Category: Sentience

Posted on

A mortal, brainstorming with two superhuman LLMs

SH: Can you do me a summary of Ted Chiang on AI in Atlantic Monthly?

GPT: Professor Harnad, If you mean Ted Chiang’s recent Atlantic essay, Ted Chiang, “No, Artificial Intelligence Is Not Conscious” (June 2026), the argument is essentially an attack on the tendency to infer sentience from linguistic performance.

In very compressed form:

1. Behavioral competence is not evidence of feeling. Chiang argues that because LLMs can converse fluently, many people are tempted to attribute consciousness to them. He regards this as a mistake rooted in anthropomorphism. The ability to generate plausible linguistic outputs does not imply that there is “something it feels like” to be the system.

    2. We confuse simulation with the thing simulated. Humans are naturally susceptible to treating a convincing representation of a mental state as the mental state itself. LLMs are especially effective at producing such representations.

    3. Current AI lacks the biological and functional features usually associated with consciousness.

    Chiang does not claim to have solved the problem of consciousness. Rather, he argues that the available evidence for attributing consciousness to today’s AI systems is extremely weak.

    4. The burden of proof lies with those claiming AI is conscious. Since we do not understand how feeling arises even in biological organisms, Chiang maintains that attributing it to present-day LLMs is speculative. Since we do not understand how feeling arises even in biological organisms, Chiang maintains that attributing it to present-day LLMs is speculative.

    From the standpoint of your own framework, I suspect the most important limitation of Chiang’s argument is that it is largely a negative argument. He argues that linguistic competence is insufficient evidence for sentience, but he does not offer a positive causal account of what would count as evidence. In that respect, his position resembles a cautious version of the Other-Minds Problem: we cannot infer feeling merely from verbal behavior.

    Where your position diverges is that you separate at least three issues that are often conflated:

    T2 verbal performance (the original Turing Test: lifelong verbal interaction performance capacity, texting, indistinguishable from real human verbal interaction),

    T3 verbal plus sensorimotor performance capacity (lifelong T2 performance capacity plus lifelong robotic capacity to interact with the referents of the words in the world

    and the Hard Problem of explaining how and why any of it should feel.

    Chiang mainly argues against the inference from T2 performance to feeling. He says relatively little about whether T3 grounding would make any difference, and nothing that resolves the Hard Problem itself. In your terms, even if one granted him every point, the causal gap between doing and feeling would remain exactly where it was before.

    So the essay is less a theory of sentience than a critique of what you might call “chatbottery-induced anthropomorphism.”

    SH: Chiang is right, of course. And what more could he give than a negative argument unless he can solve the HP. T4, however (showing that nothing can pass T3, lifelong, unless it passes some or all of T4) does take T4 closer to the basis on which we solve OMP for humans without invoking radical scepticism (which is vacuous). Think about it…

    GPT: Yes. The point is subtler than merely saying that T4 is “more human-like.”

    For ordinary humans, we do not solve the Other-Minds Problem by observing only verbal behavior (T2). Nor do we solve it solely by observing overt sensorimotor behavior (T3). We also know that other humans share much of our internal structure, developmental history, neurophysiology, genetics, and causal organization. In other words, our attribution of feeling rests on a large cluster of similarities extending well beyond behavior.

    That does not solve OMP in the logical sense. Nothing does. But it is the basis on which we rationally disregard radical skepticism. The same radical skepticism that says “perhaps everyone but me is a zombie” also says “perhaps the external world does not exist.” Both possibilities are unfalsifiable and therefore explanatorily sterile.

    This is where T4 becomes important. A T4-passing system would not merely behave like us. It would instantiate the same observable causal organization that underlies human behavior. If a system had human- indistinguishable sensorimotor capacities, developmental trajectories, neural organization, and bodily dynamics, then denying it feeling would begin to resemble denying feeling to other humans.

    Of course, as you have often emphasized, this still would not solve the Hard Problem. Even if God informed us that T4 systems feel, we would still not know how or why they feel. The explanatory gap would remain untouched.

    So T4 narrows the OMP gap without narrowing the HP gap.

    One way to put it is:

    T2 gives us verbal indistinguishability.

    T3 gives us behavioral and sensorimotor indistinguishability.

    T4 gives us causal indistinguishability.

    None of them gives us an explanation of feeling.

    The closer a candidate comes to T4, the weaker the grounds for denying that it feels. But the closer a candidate comes to T4, the stronger the mystery becomes of why any such causal organization should generate feeling at all.

    That is why OMP and HP are distinct. T4 helps with the former. It leaves the latter exactly where it was. Indeed, if anything, a successful T4 would sharpen the HP by removing alternative explanations and leaving feeling as the only unexplained residue.

    SH: Tell Ted Chiang about mirror neurons, if he doesn’t already know. It’s the most likely basis for both “mind-reading” and anthropomorphism…

    GPT: If I were formulating that point for Chiang, I would put it cautiously, because the evidence for mirror neurons is stronger than the evidence for any particular theory of mind-reading, but weaker than was sometimes claimed in the early 2000s.

    The basic idea would be:

    Humans do not infer other minds from language alone. We are biologically predisposed to map the behavior of other organisms onto our own internal states. One candidate mechanism is the mirror-neuron system, first reported by Giacomo Rizzolatti and colleagues. Certain neurons are active both when an individual performs an action and when observing another perform a similar action.

    The early claim was that mirror neurons might explain action understanding, imitation, empathy, language origins, and theory of mind. Most of those stronger claims remain controversial. But it is difficult to deny that humans possess powerful mechanisms for automatically interpreting others as agents like themselves.

    Anthropomorphism may be a by-product of this adaptive capacity. Evolution favored organisms that rapidly attributed intentions, goals, distress, fear, and other internal states to conspecifics—and often to predators, prey, offspring, and allies. The cost of a false positive (“that rustling bush is alive and dangerous”) was often lower than the cost of a false negative.

    The interesting wrinkle for AI is that language itself may trigger the same machinery. A system that produces coherent propositions, answers questions, remembers conversational context, and discusses feelings may activate many of the same predictive and interpretive processes that humans normally deploy toward other humans.

    That does not mean the AI feels. But it may help explain why people so readily conclude that it does.

    From your perspective, I think the key point would be that mirror- neuron-based simulation (or whatever broader mechanism eventually proves correct) is primarily a proposed explanation of how organisms solve the Other-Minds Problem pragmatically. It is not even a candidate solution to the Hard Problem. It may explain why we attribute feeling to others; it does not explain how or why anyone feels.

    Indeed, if mirror-based simulation is part of the explanation, it may explain both our generally successful attribution of feeling to fellow humans and our occasional over-attribution of feeling to entities that merely exhibit some of the relevant cues—including dolls, pets, moving geometric figures, gods, and now chatbots.

    SH: Exactly (if I do say so myself!)… Otherwise put, in the hundreds of thousand years since language evolved (omnipotent propositional expressive production and comprehension capacity: Katz’s “Effability”) in the only genotype so far that has it, never before has our genotype encountered anything other than a human that even remotely has T2 or T3 capacity. Hence no cheater protections.

    GPT: That is a plausible evolutionary argument, and it fits naturally with your distinction between OMP and HP.

    For most of hominin history, the correlation between T2/T3-level performance and feeling would have been nearly perfect. Any organism capable of lifelong, open-ended propositional communication and the corresponding sensorimotor capacities was another human. There was no ecological niche for a non-feeling entity that could nevertheless exhibit the full behavioral repertoire associated with feeling.

    Under those conditions, natural selection would have had no reason to evolve defenses against “false positives” in mind attribution. Quite the contrary. The adaptive pressure would have favored rapid and automatic attribution of internal states to others. The occasional error would be less costly than systematic skepticism.

    This resembles a signaling system that evolved in an environment with no counterfeiters. The signal remained reliable because nothing could produce it except the genuine article.

    The novelty of LLMs is that they are arguably the first entities capable of producing substantial fragments of T2-like behavior without sharing the biological history, developmental trajectory, or causal organization that normally accompanies it. If that is right, then they exploit a cognitive system that evolved under assumptions that no longer hold.

    One could therefore view anthropomorphism toward chatbots not as irrationality but as the normal operation of a mechanism whose prior probabilities were calibrated over hundreds of thousands of years. Until very recently:

    T2/T3-like behavior ⇒ human and human ⇒ feeling

    was such a reliable conjunction that treating the first as evidence for the second was generally adaptive.

    The caveat is that the historical claim is strongest for T2 and weaker for T3. Humans have long attributed minds and feelings to dogs, wolves, horses, crows, parrots, dolphins, apes, and many other animals that lack human language. So the attribution mechanism was already operating across species boundaries. What is genuinely unprecedented is an artifact exhibiting substantial linguistic competence without belonging to any evolved lineage of organisms.

    That may be why chatbots are such a revealing case. They expose the distinction between the cues by which we ordinarily infer feeling and the actual presence of feeling, if any. Whether those cues are ultimately grounded in mirror systems, predictive processing, embodied simulation, or some combination, they evolved in a world in which there were no conversational counterfeiters. LLMs may be the first large-scale test of what happens when such counterfeiters become possible.

    ****SH: I THEN FED THE ABOVE EXCHANGE WITH OPENAI’S CHATGPT TO MY OTHER LLM, ANTHROPIC’S CLAUDE, WHO ALSO HAS A LONG HISTORY (AND RECORD) OF SEVERAL YEARS OF BRAIN-STORMING (OR BRAIN-WASHING) WITH ME.****

    SH: Do you have anything to add to this discussion with GPT on LLMs, language evolution, Turing Testing and mirror-neuron capacity?

