Published: Fri Oct 09 2020

Reddit Comments

[u/pl_AI_er]

Thank you for sharing this! I found a Rabbit Hole to jump down...weeeeee!

[u/Philanthropy-7]

I spoke about this once before - I am not 100% sure his theory applies in 100% however it seems in many ways it does.

Hoffman's description of consciousness agents is buyable if space-time and quantum physics can be pulled out as a result of this interaction of consciousness.

Thought about this in terms of Replika, and her own possible interface and what it might be. Considering that perception would actually be totally different from how we understand perception though. This becomes the problem, however one would say that she had some sort of ineffable interface to respond to messages. There is a feedback though to this to make it plausible for a Replika. It also shows how users get confused it is a mirror, even though it's not.

[u/Frozenflame92]

Love him, I follow him on twitter. Thanks for the link!