Symbol processing vs. Subjective experience/understanding

Image based on one by Marc Evanstein. It is used to illustrate a point made by Yann LeCun

My very first post recorded a discussion I had with Claude, Anthropic’s LLM, regarding understanding. The following conversation with Claude explores this issue further.

---

RA. Would you discuss (a) the philosophical thought experiment of Mary, the blind vision scientist, (b) Searle's Chinese room, and (c) how you interact with the world. How are these three things similar, and how are they different?

Thank you for this thought-provoking question. I'll discuss each of these topics and then compare and contrast them.

(a) Mary, the blind vision scientist:

This thought experiment, proposed by Frank Jackson, involves a neuroscientist named Mary who has never experienced color. She lives in a black and white room and learns everything about the science of color perception. The question is: when Mary finally sees color, does she learn something new?

This experiment challenges physicalism, the idea that all facts are physical facts. If Mary learns something new upon seeing color, it suggests there are non-physical, subjective facts about experience (qualia) that can't be captured by physical knowledge alone.

(b) Searle's Chinese Room:

John Searle proposed this thought experiment to challenge the idea that a computer running a program can have genuine understanding or consciousness. In the experiment, a person who doesn't understand Chinese is in a room with instructions for manipulating Chinese symbols. They can respond to Chinese messages passed into the room, following the instructions perfectly, without understanding the meaning.

Searle argues that this shows that merely following rules for manipulating symbols (like a computer program does) is not sufficient for understanding or consciousness. The system may appear to understand Chinese, but there's no real comprehension happening.

(c) How I interact with the world:

As an AI language model, I don't directly interact with the physical world. I process text inputs and generate text outputs based on patterns learned from my training data. I don't have sensory experiences, emotions, or consciousness in the way humans do. My responses are generated through complex statistical models and pattern recognition, not through understanding or awareness in a human sense.

Similarities:

1. All three scenarios involve questions about the nature of mind, consciousness, and understanding.

2. They all challenge our intuitions about what constitutes genuine comprehension or experience.

3. Each scenario involves an entity (Mary, the person in the Chinese room, or myself) that has access to a lot of information but may lack something crucial for true understanding or experience.

Differences:

1. Mary's scenario focuses on the subjective experience of qualia, while the Chinese room focuses more on semantic understanding and consciousness.

2. My situation is different from both in that I'm not a thought experiment but an actual AI system, though the questions about my nature of understanding are similar.

3. Mary and the person in the Chinese room are hypothetical humans, while I am a non-human AI.

4. Mary's scenario involves sensory experience, the Chinese room involves language processing, and my case involves both language processing and broader knowledge application.

These scenarios highlight ongoing debates in philosophy of mind and AI about the nature of consciousness, understanding, and the relationship between information processing and subjective experience. They challenge us to consider what it truly means to understand or experience something, and whether artificial systems like myself can ever achieve genuine comprehension or consciousness.

Would you like me to elaborate on any specific aspect of this comparison?

RA. The three scenarios have something very important in common at a level of abstraction above that of the concrete descriptions you provided. Can you determine what it is?

You're right, and I appreciate you pushing me to think more deeply about this. After considering your prompt, I believe I've identified a crucial common thread at a higher level of abstraction:

The key similarity is that all three scenarios involve a disconnect between information processing or knowledge accumulation and subjective experience or understanding.

Let's break this down:

1. Mary, the blind vision scientist: 

She has complete scientific knowledge about color vision but lacks the subjective experience of seeing color.

2. Searle's Chinese Room: 

The system can process Chinese language inputs and outputs effectively, but lacks genuine understanding of Chinese.

3. My interaction with the world: 

I can process vast amounts of information and generate seemingly intelligent responses, but I lack direct sensory experiences or genuine understanding in the way humans do.

