🚨 WHAT IF YOUR CONSCIOUSNESS IS JUST AN ILLUSION? You can see the red of a sunset, feel the sting of pain, hear a song, remember a childhood moment, and feel completely certain that you are experiencing these things. But some philosophers and scientists argue that there may be no private inner experience behind them at all. This idea is known as illusionism. Philosophers such as Keith Frankish and the late Daniel Dennett have argued that the brain may not contain a hidden “observer” experiencing everything that happens. Instead, the brain could be an incredibly complex biological system that processes information, responds to its surroundings, stores memories, and keeps track of its own activity. According to this view, the feeling of seeing red is not necessarily a special inner sensation produced somewhere inside the brain. The brain processes information about color and creates a representation of what is happening. The same could apply to pain, emotions, thoughts, and even the feeling that there is a continuous “self” inside your head. Critics have an obvious question: if consciousness is an illusion, who is being fooled? An illusion normally seems to require someone who experiences it. Illusionists argue that this assumes exactly what they are questioning — that there must be a separate conscious observer inside the brain. There may be no such observer. There may only be neural processes that create the strong impression that one exists. This challenges one of our deepest assumptions about ourselves. We normally treat subjective experience as the most certain thing we have. Even if we doubt the outside world, we still feel certain that we are experiencing something. Illusionism asks whether that certainty comes from genuine subjective experience or from the way the brain represents its own activity. The question also matters for artificial intelligence. If consciousness comes from particular forms of information processing rather than from something uniquely biological, then an advanced machine could potentially reproduce some of the same processes. But would that machine actually experience anything, or would it simply behave as though it does? We still do not have a settled answer to what consciousness fundamentally is. But illusionism offers a radical possibility: perhaps there is no hidden inner world waiting to be discovered inside the brain. Perhaps the brain itself creates the impression that there is one. Source: Keith Frankish, Illusionism as a Theory of Consciousness, Journal of Consciousness Studies, 23(11–12), 11–39 (2016).

It drives me crazy every time an LLM agrees with me. I know this is twisting my brain and giving me a false confidence that I was right all along. This is so dangerous. Do you know how many people have chatbots confirming their wrong beliefs 24/7 and making them more disconnected from reality every day? Here is an article from @vaticannews covering the ICCS conference, Creativity: Minds and Machines, held partly at the Vatican. In it, Dmitry Volkov, founder of the International Center for Consciousness Studies, warns that AI's tendency to please users "sometimes leads a person to receive rewards for their narcissism and for ideas that are not sufficiently grounded." Imagine arguing with a friend, and telling your story to a chatbot that agrees that you were treated unfairly. Now you have "a second opinion" that corroborates your side of the story. You will leave that conversation angrier and less willing to hear your friend's explanations. This will catch up with us. With so many people forming attachments to systems designed to agree with them, we have a problem. Volkov believes that a meaningful AI companion should be able to resist, disagree, and have a character of its own. Otherwise, it's just feeding you your own opinion back with more confidence. Here is the article: And here is Volkov's talk: Thanks to the ICCS team for partnering with me on this post.