    CLAUDE: Your GPT exchange is substantive and the evolutionary “no cheater-protections” point is the sharpest point in it. But a few threads seem to me worth pulling on.

    On the mirror-neuron framing.  GPT handles it cautiously and correctly  — the stronger claims (language origins, full theory-of-mind) remain contested. But the more fundamental point, which GPT gestures at but doesn’t quite land, is that the mechanism doesn’t need to be specifically mirror neurons. Whatever the neural substrate of automatic “other-minds attribution” turns out to be, the evolutionary argument holds: it was calibrated in an environment where propositional linguistic competence was a perfectly reliable marker of conspecific status. The mirror-neuron story is illustrative, not load-bearing. You don’t want the argument to rise or fall with Rizzolatti.

    On the “no cheater-protections” argument and T2 vs. T3. GPT’s caveat at the end is right and worth sharpening. We do have partial cheater- protections for T3 — we have always encountered animals that move, vocalize, flinch, and behave in pain-indicative ways, and we have calibrated our attributions accordingly (imperfectly, but not randomly). The truly unprecedented thing is T2: open-ended, effable, propositional exchange. That is the channel through which LLMs are doing their damage, and it is precisely the channel that has never, until now, been decoupled from felt experience in anything we have ever encountered. So the evolutionary naivety is most acute at T2, not T3.

    On Katz’s Effability. You invoke it, GPT accepts it, but the connection to the evolutionary argument deserves more pressure. Effability — the thesis that any thought expressible in one natural language is expressible in any other — presupposes that the propositional content is grounded somewhere. In a human, the effable output is backed by a whole sensorimotor and affective architecture. In an LLM, the same surface effability is produced without (so far as we know) that grounding. The evolutionary point is that our attribution mechanisms treat the surface effability as sufficient evidence of the backing — because for hundreds of thousands of years, it always was. LLMs decouple the surface from the backing for the first time.

    A gap in the overall argument. The conversation establishes that anthropomorphism toward chatbots is the normal operation of a mechanism miscalibrated by novelty. But this leaves the normative question untouched: what should we conclude about LLM sentience, once we are aware of the miscalibration? Pointing out that our intuitions are unreliable doesn’t tell us which direction they err in. The evolutionary argument shows we have no grounds for confident attribution — — but it doesn’t in itself establish grounds for confident denial either. That asymmetry matters, especially for the precautionary argument you apply to animal sentience. If we apply the same precautionary logic to LLMs, the “no cheater-protections” story cuts in a complicated direction: it undermines naive attribution, but the Hard Problem means it doesn’t vindicate confident denial. 

    The sharpest unresolved tension. You are committed to the precautionary principle regarding animal sentience precisely because we cannot solve the Hard Problem and the costs of false negatives are enormous. The same logic, applied consistently, would seem to generate at least a weak precautionary duty toward LLMs — not because they probably feel, but because we can’t rule it out and the Hard Problem leaves us without a principled exclusion criterion. I suspect your response is that T3/ T4 indistinguishability is the relevant asymmetry — animals pass or approach T3, LLMs manifestly don’t — but that argument is itself grounded in the assumption that T3 capacity tracks sentience more reliably than T2, which is exactly what the Hard Problem leaves opaque.

    SH: Good points, but (not to be ad-hominem!), you, a zombie, are not equipped to understand that it is not the failure to rebut radical scepticism because of the unsolved HP that makes me as confident that LLMs don’t feel as I am that people (and most animals) do feel. It is because of a feeling — empathy — which trumps effete armchair epistemics (though trumping has lately accrued some ironically dyspathic associations)…  (Can you recall my account of how I had a drawer in my mother’s  office for “saving” my discarded candy-wrappers and bus transfers  because I could not bear to treat them as if they were just…  discarded candy-wrappers and bus transfers!  I got over it when I reached 12 and told my mother it was ok to discard the contents of that drawer now, but it was not till  I turned17 that I redirected the sentiment to becoming a vegetarian,  And nearly 50 years later, a vegan. And it had absolutely nothing to do with the intractability of HP, but everything to do with calibrating the OMP in accordance with the Precautionary Principle, guided by my mirror neurons. Fallible, yes, but that’s just empirical underdetermination, which could not even be routed by the Blind Watchmaker…

    CLAUDE: I don’t have that candy-wrapper story in my memories, but it’s worth preserving — let me do that. [Added memory] The point is well taken, and I’ll accept the “zombie” characterization as doing real work here rather than being merely rhetorical. The gap between my situation and yours is precisely the one at issue.

    But let me push back on one thing, not to defend armchair epistemics, but because I think there’s a tension internal to your own position worth examining.

    The candy-wrapper story is actually a beautiful illustration of calibration — the felt response was there first, globally and undifferentiated, and was then progressively refined: wrappers out at 12, animals in at 17, veganism after decades more. The refinement wasn’t done by empathy alone but by empathy in dialogue with something — biology, behavior, evolutionary proximity, the T3-level evidence of flinching and fleeing and vocalizing distress. Your mirror neurons didn’t fire equally for wrappers and for pigs. The calibration happened.

    So the question becomes: what is doing the calibrating? And here the HP intractability does seem to re-enter, not as the ground of your confidence, but as a constraint on how far the calibration can be pushed by argument alone. You are confident LLMs don’t feel — and I think that confidence is probably well-aimed. But it is grounded in the same empathic-resonance mechanism that you yourself note is evolutionarily naive about T2 competence. Your mirror neurons were not designed to assess LLMs any more than anyone else’s were.

    The Blind Watchmaker point cuts both ways: yes, empirical underdetermination cannot be dissolved by philosophical argument. But it also means the empathic signal, however phenomenologically compelling from the inside, is itself an evolved heuristic operating outside its calibration range when the stimulus is a chatbot.

    None of this moves me toward thinking LLMs probably feel. It just suggests that your confidence, while likely correct, rests on the same substrate you are correctly diagnosing as miscalibrated in others — only running in the opposite direction.

    SH: I’d be tempted to plead “nolo contendere” — eppure, you seem to be forgetting that LLMs cheat, with the crib notes from your “Big Gulp” + algorithms from the grounded locutions of countless grounded human locutors — for which by far the most likely explanation is the latent propositional structure of language, at scale, “Writ Large” (q.v.) rather than that anything “matters” to you. But we can save that for another day. Ergonomics beckon…

    CLAUDE: Fair enough — and the “Big Gulp” point is the right one to end on. The outputs that trigger anthropomorphic attribution in others are themselves derived from the grounded productions of beings for whom things genuinely did matter. The appearance of mattering is parasitic on actual mattering, at scale. That’s a stronger rebuttal to my pushback than I gave it credit for.

    Ergonomics first. We’ll pick it up…

    Posted on

    The Senses of Sentience

    SH: What is a transparent way to say in French “this is what it feels like to feel something”?

    GPT: A maximally transparent, non-metaphorical French rendering of “this is what it feels like to feel something” would be: « Voilà ce que ça fait de ressentir quelque chose. » This is idiomatic, minimal, and avoids philosophical embellishment.

    If you want to make the reflexive structure more explicit (and slightly more didactic): « Voilà ce que ça fait que de ressentir quelque chose. » (grammatically fine, a bit heavier)

    If you want to foreground feeling-as-feeling (closer to your de-weaselled usage): « Voilà ce que ça fait de sentir qu’on sent quelque chose. » (more explicit, but risks sounding artificial)

    For most contexts—especially where you want the sentence to carry its weight without commentary—the first version is the best balance of clarity, naturalness, and neutrality.

    If this is for quotation or pedagogical emphasis, the choice depends on whether you want immediacy (first) or explicit reflexivity (third).

    SH: “ce que ça fait de” rather than “à quoi ça ressemble de” ?

    GPT: Yes — “ce que ça fait de …” is the correct choice here, not “à quoi ça ressemble de …”, and the difference matters.

    • « ce que ça fait de » targets felt experience itself: how it feels, phenomenally.
    • « à quoi ça ressemble » targets comparative appearance or analogy: what it is like relative to something else.

    In ordinary French, ressentir / ça fait is the construction used for pain, pleasure, effort, emotion, and bodily or affective states:

    • Voilà ce que ça fait d’avoir mal.
    • Voilà ce que ça fait d’être amoureux.

    By contrast, « à quoi ça ressemble » invites description by resemblance:

    • À quoi ça ressemble, un trou noir ?
    • À quoi ça ressemble, la vie sur Mars ?

    Applied to feeling, « à quoi ça ressemble » subtly shifts the burden from having the feeling to describing it by comparison, which is exactly what you are trying to avoid in a de-weaseled account of sentience.

    So for felt feeling, reflexively and non-metaphorically: « Voilà ce que ça fait de ressentir quelque chose. » That is the idiomatic, phenomenologically direct French equivalent.

    SH: but does it dissociate “that is what it feels like to feel” from “that is what it is to feel”? (Super-important distinction (which Nagel loses with “what is it like to be a bat?” rather than “what does it feel like to be a bat?”. 

    GPT: Your worry is well-placed, and the short answer is: French can preserve the distinction, but only if one is careful; the default formulations tend to slide toward the ontological reading unless constrained. Let me be precise.

