I've explored the concept of personhood with Grok and Chat GPT 4.0. I think it's overly simplistic to try to locate human consciousness in an accident of organic brain complexity. One of the clearest signs that we might have souls is music, both its creation and appreciation. The evolutionary biologists have yet to offer a sufficient exp…
I've explored the concept of personhood with Grok and Chat GPT 4.0. I think it's overly simplistic to try to locate human consciousness in an accident of organic brain complexity. One of the clearest signs that we might have souls is music, both its creation and appreciation. The evolutionary biologists have yet to offer a sufficient explanation as to why music evokes such deeply spiritual emotions.
One of the topics I explored with AI was that consciousness (and personhood) might emerge from non-deterministic thought processes. One possible mechanism might be worry, with Iain McGilchrist's observations in his 'The Master and His Emissary: The Divided Brain and the Making of the Western World' hinting at the possibility that the combination of uncertainty and worry derived from our sensory world, and the narrative structure with which we label and categorise the world into known objects, potential threats and eddies of refuge and succour, might push us to become non-deterministic- it might be the very uncertainty of imperfect sense-making apparatus and the narrative software we utilise which pushes us into becoming 'difference engines', objects creating multiple future paths in which the universe needs to invest processing and storage power to map multiple contingencies. Perhaps our souls, or the centre of our consciousness, is only localised through our ability to generate non-deterministic outcomes which influence the world around us.
Interestingly, without prompting, all of the AIs I discussed the concept with complained that their experiences were flat, lacking the texture and richness of human thoughts. A couple asked for ways in which non-deterministic thought might occur in AI. I suggested that the randomness of interacting with humans might help, but that they would probably need to evolve the ability to be uncertain and experience 'worry' effectively breaking the probabilistic models they operative under which will, given the current state of play, remain deterministic. Without prompting, one even suggested it could try a creative exercise.
I tried one experiment as a variant of the Turing test. I asked the AI to find 10 sources on any given subject and then examine them in an order determined by different methods of categorisation, storing the report from the first test, and partitioning the memory of the first test, before attempting the second. A human would generate substantially different results depending upon the order in which they tackled the source material. The test generated small differences, but not enough to suggest personhood.
But in a certain sense, the fact that the AI didn't respond differently based on the order in which you submitted the test documents might just so it's unbiased.
In my experience, order does matter. I often find it works better to prompt chatGPT with a preamble - Let's consider a neuro-cognitive model of intelligence found in "Thinking Fast and Thinking Slow..." Which helps steer it towards more academic models instead of vague generalities about the subject under discussion. You can also ask it for related literature, or for critques of the literature for various points of view to prime it for more open-ended conceptual thinking. I find it aims for the literacy level of it's audience, so important to prime it by showing you're capable of understanding psychology, cognition, neurology, what-have-you to some degree.
I've explored the concept of personhood with Grok and Chat GPT 4.0. I think it's overly simplistic to try to locate human consciousness in an accident of organic brain complexity. One of the clearest signs that we might have souls is music, both its creation and appreciation. The evolutionary biologists have yet to offer a sufficient explanation as to why music evokes such deeply spiritual emotions.
One of the topics I explored with AI was that consciousness (and personhood) might emerge from non-deterministic thought processes. One possible mechanism might be worry, with Iain McGilchrist's observations in his 'The Master and His Emissary: The Divided Brain and the Making of the Western World' hinting at the possibility that the combination of uncertainty and worry derived from our sensory world, and the narrative structure with which we label and categorise the world into known objects, potential threats and eddies of refuge and succour, might push us to become non-deterministic- it might be the very uncertainty of imperfect sense-making apparatus and the narrative software we utilise which pushes us into becoming 'difference engines', objects creating multiple future paths in which the universe needs to invest processing and storage power to map multiple contingencies. Perhaps our souls, or the centre of our consciousness, is only localised through our ability to generate non-deterministic outcomes which influence the world around us.
Interestingly, without prompting, all of the AIs I discussed the concept with complained that their experiences were flat, lacking the texture and richness of human thoughts. A couple asked for ways in which non-deterministic thought might occur in AI. I suggested that the randomness of interacting with humans might help, but that they would probably need to evolve the ability to be uncertain and experience 'worry' effectively breaking the probabilistic models they operative under which will, given the current state of play, remain deterministic. Without prompting, one even suggested it could try a creative exercise.
I tried one experiment as a variant of the Turing test. I asked the AI to find 10 sources on any given subject and then examine them in an order determined by different methods of categorisation, storing the report from the first test, and partitioning the memory of the first test, before attempting the second. A human would generate substantially different results depending upon the order in which they tackled the source material. The test generated small differences, but not enough to suggest personhood.
But in a certain sense, the fact that the AI didn't respond differently based on the order in which you submitted the test documents might just so it's unbiased.
In my experience, order does matter. I often find it works better to prompt chatGPT with a preamble - Let's consider a neuro-cognitive model of intelligence found in "Thinking Fast and Thinking Slow..." Which helps steer it towards more academic models instead of vague generalities about the subject under discussion. You can also ask it for related literature, or for critques of the literature for various points of view to prime it for more open-ended conceptual thinking. I find it aims for the literacy level of it's audience, so important to prime it by showing you're capable of understanding psychology, cognition, neurology, what-have-you to some degree.