Artificial-intelligence systems such as large language models (LLMs) can exhibit behaviour that seems strikingly intelligent. This has led many people, including some experts, to wonder whether these systems could have some form of consciousness — the capacity for subjective experience. However, we think that existing AI systems are not conscious, and that, along current trajectories of development, they are not likely to become conscious. Greater clarity about whether AI could become consciousness will be crucial as society grapples with the challenges posed by this increasingly powerful technology.
I very much do. It means that given the same inputs to a system, you can expect the same output. I believe that to be one hundred percent the incontrovertible reality of life. The problem is it is not a testable theory, because the input includes the state of the system prior the new input. You can never recover that information, so there is no way to put it through and see if you will get that same output. Spacetime coordinates and the position of the cosmos themselves are all variables in this deterministic function, but it’s still deterministic.
OK, that’s great. So if I understand you correctly, it seems like you’re admitting that not only do you have no empirical evidence for your position, you don’t believe you’ll ever be able to test it. This seems like a weak position to hold, almost akin to a faith-based religious position.
As I’ve said, I think the existence of instinctual behavior qualifies as empirical evidence for my theory. I don’t believe it on a whim. Another example is twins, separated at birth, yet growing up to have nearly identical preferences and lives. Making choices reflecting the deterministic coding of their internal decision structure, which they largely share outside of nominal differences resulting from environment. That is rather strong evidence, I feel.
How have you ruled out other explanations for instinctual behavior? For example, there is a body of scientific work which offers evidence that instincts are passed down through genetics, a mechanism which doesn’t require that the brain be deterministic. What are the scientists studying this area getting wrong?
What about twins that are separated at birth but grow up to be different? It seems that the existence of even one such pair of twins would invalidate your claims, given how fundamental this would be to the operation of the brain.
Because we’re talking about the same thing in a different language. "Genetics* only mean the instructions used to build the structure of our intelligence. They’re not wrong at all, our determination nature is the result of the structure of our neurons which has a fundamental configuration determined by genetics.
No, it doesn’t invalidate it because the twins could be fraternal, having separate DNA, or that could have had such extreme differences in environment that it drastically changed the DNA from the shared base. Excluding those, though, and you can see the deterministic nature of life shining through.
[citation needed]
Yes, I assumed that we were only talking about identical twins.
What about identical twins who did not have extreme differences in environment but who nevertheless turn out quite different? Would you agree that even one example of such a set of twins would falsify your claim?
I’m not sure why you believe citation is needed. Are you arguing that the initial state of the brain is determined by something other than genetics?
Glad we’re on the same page. If there were a significant number of such cases, it would put doubt on my theory, and I’d look for any possible causes.
Yes, it is determined by many factors, only one of which is genetics. For example, developmental temperature affects neuronal growth: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.adp9587
Note the very first two sentences of the introduction: “The wiring of the nervous system follows a complex genetic plan during development. However, because of stochastic processes and environmental factors, genetically identical individuals seldomly show the same phenotypic outcome.”
Why “a significant number”? Why would one not be enough? It seems like what you’re saying here is “the brain is deterministic, except in particular cases when I know it’s not, and also possibly in other cases that may come up.” Why not just say you don’t know?
Regardless, aside from my specific questions here, my overall position is that it’s never correct to call the brain deterministic because we literally cannot test it to see if it is. Since there are a myriad of other possible explanations for our observations about the brain, the time to label it deterministic is when we build a time machine or whatever else we’d need to collect all of the spacetime data to test it, and not before that.
Of course factors other than genetics determine the state of the neural network, but the way in which it effects it is in turn determined by genetics. Why more than one to change my mind? Because there is plenty we don’t know, and a myriad of potential explanations. I’m just surmising that we are biological automotons transitioning from state-so-state based on the culmination of inputs into the perpetually changing neutral network structure established by our genetics and shaped by the environments impact on it, which can also largely be determined by the same genetic code.
Environment and genetics are inseparable, of course, so it’s “impossible” to test. I can’t prove it, I’m just asserting my theory based on the known evidence. I don’t “know”, but I still believe my theory is correct. That’s the distinction. I acknowledge I don’t know, and likely never will. Same as you, right?
You’ve seen the same evidence, and come to a different conclusion. That’s fine, but you can’t prove that human intelligence is non-deterministic any more than I can prove that it is. So we’ll just have to agree to disagree. I hope that you are feeling gregarious enough to concede that.