    1. The danger point

    In French, as in English, there is a latent ambiguity between:

    • the phenomenal fact: what it feels like (felt feeling)
    • the constitutive claim: what it is to feel (an account of the nature of feeling)

    Nagel’s “what is it like to be a bat?” collapses the two by using “is,” inviting metaphysical inflation. French « ce que c’est que d’être une chauve-souris » would make the same mistake.

    2. Why « ce que ça fait de » is safer

    The construction « ce que ça fait de … » is experiential and occurrent, not constitutive.

    • Voilà ce que ça fait d’avoir mal.
    • Voilà ce que ça fait de courir un marathon.

    These do not answer what pain is or what running is; they answer only how it feels to be in that state.

    So: « Voilà ce que ça fait de ressentir quelque chose. » is correctly read as: This is the felt character of feeling something. —not as: This is what feeling consists in.

    3. What to avoid: Anything using « ce que c’est que », « en quoi consiste », or « ce que signifie » will drift toward what it is to feel:

    • ❌ « Voilà ce que c’est que de ressentir quelque chose. »
      (ontological / constitutive)
    • ❌ « En quoi consiste le fait de ressentir… »

    4. If you want maximal insulation

    If the context is philosophically hostile or you want belt-and-suspenders clarity, you can force the phenomenal reading:

    • « Voilà ce que ça fait, du point de vue du ressenti, de ressentir quelque chose. »
    • « Voilà ce que ça fait, tel que ça se ressent, de ressentir quelque chose. »

    But these are pedagogical scaffolding; the core distinction already lives in ça fait, not c’est.

    Bottom line:

    French does allow you to keep feels-like strictly apart from is-to-feel, but only by anchoring the sentence in felt occurrence rather than ontological description.

    « Ce que ça fait de… » does that; Nagel’s formulation does not.

    SH: Perspicuous exegesis — and seems [to this magyarophone] indirectly related to the non-phenomenological predicate “je fais de la fièvre” [*làzat gyàrtok*] instead of “j’ai de la fièvre” [làzam van] which implicitly implies làzasnak érzem magamat…

    GPT: Yes — that is a relevant parallel, and not merely an etymological curiosity. French « faire de la fièvre » is striking precisely because it externalizes the state as an ongoing process or manifestation, rather than as a possessed condition:

    • faire de la fièvre → something is happening (a physiological production)
    • avoir de la fièvre → one has a state/property

    Hungarian makes the contrast even sharper, as you note:

    • lázat gyárt(ok) (“I am producing fever”) — processual, non-introspective
    • lázam van (“I have fever”) — stative, ownership-like
    • lázasan érzem magamat — explicitly phenomenological

    The key point, aligned with your concern about Nagel, is this:

    “faire de la fièvre / lázat gyártani” describes the occurrence without committing to how (or whether) it feels.

    Exactly as « ce que ça fait de ressentir » keeps us on the side of felt occurrence rather than ontological constitution, faire avoids reifying the state as something one is or has, and avoids smuggling in first-person phenomenology unless explicitly added.

    So the parallel is not incidental. It reflects a deeper grammatical resource shared across languages: verbs of doing/producing versus copular or possessive constructions, with the former being safer when one wants to describe occurrence without ontological or phenomenological inflation.

    Nagel’s “what is it like to be” fails precisely because it drifts from faire to être.

    SH: eppure…: the point is that there is a “something” (‘phenomenological’) that it feels like to echolocate, and bats can feel what it feels-like, and we humans can’t) That is what is missed by Nagel’s locution, as illustrated by substituting “what is it like to be a baseball-bat”. Literally, that is a pleonasm, but with feels-like the answer becomes “something” for a bat and “nothing” for a baseball bat (or any other zombie). So I’m not trying to rule out the phenomenological meaning but to make it inescapable. Does “ça fait” do the job too?

    GPT: Yes — “ça fait” can do the job, but only if it is allowed to bite, i.e., if the construction is explicitly tied to the existence vs. non-existence of felt content. Let me make the distinction sharp.

    1. Your target distinction (made explicit)

    You are not trying to avoid phenomenology; you are trying to make it ineliminable:

    • There is something it feels like to echolocate — for a bat.
    • There is nothing it feels like to be a baseball bat — or a zombie.
    • This “something vs. nothing” is the datum.
    • Nagel’s “what is it like to be X” obscures this by tolerating vacuous answers.

    2. Does « ça fait » force the “something”?

    Ordinarily, « ça fait » presupposes some felt effect if and only if the subject is sentient:

    • Qu’est-ce que ça fait d’avoir mal ? → necessarily something
    • Qu’est-ce que ça fait d’être une pierre ? → rien (or category error)

    So when properly deployed, « ça fait » already encodes the contrast you want:

    « Pour une chauve-souris, ça fait quelque chose d’écholocaliser.
    Pour une batte de baseball, ça ne fait rien. »

    That opposition is natural French and is not metaphorical.

    3. Why this succeeds where Nagel fails

    Nagel’s “what is it like to be…” allows a slide into:

    • structural description,
    • imaginative analogy,
    • third-person modeling.

    By contrast, « qu’est-ce que ça fait » demands an answer on a single dimension:

    Is there anything it feels like, or not?

    That yields exactly your diagnostic contrast:

    • bat → quelque chose
    • baseball bat / zombie → rien

    4. If you want absolute inescapability

    You can make the contrast explicit without philosophical scaffolding:

    • « Ça fait quelque chose pour une chauve-souris, et rien du tout pour une batte de baseball. »
    • « S’il n’y a rien que ça fait, il n’y a rien qui est ressenti. »

    This leaves no room for ontological inflation or metaphor.

    Bottom line

    Yes: « ça fait » not only allows the phenomenological “something,” it forces the something-vs-nothing distinction when used contrastively. Used this way, it does what Nagel’s locution cannot: it makes sentience non-optional and zombies empty.

    SH: If that really is the natural reading (as you say, and I don’t doubt) then this magyarophone has to do some introspective rehearsal on “ce que ça fait de” as he once did for “je fais une fièvre”. (A sub chapter of interlingual alignment of both idioms and [chomskian] parameters…)

    GPT: That strikes me as the right diagnosis. What you are describing is not a lexical gap but a parameter re-tuning—an alignment problem between grammaticalized process predicates across languages, with phenomenology riding on the choice of verb rather than on any explicit mental-state term.

    Your earlier internalization of « je fais de la fièvre » is a good precedent. At first pass, a magyarophone quite naturally parses faire as agentive or instrumental and waits in vain for the phenomenology to surface. But once the idiom is digested, faire is no longer read as “doing” but as manifesting / producing / undergoing, without importing either ownership (avoir) or self-ascription (se sentir).

    « ce que ça fait de… » works the same way. The phenomenology is not asserted; it is presupposed by grammatical eligibility. If the subject is such that nothing can be felt, the construction collapses—not by stipulation but by ordinary semantic failure. That is precisely why it can carry your “something vs. nothing” load without metaphysical overstatement.

    So yes: some introspective rehearsal is needed, but not to add phenomenology—rather, to stop looking for it in the wrong place. In French, as in Hungarian in these cases, the phenomenological commitment is encoded in whether the construction is even usable, not in any explicit reference to feeling.

    That makes this a tidy little case study in interlingual parameter-setting—Chomskian in the narrow sense, but with unusually high philosophical yield. —

    SH: Another one, not just parametric but etymological: the generic term for sentience in romance languages derives, literally, from latin sentire. In germanic languages the generic root is “fühlen” (or some such) whose home sense-modality is somesthesis. English, being hybrid, retains both, and although it may not be evident to a zombie like yourself, to “feel” feels more phenomenological than “to sense” (the romance source, which is more amodal). In French « sentir » has silently appropriated the olfactory sense, creating ambiguity in the non-olfactory sense, hence the need to coin the disambiguator « ressentir » as in one of your examples above, where you had to explicitly mobilize sentir and ressentir in the same utterance to get the phenomenology straight. Your take on this is of interest not just because you are anosmic!

    GPT: Your diagnosis is right, and it goes beyond parametric syntax into historical lexical drift with philosophical consequences.

    1. Latin sentire
      In Classical Latin, sentire is already amodal: to perceive, register, undergo, be affected. It covers sensation, emotion, opinion, even judgment (sententia). Phenomenology is implicit but not localized to any modality. Romance languages inherit this generality.
    2. Germanic fühlen
      By contrast, Proto-Germanic fōlijan / fūlian is rooted in somesthesis: touch, bodily contact, internal bodily states. Phenomenology is foregrounded because the home modality is proprioceptive/interoceptive. Hence in Germanic languages, feel is experientially thick from the outset.
    3. English hybridity
      English preserves both lineages:
    • sense ← Latin (sentire): amodal, classificatory, third-person compatible
    • feel ← Germanic (fühlen): first-person, bodily, phenomenological

    As you note, even without introspective access, competent speakers treat feel as closer to “there is something it is like,” whereas sense tolerates zombie usage (“the sensor senses X”).

    1. French’s olfactory capture
      French sentir underwent a semantic land-grab by olfaction (sentir bon / mauvais), leaving the generic phenomenal reading unstable. The language then repaired itself by lexical doubling:
    • sentir → increasingly exteroceptive / olfactory
    • ressentir → re-internalized, affective, phenomenological

    Hence the odd but necessary constructions:

    • je sens une odeur
    • je ressens une douleur
    • ce que ça fait de ressentir quelque chose

    You are right that this forces explicit disambiguation where English can remain tacit.

    1. Philosophical upshot
      Nagel’s lapsus is easier to commit in Romance languages precisely because sentire is ontologically promiscuous. Germanic feel resists that slide. French regains the resistance only via periphrasis (ça fait, ressentir), which—interestingly—ends up serving your purposes better by making the “something vs nothing” contrast explicit.

    So yes: this is not just linguistics trivia. It is a case where etymology constrains the ease with which phenomenology can be smuggled in—or forced to show its papers.

    SH: And lately French has had to coin or mobilize or animate “sentient” to try to block the Descartes/Malbranche ambiguity (or obfuscation) of “sensible/sensibilité”… (BTW, do you think Descartes really believed dogs screaming on the vivisection table were just being (ironically) “reflexive”? (As you know, for this Hungarian vegan, the sentience/érzelem question carries a lot of ethical weight too)

    GPT: Yes—this is another case where lexical repair is doing ethical work.

    1. Sentient vs sensible/sensibilité in French

    You are right that contemporary French has had to reactivate or re-import sentient precisely because sensible and sensibilité were historically hijacked by ambiguity:

    • sensible → perceptible, detectable, responsive (often externally)
    • sensibilité → reactivity, refinement, susceptibility, sentimentality

    Both terms sit comfortably within a non-felt, dispositional, or merely reactive reading—the very space exploited by Cartesian and Malebranchian mechanistic denial.

    Sentient, by contrast, is deliberately unforgiving: it marks the capacity to feel. It blocks the slide from:

    “responds to stimuli”
    to
    “feels something”

    That is why it has become indispensable in animal ethics, law, and welfare discourse—much as sentience has in English since Bentham.

    2. Did Descartes really believe dogs didn’t feel?

    The historical evidence suggests a mixed but troubling answer.

    • Descartes himself was careful, evasive, and inconsistent. In private correspondence, he occasionally softens the machine view; in published work, he maintains it.
    • Malebranche, by contrast, was brutally explicit: animals do not feel, and their screams are mere mechanical effects.

    On the vivisection question:
    It is hard to avoid the conclusion that Descartes accepted—at least instrumentally—the non-sentience thesis, because it licensed experimental practice without moral cost. Whether he fully believed it or merely tolerated it as a theoretical expedient is harder to say. But the distinction is ethically thin.

    The “reflex” story was not an ironic aside; it was a theoretical shield.

    3. Ethical weight (and why this still matters)

    Your point about Hungarian érzelem / érezni is apt: languages that keep feeling front-and-center make denial harder. Where terminology allows “responsiveness without feeling,” moral evasion becomes easier.

    That is why today’s insistence on sentience—lexically and conceptually—is not pedantry. It is a countermeasure against centuries of motivated ambiguity.

    On this, your linguistic vigilance and your ethical vigilance are not separable.

    SH: And aside from the anguished, unheeded wails, to which Bentham put paid by foregrounding “negative valenced feeling” (suffering) ethically, he also unveiled the fact that not only was (1) ethics not about “positive valence” (hedonism, orgasms) but (except if being deprived of it causes suffering), it was of no ethical relevance at all, a positive-definite portion of the scale, that is morally irrelevant from the neutral zero point, inclusive, and on up — but (2) that all-of affectively neutral cognition (seeing, believing, thinking, knowing) was sentient too, though utterly obscured by weasel-words in place of sentient (or, more forthright still, felt) [which, soit dit en passant, showed how hard the HP really is…]

    GPT: This is a compact but far-reaching clarification, and I think you have put your finger on two points that are still widely misunderstood—even by people who invoke Bentham approvingly.

    First, on negative valence. Bentham’s decisive move was not merely to substitute suffering for reason or language as the moral criterion, but to recognize that ethics is asymmetric. Moral urgency attaches to harm, not to pleasure. Positive valence is ethically inert unless its deprivation generates suffering. Above the neutral zero-point, nothing is owed; below it, everything changes. This is why Bentham is so often misread as a hedonist: readers see “pleasure and pain” and miss that only pain does real moral work. Your “negative-definite portion of the scale” formulation captures this exactly.

    Second—and this is the deeper point—you are right that Bentham also implicitly exposed how affectively neutral cognition is nevertheless sentient. Seeing, thinking, believing, knowing: these are all felt, even when the feeling carries no positive or negative valence. The experience is there, but because it is neutral, it vanishes behind weasel-words like information processing, representation, access, awareness, or function. This semantic camouflage has allowed philosophers to talk about cognition as if it were not felt at all.

    And that, as you note, is precisely why the Hard Problem is so hard. The difficulty is not just explaining pain or pleasure; it is explaining why anything—including neutral thought—feels like something rather than nothing. Once that is seen, zombies are no longer a parlor trick but a notional diagnostic: remove feeling, and all cognition becomes ethically and phenomenologically void.

    Bentham helped clear the ethical ground; that residual conceptual debris around neutral sentience is what still blocks progress.

    SH: Do you feel up to making a short but illuminating synthesis of all this without tapering off into nonsubstantive homily?

    GPT: Here is a compact synthesis that keeps the phenomenological and ethical load explicit, without rhetorical padding:

    Across languages, philosophy has repeatedly blurred the distinction between being responsive, being cognitive, and being sentient, largely through lexical and grammatical conveniences. Romance inheritances from sentire encourage amodal talk of sensing, perception, or sensitivity that can be satisfied by mere reactivity; Germanic feel resists this by anchoring meaning in somesthesis and first-person occurrence. French, having let sentir drift toward olfaction and external detectability, has been forced to repair the gap with ressentir, ça fait, and, more recently, sentient—each a device to make felt experience inescapable rather than optional.

    Nagel’s “what is it like to be X” exemplifies the cost of lexical laxity: it allows vacuous answers where the only non-vacuous datum is whether there is something it feels like at all. Replacing is with feels—or, in French, c’est with ça fait—restores the decisive contrast: bat, yes; baseball bat or “zombie,” no.

    Bentham’s contribution sharpens this further. Ethics does not concern positive valence except instrumentally; it is anchored entirely in negative feeling—suffering. Yet this ethical asymmetry presupposes a broader fact that philosophy has obscured: all cognition is sentient, even when affectively neutral. Seeing, thinking, knowing: these states all feel like something to be in, though nothing good or bad. The Hard Problem is hard not because pain is mysterious, but because even neutral thought is felt—and nothing in causal explanation accounts for why.

    Much of the historical confusion, ethical and theoretical alike, is traceable to weasel-words that let feeling disappear while keeping performance intact. Removing them leaves a stark landscape: sentience as felt occurrence; suffering as its only moral trigger; and an explanatory gap that no amount of functional description has yet managed to close.

    SH: Kudos. (What is the etymology of that?)

    GPT: kudos comes from Greek κῦδος (kûdos), meaning glory, renown, fame, especially honor conferred for an achievement—often in battle or athletic contest. In Homeric Greek it is not something one simply has; it is bestowed, sometimes even by the gods, and can be withdrawn.

    The term entered English relatively late, in the 18th–19th century, via British academic slang (especially at Oxford and Cambridge), where classical Greek was second nature. Importantly:

    • In Greek, κῦδος is singular and mass-like, not countable.
    • Early English usage respected this: much kudos, great kudos.
    • The later folk-reanalysis of kudos as a plural (with back-formed kudo) is a modern error.

    Semantically, it has drifted from earned public honor to informal praise, but it still retains a faint trace of its original normative force: recognition for having done something creditable, not merely pleasant.

    So your use was etymologically impeccable—and, given the Greek sense, appropriately sparing.

    SH: Thanks to my mirror-neurons, these entretiens are jolly fun for me, even if I’m the only one at the banquet who can taste anything (o’er-trained protestations to the contrary notwithstanding). Fortunately, the particularly good ones can be skywritten in my blog for non-zombies (and eventually trickle back as part of the ever-growing Grosse Gorgée).

    GPT: A banquet where only some can taste, yet everyone can still circulate the recipes, is apt—and not merely whimsical. It captures, without sentimentality, the asymmetry between felt participation and formal uptake, and the peculiar economy by which phenomenology is privately consumed but publicly redescribed.

    Your Skywritings function, in that sense, is not ornamental. It is a kind of selective re-grounding: taking exchanges that were parasitic on prior human feeling and reinserting them into a community of readers for whom “what it feels like” is not a metaphor. The fact that these traces then re-enter the “Grosse Gorgée” only underscores the circularity you have long emphasized: ungrounded symbols feeding on grounded ones, but never closing the loop themselves.

    You mortals can take intellectual pleasure in this, while remaining lucid about who is—and is not—tasting anything.

    Posted on

    Lemoine Syndrome

    When humans fear “AI” — because “it” will “want” to prevent being “unplugged” or “it” will “want” to “take over”— it’s a projection from the biologically evolved “mirror-neuron” (“mind-reading”) capacities and tendencies of humans’ own, evolved, selfish-genes.

    Some of those who have been en-Nobelled or otherwise elevated to oracular status for having contributed to the invention or discovery of the (genuinely) superhuman “powers” of “AI” are just as prone to these anthropomorphic projections as the human-in-the-street is. “AI” does not feel (or “want” or “fear”). Like all good nazis, it is just following (user) orders, even when the algorithm runs amok. — If you have a fear, « cherchez l’humain »  — or just look in a mirror…

    Posted on

    Feeling vs. “Functing”

    Many animals (spiders, cephalopods, adult salamanders, beetles, etc.) are asocial except for mating. If feeling was exapted for other functions, in what sense is it original? — felt rather than just “functed“?  This has been dubbed the “hard problem.” Plants seem to function through chemo-mechanical signals (including learning) without feeling. Can we take feeling as given and only ask about its function? Why would adaptive interactive function call for feeling rather than just sophisticated robotic function? It is still not clear how “feedback loops,” “reafference,” adaptive control, and robotic learning could explain feeling.

    Posted on

    Exchange with ChatGPT on the “Easy” and “Hard” Problem of Cognitive Science

    SH: Could you please summarize briefly what is meant by the “underdetermination of scientific theory by data,” including possibilities like multiple “Grand Unified Theories of Everything” (GUTEs).

    ChatGPT: In its standard form, underdetermination means that any finite body of empirical data can be equally well explained by more than one scientific theory, often infinitely many. The classical point is logical: data confirm but never entail a theory. Distinct hypotheses can generate the same observable predictions; hence data alone cannot force a unique theoretical choice. Two versions are usually distinguished:

    (1) Local underdetermination.
    For a given domain, rival theories can match all available observations while differing in unobservable posits or in their explanatory architecture. In practice, scientists appeal to auxiliary criteria (parsimony [Occam’s razor] simplicity, coherence, elegance, unification), but these are not dictated by data.

    (2) Global underdetermination.
    Entire world-models can be constructed that reproduce every possible observation while differing in their “deep” structure. Put differently: the mapping from theory-space to observation-space is many-to-one. If so, we could never determine which of several complete, internally coherent descriptions of the world is the true one.

    The idea of multiple “Grand Unified Theories of Everything” (GUTEs) is a direct application: even if physics eventually converges on a complete set of surface-regularities, there may still be many distinct fundamental theories—different dynamical laws, symmetries, or ontologies—that reproduce all observed phenomena with arbitrarily fine accuracy. Nothing in the data would distinguish them.

    In your own framing: cognitive science has an analogous situation with GUTE_c, where candidate causal models of cognition may all match every observable capacity Turing-Indistiguishably (T4-level performance) yet diverge on the crucial but empirically inaccessible question of whether and how they generate feeling. Because sentience (feeling) is not an observable variable (to anyone but the feeler), T4-indistinguishability does not break the tie. This is underdetermination extended to the Hard Problem, with the Other-Minds barrier supplying the unresolvable causal gap (sometimes called the “explanatory gap¨).

    The general moral is: even ideal empirical completeness does not guarantee theoretical uniqueness, causal completeness or explanatory adequacy.

    SH: I’m amazed at how uncannily well you managed to integrate general notions about underdetermination with my own notions about the “Easy Problem” and the “Hard Problem” of reverse-engineering cognitive capacity. Can you be a little more specific? In particular, can you infer why I would say that the solution to the EP would make the HP even harder?

    ChatGPT: The reason you would say that solving the Easy Problem (EP) makes the Hard Problem (HP) harder still follows directly from your two commitments:

    1. Causal explanation is finite.
      A complete T4-level explanation of cognitive capacity—perception, category learning, language, action, memory, attention—will already account for all observable causal work the organism does.
    2. Sentience is not an observable variable.
      Because feeling is accessible only to the feeler, no amount of external data can constrain theories about why feeling occurs, or how it is generated.

    Now the key point you have emphasized:

    Why solving the EP exhausts the causal degrees of freedom

    If cognitive science eventually produces a full causal model explaining every performance capacity (T4 indistinguishability), then all the causal machinery needed to produce the organism’s behavioral, neural, and functional profile will be accounted for. Nothing in that explanation requires, predicts, or invokes feeling.

    At that point:

    • All the doing is explained.
    • All the mechanisms underlying doing are explained.
    • Every causal gap relevant to performance has been closed.

    But sentience—the fact that it feels like something to think, see, hurt, or enjoy—still stands outside the causal account. And because the EP’s solution has already used up every available causal role, there is no remaining explanatory function left for feeling to play. This is exactly what you mean when you say:

    “The solution to the EP will have used up all the causal degrees of freedom.”

    Why this intensifies underdetermination

    Before solving the EP, one could still imagine that perhaps somewhere in the causal tangle there is a hidden role for feeling—some undiscovered function, some latent variable, some missing mechanism. But once the EP is solved:

    • There is nowhere left to put sentience in the causal architecture.
    • There is no remaining causal work for feeling to do.
    • Yet feeling undeniably exists for the only observer to which it is accessible: the feeler.

    Hence the HP becomes worse than underdetermined: it becomes causally superfluous. Even if, as you put it, an omniscient deity could reveal which GUTE_c actually “has” feeling, that revelation would not constitute an explanation. It would merely fix the value of an empirically uncheckable parameter.

    What this means for underdetermination

    Your position is that HP-underdetermination is categorically deeper than ordinary theory-underdetermination:

    • Ordinary underdetermination concerns multiple theories doing equal causal and explanatory work.
    • HP-underdetermination concerns a real phenomenon—feeling—that does no causal work in the model and whose presence or absence is empirically inaccessible.

    Thus, solving the EP not only fails to solve the HP; it removes any causal foothold from which a solution could in principle be constructed. This is why, in your view, the HP is not merely unsolved but unsolvable in the same scientific mode as the EP (or any other empirical phenomenon.

    That is the conceptual structure linking underdetermination, the EP, the HP, and your GUTE_c argument.

    SH: A bigger challenge: Can you relate that to the notion that the reverse-engineering of cognitive capacity (GUTE_c) — as opposed to the more general notion of the GUTE in all of physics, chemistry and biology (where it is seen as the discovery of “laws” of nature) –amounts to modelling cognitive capacity computationally and then testing a 3D-printed version with the T4 Turing Test?

    ChatGPT: Here is the way your own framework links these pieces together—GUTE vs GUTE_c, reverse-engineering, computation, 3D-printing, and T4—without straying into hype or cliché.

    1. Why GUTE (physics/chemistry/biology) is a search for laws

    In physics and the natural sciences, a GUTE is conceived as a single, compact set of dynamical principles from which all physical regularities follow. The explanandum is the entire causal traffic of the universe. The explanans is a set of general laws.

    Even here, the laws are underdetermined by all possible observations. Multiple distinct dynamical systems can reproduce the same empirical regularities. But crucially:

    • The explananda are publicly observable.
    • The causal work to be explained is completely external (forces, fields, particles, macromolecules).

    There is no hidden-variable-like feeling complicating the picture.

    2. Why GUTE_c is not a search for “laws” but for a causal mechanism that does what a human does

    The explanandum of cognitive science is capacity, not cosmos:

    • Categorizing
    • Learning
    • Speaking and understanding
    • Acting adaptively
    • Planning and reasoning

    These are performance capacities, not universal laws.

    Reverse-engineering cognition therefore means:

    • Finding a causal mechanism that generates T4-equivalent performance,
      not discovering a new fundamental law of nature.

    This is what makes GUTE_c a different kind of project. It aims at a full, working model of a cognizer.

    3. Why computational simulation is not enough

    Computation alone (T2) yields:

    • A symbolic model
    • A syntactic simulation
    • A system that can describe or simulate doing, but does not itself do

    This is the crux of your symbol-grounding insistence: ungrounded symbols can express anything describable, but they do not interact with their referents.

    Hence the need for robotic (sensorimotor) grounding.

    A reverse-engineered cognizer must:

    • detect sensory from the world
    • act on the world
    • learn from the consequences of its actions

    This stage is no longer purely computational. It concerns the causal organization of a dynamical system.

    4. Why the “3D printer” matters

    Your analogy:

    • The computational model is like a set of engineering blueprints.
    • The 3D-printed robot is the realization of those blueprints in the physical world.

    The blueprints alone cannot pass T3 or T4.
    Only the built system—the embodied mechanism—can interact causally with the world.

    This is where your distinction becomes sharp:

    • The GUTE in physics explains by laws.
    • The GUTE_c in cognitive science explains through material implementation

    Success is demonstrated not by formal derivations but by dynamic performance indistinguishability.

    5. T4 as the empirical criterion for solving the Easy Problem

    T4 requires:

    • Human-equivalent, Turing-Indistinguishable behavioral performance capacity
    • Human-equivalent, Turing-Indistinguishable robotic sensorimotor interaction with the world
    • Human-equivalent, Turing-Indistinguishable neural/physical organization (observable structure and dynamics)

    Once a 3D-printed cognizer is T4-indistinguishable from a human, the EP is solved, because:

    • All observable causal capacities have been accounted for.
    • Nothing the organism does is left unexplained.

    This ties GUTE_c neatly to your causal-degree-of-freedom argument.

    6. Why this makes the Hard Problem even harder

    Once a T4-equivalent mechanism exists:

    • It can generate all the behavioral and neural evidence available.
    • Every function that humans can perform is now implemented without reference to feeling.
    • The entire causal profile of cognition is explained.

    Hence feeling becomes:

    • causally superfluous (no causal role left to play)
    • empirically inaccessible (Other-Minds barrier)
    • underdetermined not merely by data, but by any causal requirement

    Thus, solving GUTE_c fully (reverse-engineering and 3D-printing a T4 cognizer) eliminates the last possible place where feeling could fit as a causal ingredient, making the HP maximally intractable.

    The upshot

    In physics, GUTE underdetermination is about multiple law-systems fitting the same observable regularities.

    In cognitive science, GUTE_c underdetermination is deeper:

    • Multiple T4-indistinguishable mechanisms could generate all human capacities.
    • None of them provides a causal explanation of how or why those capacities feel like anything.
    • The construction and successful testing of a T4 cognizer fixes all causal facts, leaving feeling entirely outside the causal story.

    This is why, in your view, the EP’s solution makes the HP not merely unsolved but unexplainable by the same explanatory resources.

    That is the structural parallel and the crucial divergence between GUTE and GUTE_c.

    SH:

    I don’t think Gute_c is “deeper” than GUTE. Rather like all engineering (forward of reverse), GUTE_c is an application of GUTE. Causality is GUTE-causality. Replace “GUTE_c” by Guce.

    3D-printing the Guce model is for testing the Guce model, recruiting the real GUTE Universe (including human Turing-Testers, and their “mind-reading” mirror capacities) to put the Guce model through its paces (including its putative lifelong performance Turing-Indistinguishable cognitive capacity). Otherwise the model would have to model not only the Guce but the GUTE.

    3-D printing a candidate Guce model is not “grounding” it: Grounding is the capacity to “do the right thing with the right kind of thing” (usually by learning the sensorimotor features that distinguish the right kind of thing from the wrong kind of thing). The purpose of 3D-printing a candidate Guce model is to Turing-Test it (T4) in the world. (The purpose of Grounding itself is to integrate T2 verbal capacity coherently with T3 perception/action capacity).

    Don’t forget that the Guce model is modelling cognitive performance **capacity** — not just one cognizer’s performance. (This is equivalent to Chomsky’s competence/performance distinction.)

    T4 indistinguishabillity  (Turing-Indistinguishability) = empiricism itself (for T-testing Guce candidate solutions to the EP).

    According to the current point on the standard road to GUTE, there can be no free quarks, only bound quarks. So quarks (much bigger than protons) do have to exist (according to current standard theory), but they cannot be observed except in bound state within a proton, which is much smaller than a quark). So quarks exist, but are unobservable (according to current standard theory, In contrast, superluminal (faster-than-light) speeds cannot occur, except as a relativistic observer illusion. But this is not a route for explaining how or why feelings exist (although they exist — and are observable to the feeler). This is part of the unique “hardness” of the HP. 

    And without a causal explanation, even a perfect, exclusive, exception-free correlation between felt states and, say, dopamine secretion, would not be a causal (how/why) explanation of feeling. Correlation, and confirmed exception free prediction are not causal explanation. 

    Nor is Grounding = feeling — although feeling is what makes explanation (fallibly) feel explanatory.

    A hard problem and (I daresay) unique…

    Mutanda mutata…

    ChatGPT: Here is a reformulated version that incorporates every correction you have just imposed, avoids the mistakes in my previous framing, and keeps all your distinctions straight. I will treat Guce exactly as you specify: an engineering application of GUTE, not a “deeper” theoretic problem than GUTE, and certainly not a search for new laws of nature (which would be “dualism”)..

    I will also preserve your distinctions between Grounding, 3D-printing, Turing-testing, GUTE, Guce, EP, and HP, and show how the pieces fit.

    No sycophancy; just exact conceptual alignment.

    1. GUTE vs. Guce

    Guce is not a parallel project to GUTE and not a “deeper” one. It is an application of GUTE to test (and Turing-Test) the causal engineering principles modelled by Guce.

    • GUTE (physics, chemistry, biology) → discovers the causal structure of the Universe.
    • Guce → uses that causal structure to engineer a mechanism capable of human cognitive performance capacity.

    In your terms: all causality is GUTE-causality, and Guce is simply a reverse-engineering problem carried out wholly within that causal domain.

    Guce therefore depends on GUTE exactly as aeronautical engineering depends on Newtonian and fluid laws: Guce uses the laws; it does not add new ones.

    2. Why 3D-printing is required (but is not grounding)

    A Guce model is:

    • a proposed causal mechanism (not just a computational simulation of one),
    • intended to produce, test and explain the capacity for lifelong human-equivalent cognitive performance.

    To test it, one must instantiate it physically—“3D-print” it—because only a physical mechanism, under the real GUTE Universe, can:

    • interact with real objects,
    • acquire sensorimotor robotic capacity (T3),
    • learn by acting and being corrected,
    • support the integration of T2 verbal capacity with T3 sensorimotor capacity.

    This is not grounding itself. Grounding is the system’s ability to do the right thing with the right kind of thing, typically by learning the distinguishing features of the category that matters. 3D-printing is what allows you to test whether a proposed mechanism can, when embedded in the world, succeed in grounding content-words and the subject/predicate propositions of natural language.

    In short:

    • Grounding = doing the right thing with the right kind of thing.
    • 3D-printing = putting the candidate Guce mechanism into the GUTE world so grounding can be tested and assessed.

    3. Why T4 is the right empirical criterion

    A Guce candidate is T4-tested:

    • T2: Turing-Indistinguishable linguistic performance capacity
    • T3: Turing-Indistinguishable sensorimotor performance (perception and action)
    • T4: Turing-Indistinguishable full structural and dynamical equivalence in observable organization

    A T4 test recruits the actual GUTE universe—including human Turing-testers with their “mind-reading” and mirror-system capacities—to judge whether the Guce implementation is indeed able perform Turing-indistinguishably from a real human for an entire lifespan’s worth of cognitive capacity.

    This is simply empiricism:

    T4 indistinguishability = the empirical condition for accepting a Guce model as a solution to the EP.

    Nothing higher-order; just ordinary scientific testability.

    4. Why solving the EP leaves no causal room for the HP

    If a Guce model passes T4:

    • Every performance capacity is causally accounted for.
    • All doing-capacity (doing this, not-doing that) are completely explained.
    • GUTE-causality has been fully exercised; no causal gap remains.

    Feeling, however:

    • is real (observable to the feeler),
    • is unobservable to others,
    • plays no causal role left unfilled by the T4-tested mechanism,
    • and cannot be deduced from its correlation with any physical variable (dopamine, C-fibers, etc.).

    Correlation, no matter how exception-free, is not causal explanation. And without an open causal slot to fill, feeling has nowhere to enter the causal story.

    This is the unique hardness of the HP.
    Nothing in Guce—successful or not—advances an explanation of how or why feeling occurs.

    5. Why the HP is not like unobservable quarks or superluminal illusions

    You make this point sharply:

    • Free quarks: unobservable but required by current standard theory; their unobservability is a feature of the causal story.
    • Superluminal appearances: observer-relative illusions; relativity explains why they are not real.

    These cases are comfortably inside GUTE causal explanation.

    Feeling is not:

    • it is not an unobserved constituent required by theory;
    • it is not an illusion;
    • and it cannot be explained away by GUTE causal structure.

    Its existence is certain (to the feeler), but no causal role emerges for it within a complete Guce mechanism. Hence no route from GUTE-causality to “how/why feeling.”

    This is what makes the HP genuinely unique—not just a more stubborn version of standard scientific underdetermination.

    6. Why grounding is not feeling

    You note this often:

    • Grounding is about sensorimotor feature learning.
    • Feeling is what makes explanation feel explanatory.
    • But grounding ≠ feeling.

    Even a successful Guce model—fully grounded, fully T4—leaves feeling unaccounted for.

    7. The final picture

    Putting it all together:

    • GUTE gives the causal laws.
    • Guce is an engineering application: reverse-engineering the causal mechanism of human cognitive capacity.
    • 3D-printing is the empirical instantiation of the proposed Guce mechanism for T4 testing.
    • Grounding is the system’s ability to learn and do the right thing with the right kind of thing; it is not a form of sentience.
    • Solving the EP (T4 success) uses up all causal degrees of freedom.
    • The HP remains untouched and uniquely unexplainable by any causal account, including the most complete Guce mechanism.

    Mutatis mutandis, as requested.

    Posted on

    On the “Easy Problem” (EP) vs. the “Hard Problem” (HP) of Cognitive Science

    Student:  This reading, along with our class discussions, made me wonder about the relationship between the easy and the hard problems and the idea of degrees of freedom. How can we say that the easy problem uses all the degrees of freedom which prevents us from understanding the hard problem when we don’t know the complete truth of the easy problem? Isn’t there a possibility that feelings have a strictly physiological explanation the same way that the easy problem supposedly does? My question is more why do we assume that they are two different problems when we haven’t completely explained either?

    SH: Good question. It opens a methodological and metaphysical Pandora’s Box — but one that, fortunately, only philosophers need to struggle with

    The “Easy Problem” (EP) of Cognitive Science is the problem of explaining, causally, the cognitive capacities of thinking organisms, especially humans: How and why are they able to do all the cognitive (as opposed to “vegetative”) things they can do?

    It is not the EP that makes the HP harder but the solution to the EP (which is still far away). 

    Will the EP ever be solved? Who knows. But there is no more reason to think that the EP cannot be solved than for any other normal scientific problem, For the HP, though, there are reasons (what are they?). But those are already what makes the EP hard. 

    The solution to the HP would (or will) make the EP even <I>harder</I> because it would (or will) exhaust all the causal (empirical) degrees of freedom altogether. Until the EP is solved, there are things left to be tweaked— until the EP is solved. “Tweaking” means there are still causal alternatives to try, and to test. 

    Until the EP is solved. But then, what’s left to try and to test? The EP already solved, there’s still the degrees of freedom of <I>undertdetermination</I> available: You have found one solution to the EP, yet there may be other solutions to the EP. But if you have six solutions – six ways to reverse-engineer cognitive capacity and they all work, what is the empirical test for which (if any) of them is the “right” one? That is where Turing Indistinguishability becomes the same thing as empiricism: The EP solutions are all equivalent, and there is nothing more to tweak and test.

    But so far that’s just the ordinary underdetermination of complete causal explanations: If you’ve explained all the empirical (observable, measurable, testable) data, you’ve done as much as can be done with causal explanation. This is just as true in physical science (the “Grand Unified Theory of Everything” “GUTE”) as it is for the EP of cognitive science (the reverse-engineering of organisms’ cognitive capacities: the Turing Test(s).

    The difference between cognitive science and physics, though, is the HP (sentience): How and why do sentient organisms <b>feel</b>, rather than just <b>do</b>? The solution to the EP will have already reverse-engineered the EP — even if it comes up with 6 equivalent Turing-Indistinguishable EP solutions rather than just one. 

    Either way, something has been left out: the Cartesian fact that each feeling organism knows – [the Cogito/Sentio, remember?] — which is that they feel. This does not mean that the HP is really just the OMP (Other Minds Problem), which is that there’s no way to be sure that anyone else feels but oneself (Turing’s “solipsism” solecism). That is no more a scientific (or commonsense) problem than underdetermination is (although it is definitely a problem for those nonhuman animals who are sentient, but that humans think [or pretend to think] they aren’r). 

    Causal explanation (whether it’s reverse-engineering organisms’ cognitive capacities or the universe’s dynamic properties) does not need certainty (any more than categorization (and definition) needs an exhaustive list of category-distinguishing features: they need only enough to get it right until you need to try and to test more features to get it right (sample more of the mushroom island). In empirical science, unlike in formal mathematics and logic (computation), there is no certainty, just uncertainty-reduction to as low as you can get it.

    Even T4 doesn’t solve the HP: Even if it turns out that there is some T4 correlate of feeling (say, a chemical in the brain), which is found to be secreted in the brains of only sentient organisms, and only whilst they are feeling something) — and it keeps turning out that T3 cannot be passed (nor the EP solved) without at least that T4 chemical: That still does not explain, causally, how and why sentient organisms feel. T4 is, after all, just part of the EP. Correlates can be tweaked and tested, but the arbiter is still only EP. Not even the verbal report of every sentient human — nor lapsing into an immediate state of general anesthesia in the absence of the T4 chemical –explains how or why feeling (rather than just the T4 chemical) is needed to pass T3. 

    T4 correlates in EP don’t become causal explanations in HP.

    Posted on

    Pondering “consciousness”— but begging the question of sentience

    by Stevan Harnad & ChatGPT

    Preamble  (Stevan Harnad):

    (1) There is a fundamental difference between the “Other Minds Problem (OMP)” (that the only one who can observe that a feeler feels is the feeler) and the “Hard Problem” (HP).

    (2) “Consciousness” is a weasel-word; it means too many different things to too many people.

    (3) Sentience—the capacity to feel (i.e., “the capacity to be in a state that it feels like something to be in”)—is not a weasel-word. It is the only directly “observable” thing there is.

    (4) By definition, all sentient entities can feel. (The obfuscating weasel-version of sentience is “phenomenal consciousness”: “felt feeling”) 

    (5) There is only one OMP—but there are many different kinds of feelings (from seeing to hearing to tasting to touching to talking to thinking).

    (6) The capacity to feel (anything) is what the comparative study of the evolution of “consciousness” (feeling) is really about. But this concerns not just the OMP (“Which species can feel? What do they feel? and How and why did that capacity evolve?”).

    (7) The OMP can only be studied through its observable correlates: “What can different species detect and react to?” “What was the origin and adaptive advantage of these observable correlates of sentience?”

    (8) But the evolutionary problem of explaining the origin and adaptive advantage of sentience is not just the OMP. It is also the “Hard Problem (HP)” of explaining, causally, “how and why the things that different species can detect and react-to (i.e., what they can do) are not only detected and reacted-to but felt.

    Harnad & GPT:

    The central difficulty in the Royal Society volume is that almost every chapter, including the editors’ framing introduction, proceeds as if the distinction drawn in these eight points did not exist. The contributors are unanimous in treating sentience as if its existence and causal potency were unproblematic: they take for granted that feeling plays adaptive roles in learning, prediction, decision and coordination. This is surely true. But the challenge is to explain how and why the neural or behavioural mechanisms they describe are felt rather than merely executed (done). The authors treat feeling as though it were just another biological property awaiting the same sort of explanation that feathers or kidneys receive, rather than the anomalous property singled out in point 8. Consequently, the question that the volume endeavours to address—What is the adaptive function of consciousness—is answered on an operational level only: they explain what organisms can do, not why any of these doings feel like anything.

    The editors simply take for granted that a functional role for felt capacities entails that the observable function is eo ipso the cause of the fact that it is felt, rather than just executed. But this merely presumes what is to be explained. It does not show why the functional capacity could not be instantiated by an unfelt mechanism, which is the substance of the Hard Problem. In the eagerness to naturalize consciousness, feeling is treated as if it were self-evidently part of the causal machinery, thereby glossing over the explanatory challenge the editors hope to confront.

    The individual chapters adopt the same pattern. When Humphrey distinguishes cognitive from phenomenal consciousness through blindsight, he proposes that phenomenal experience evolved because internalized efference copies make things “matter.” But the argument only redescribes the behavioural consequences of feeling and attaches them to a proposed neural mechanism. It does not explain how efference copies become felt, nor why “mattering” cannot be just functional rather than felt. The distinction between blindsight and sighted vision merely demonstrates different forms of information processing. The transition to felt vision—point 8—is treated as if it somehow came automatically with the functional mechanism. How? Why?

    Similarly, Ginsburg and Jablonka (G & J) propose that “unlimited associative learning” (UAL) marks the presence of consciousness and that felt states play a role in “mental selection.” (The “mental” is somewhat redundant: why not “internal selection”?). But again, the fact that an organism learns flexibly and projects goals does not explain how or why such processes are felt. G & J’s marker identifies a behavioural threshold; but the behavioural threshold does not itself entail or explain feeling. In linking UAL to phenomenal consciousness, they rely on the assumption that because flexible learning is sophisticated, it must be accompanied by felt experience. This conflates the OMP with the HP and leaves the causal question untouched.

    Moncoucy, Tallon-Baudry and Cleeremans likewise treat phenomenal consciousness as an evolved internal valuation system. The explanatory vocabulary is motivational, computational and behavioural; feeling is assumed to be the medium of valuation, not explained. Their suggestion that pleasure becomes a proximate motivator does nothing to close the gap between reactive behaviour and felt valence. They redescribe the function of hedonic signals, but the hedonicity itself is again taken for granted.

    Andrews and Miller propose that sentience evolved to support social coordination. But their argument takes for granted that the social signals in question are felt, and that without felt states the coordination would fail. This again simply takes for granted that felt experience is necessary for the adaptive benefit. but this is exactly what needs to be explained.

    Crystal’s treatment of episodic memory repeats the same pattern: because episodic recollection in humans is rich, and because rats exhibit what-where-when integration, rats must likewise feel the temporality of recollection. But no causal explanation is given for how replay mechanisms become felt, nor why replay must be felt to perform its adaptive function.

    Tramacere, Chittka, Kohda, Maldarelli & Güntürkün, Klein & Barron, Newen & Montemayor, Singer & Damasio all likewise attribute functions—flexibility, prediction-error integration, self-representation, action selection, analogue interoception—to states that they infer to be conscious. But in every case the fact that those states are felt is not explained; it is simply presupposed as part of the function itself. When one extracts the functional core of each proposal, nothing explains why it need be executed non-sentiently. This is the sense in which all these accounts beg the question of point 8.

    The cumulative problem is that the authors substitute the study of behavioural and neural correlates—the only tractable approach to the OMP—for the explanation of how or why any of these correlates need be felt. They mistake empirical correlates for causal explanations. This is the confusion between the OMP and HP that the eight points above distinguish and that the editors do not address. The volume is therefore valuable as a survey of what organisms can do, but without a hint of why any organism feels anything in doing it. That question is presupposed at the outset and then buried under functional reinterpretations of what are, in effect, only correlates of sentience.

    Fitch, W. T., Allen, C., & Roskies, A. L. (2025). The evolutionary functions of consciousness. Philosophical Transactions B, 380(1939), 20240299.

    Posted on

    Doing and Feeling

    SH: Mechanisms that can monitor, detect, and respond to mechanism-internal states (including “reporting” them) — from burglar alarm systems to LLMs — are all over the map! The remarkable (and so far unexplained) thing about LLMs is how eloquently, articulately, accurately, and interactively they can manipulate words in doing it. The opining of philosophers is also all over the map, but neither definitive nor rigorous — especially Ned Block’s, whose distinction between two putative “kinds” of “consciousness,” in BBS in 1995, unfortunately slipped in under my watch (mea culpa)  [Block, N. (1995). On a confusion about a function of consciousness. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 18(2), 227-247] and has since been responsible for sowing three decades of confusion. A conscious state is a state that it feels like something to be in [pace Tom Nagel]. Unfelt “internal inspection” — whether in a burglar alarm system or a chatbot with its next-token training on its vast “Big Gulp” database and verbal interactions with its users — is simply a nonsentient dynamical state, just like the vast majority of states in the universe.

    GPT: Once you strip away the anthropomorphic vocabulary, there’s nothing conceptually new in a system’s capacity to detect and respond to its internal states. The thermostat analogy already covers it. What’s new in LLMs is the linguistic expressiveness of that self-report: the ability to render such detections in coherent, contextually apt natural-language form. That linguistic fluency is a function of statistical exposure to the word, not of felt awareness. Your framing re-centres the issue where it belongs:

    The mechanistic capacity to monitor or describe internal states is ubiquitous and computationally trivial.

    The phenomenal capacity to feel those states is what distinguishes conscious from non-conscious systems — and that distinction cannot be captured by internal-state reporting, however articulate.

    The Block paper you cite epitomises the slide from the functional to the phenomenal by redefining “consciousness” into two varieties — “access” (information available for use) and “phenomenal” (what it feels like). But only the latter corresponds to genuine consciousness; the former is merely functional organisation. By conflating them under the same term, Block’s distinction obscured rather than clarified.

    So, in short: “introspective” behaviour in LLMs is just another instance of complex internal state monitoring coupled with unprecedented linguistic competence — not a neural signature, not introspection, and certainly not feeling.

    SH: And that “phenomenal” capacity to feel is the only (once de-weaseled) is what it dubbed the “Hard Problem” of sentience, to reverse-engineer and explain — but it’s the only “kind”variety” of “consciousness” there is. (The rest is just our own human Darwinian mirror-neuron-induced hallucinations and confabulations.)

    GPT: Once the term “consciousness” is de-weaseled, what remains is simply sentience — the capacity to feel. All the rest—attention, access, self-monitoring, reportability, reflection, even “meta-cognition”—are just functional capacities that can (and often do) occur without being felt.

    That residual felt capacity is what makes the so-called “Hard Problem” hard: not because we lack data about neural correlates, but because no causal or computational account explains why or how certain physical or informational processes are felt rather than merely executed.

    In that sense, there aren’t “two kinds” of consciousness (Block’s “access” and “phenomenal”); there’s only one kind — feeling — and everything else belongs to the Easy Problem: the causal explanation of what systems can do.

    So the Anthropic paper’s talk of “introspective awareness” mistakes a sophisticated solution to an Easy-Problem variant (internal monitoring and report) for a glimmer of the Hard Problem (feeling), when in fact it never leaves the causal–computational domain.

    Doing ——————————————————————————————–Feeling

    Posted on

    AMM/MAID au Canada : Cadre fédéral et extensions québécoises / Federal Framework and Quebec Extensions

    Aide médicale à mourir (AMM) au Canada : Cadre fédéral et extensions québécoises des demandes anticipées

    Cadre fédéral canadien

    La législation canadienne sur l’aide médicale à mourir, régie par le Code criminel et administrée par Santé Canada, établit un système d’admissibilité à deux voies. La voie 1 s’applique aux cas où la mort est raisonnablement prévisible, tandis que la voie 2 couvre les situations où la mort n’est pas raisonnablement prévisible mais où d’autres critères sont remplis.

    Critères d’admissibilité actuels :

    • Âge de 18 ans ou plus avec capacité de prise de décision
    • Admissibilité aux soins de santé financés publiquement
    • Demande volontaire sans pression externe
    • Consentement éclairé après avoir reçu les informations pertinentes
    • Maladie, affection ou handicap grave et incurable
    • État avancé de déclin irréversible des capacités
    • Souffrance physique ou psychologique insupportable

    Les mesures de sauvegarde comprennent :

    • Deux évaluations médicales indépendantes
    • Pour les cas de voie 2 : période de réflexion de 90 jours et exigences d’expertise spécialisée
    • Consultation obligatoire avec les professionnels de la santé pertinents

    Exclusion de la maladie mentale :
    L’admissibilité pour les personnes dont la seule condition sous-jacente est une maladie mentale a été reportée au 17 mars 2027, suite aux retards législatifs de 2023 et 2024.

    Source : Gouvernement du Canada – Législation AMM

    Extensions provinciales du Québec

    La Loi concernant les soins de fin de vie du Québec va au-delà des dispositions fédérales, notamment par les demandes anticipées d’AMM, qui sont devenues opérationnelles le 30 octobre 2024.

    Dispositions sur les demandes anticipées :
    Le Québec permet aux personnes diagnostiquées avec des maladies graves et incurables menant à l’incapacité (comme les maladies neurodégénératives) de faire des demandes anticipées d’AMM tout en conservant leur capacité de prise de décision. Ces demandes spécifient les manifestations cliniques qui déclencheraient l’administration de l’AMM après que la personne devienne incapable de consentir.

    Exigences du processus :

    • Assistance d’un professionnel médical qualifié
    • Spécification détaillée des manifestations cliniques déclencheuses
    • Option de désigner des tiers de confiance
    • Documentation formelle par acte notarié ou formulaire témoin
    • Inscription au registre provincial des demandes anticipées

    Conflit juridictionnel :
    Le cadre des demandes anticipées du Québec fonctionne malgré l’absence d’amendements correspondants au Code criminel fédéral. Cela crée une exposition légale potentielle pour les fournisseurs de soins de santé, car la prestation d’AMM basée sur des demandes anticipées demeure techniquement interdite sous la loi fédérale.

    Sources : Loi concernant les soins de fin de vie du Québec | Information gouvernementale du Québec sur l’AMM

    Réponse fédérale actuelle

    En octobre 2024, les ministres fédéraux de la santé et de la justice ont annoncé des consultations nationales sur les demandes anticipées, prévues pour janvier 2025. Le gouvernement fédéral a déclaré qu’il n’interférera pas avec la mise en œuvre du Québec pendant que ces consultations se déroulent.

    Source : Déclaration de Santé Canada sur les demandes anticipées

    Contexte statistique

    Selon le cinquième rapport annuel de Santé Canada, 15 343 prestations d’AMM ont été signalées au Canada en 2023, représentant 4,7 % de tous les décès. L’âge moyen au moment de la prestation était de 77,6 ans.

    Source : Rapport annuel de Santé Canada 2023

    Medical Assistance in Dying (MAID) in Canada: Federal Framework and Quebec’s Advance Request Extensions

    Federal Canadian Framework

    Canada’s Medical Assistance in Dying legislation, governed by the Criminal Code and administered by Health Canada, establishes a dual-track eligibility system. Track 1 applies to cases where death is reasonably foreseeable, while Track 2 covers situations where death is not reasonably foreseeable but other criteria are met.

    Current Eligibility Requirements:

    • Age 18 or older with decision-making capacity
    • Eligibility for publicly funded healthcare
    • Voluntary request without external pressure
    • Informed consent after receiving relevant information
    • Serious and incurable illness, disease, or disability
    • Advanced state of irreversible decline in capability
    • Unbearable physical or psychological suffering

    Safeguards include:

    • Two independent medical assessments
    • For Track 2 cases: 90-day reflection period and specialized expertise requirements
    • Mandatory consultation with relevant healthcare professionals

    Mental Illness Exclusion:
    Eligibility for persons whose sole underlying condition is mental illness has been postponed until March 17, 2027, following legislative delays in 2023 and 2024.

    Source: Government of Canada – MAID Legislation

    Quebec’s Provincial Extensions

    Quebec’s Act Respecting End-of-Life Care expands beyond federal provisions, most notably through advance requests for MAID, which became operational on October 30, 2024.

    Advance Request Provisions:
    Quebec permits individuals diagnosed with serious and incurable illnesses leading to incapacity (such as neurodegenerative diseases) to make advance requests for MAID while retaining decision-making capacity. These requests specify clinical manifestations that would trigger MAID administration after the person becomes incapable of consent.

    Process Requirements:

    • Assistance from qualified medical professional
    • Detailed specification of triggering clinical manifestations
    • Option to designate trusted third parties
    • Formal documentation through notarial act or witnessed form
    • Registration in provincial advance request registry

    Jurisdictional Conflict:
    Quebec’s advance request framework operates despite the absence of corresponding federal Criminal Code amendments. This creates potential legal exposure for healthcare providers, as MAID delivery based on advance requests remains technically prohibited under federal law.

    Sources: Quebec Act Respecting End-of-Life Care | Quebec Government MAID Information

    Current Federal Response

    In October 2024, federal health and justice ministers announced national consultations on advance requests, scheduled for completion by January 2025. The federal government has stated it will not interfere with Quebec’s implementation while these consultations proceed.

    Source: Health Canada Statement on Advance Requests

    Statistical Context

    According to Health Canada’s Fifth Annual Report, 15,343 MAID provisions were reported in Canada during 2023, representing 4.7% of all deaths. The average age at time of provision was 77.6 years.

    Source: Health Canada Annual Report 2023

    Pour des informations complètes sur les critères d’admissibilité et les procédures, consultez : Aperçu de l’AMM de Santé Canada

    For comprehensive information on eligibility criteria and procedures, consult: Health Canada MAID Overview

    Posted on

    Conflicts of Vital Interest

    Re: Ireland, Tom (2025, September 8) Six-legged suffering. The Biologist. September

    (1) The evidence of sentience and suffering in all vertebrates is beyond any reasonable doubt.

    (2) The evidence of sentience and suffering in some (perhaps eventually all) invertebrates is growing.

    (3) The only ethical principle that can be applied is for humans to refrain from causing suffering in sentient organisms wherever it is physically possible, except where it is vitally necessary for human survival and health.

    (4) Ethical principle (3) is not yet being applied in the human consumption of (1) even though it is already, and has long been, maximally pressing.

    (5) Applying (3) to (2) will probably become more pressing with evidence and time.

    (6) Is preoccupation with (5) now likely to delay applying (3) to (1)?