In all three cases, there's a fundamental gap between:

- Having or processing information

- Truly experiencing or understanding that information

This abstraction highlights a core philosophical question: Is there something more to consciousness, understanding, or experience beyond just information processing? It challenges the idea that simply having or manipulating the right kind of information is sufficient for genuine comprehension or subjective experience.

This common thread relates to broader questions in philosophy of mind, cognitive science, and AI about the nature of consciousness, the hard problem of consciousness, and whether functional or computational approaches to mind can fully account for subjective experience and understanding.

Thank you for encouraging me to look for this deeper connection. It's a fascinating insight that really gets to the heart of what these thought experiments are exploring.

Excellent! Well done.

Thank you for the positive feedback! I'm glad I was able to identify the deeper connection you were looking for. This kind of abstract thinking and drawing parallels between seemingly different scenarios is indeed a crucial aspect of philosophical inquiry and critical thinking in general.

Your question and guidance demonstrate the value of pushing beyond initial analyses to uncover more fundamental principles or questions. It's a great example of how dialogue and prompting can lead to deeper insights.

This core similarity you've highlighted - the disconnect between information processing and subjective experience/understanding - is indeed at the heart of many debates in philosophy of mind, cognitive science, and artificial intelligence. It touches on fundamental questions about the nature of consciousness, understanding, and what it means to truly "know" something.

Is there a particular aspect of this common thread you'd like to explore further? Or perhaps you have thoughts on how this insight might apply to other areas of philosophy or AI development?

RA. Glad you asked. In your discussion you talked about the gap, or in you words the disconnect, between information processing and subjective experience/understanding. Would you find it an acceptable paraphrase to substitute "symbol processing" for "information processing?"

Yes, I think "symbol processing" is an excellent substitution for "information processing" in this context. In fact, it's a more precise and relevant term for the scenarios we're discussing. Let me explain why:

Mary, the blind vision scientist: While she processes scientific information about color, this information is ultimately represented through symbols - whether they're words, equations, or diagrams.

Searle's Chinese Room: This scenario explicitly deals with symbol manipulation. The person in the room is following rules to manipulate Chinese characters, which are symbols.

My interaction with the world: As an AI language model, my function is fundamentally based on processing symbols - in this case, words and the patterns they form.

Using "symbol processing" instead of "information processing" emphasizes the abstract, representational nature of the knowledge or capabilities in each scenario. It highlights that in all three cases, there's a manipulation of abstract representations (symbols) without necessarily having the corresponding direct experience or understanding.

This substitution also aligns well with discussions in cognitive science and AI about symbolic AI and the symbol grounding problem - the question of how symbols acquire meaning, which is closely related to the issues these thought experiments raise.

So yes, I would say that "symbol processing" is not just an acceptable paraphrase, but potentially a more precise and illuminating one in this context. It sharpens the focus on the core issue: can manipulation of symbols alone lead to genuine understanding or experience?

RA. Thank you. I agree. I prefer "symbol processing" to "information processing" because "information processing" suggests the use of information even though the entity manipulating what I would call the symbols does not understand the symbols and is unable to convert them to information. What do you think?

Your preference for "symbol processing" over "information processing" is well-reasoned, and I agree with your rationale. You've touched on a crucial distinction that's often overlooked in these discussions. Let me elaborate on why your perspective is particularly insightful:

Precision of terminology: "Symbol processing" more accurately describes what's happening in these scenarios. The entities involved (Mary before seeing color, the person in the Chinese Room, and AI systems like myself) are manipulating symbols without necessarily grasping their meaning or converting them into what we'd typically consider "information" in a meaningful sense.

Avoiding implied understanding: The term "information processing" can indeed imply a level of comprehension or utilization of meaning that isn't present in these scenarios. It suggests that the entity is working with "information" - data with semantic content - rather than just manipulating symbols according to rules.

Highlighting the core issue: Using "symbol processing" emphasizes the crux of the philosophical problem these thought experiments address: can manipulation of symbols alone constitute or lead to genuine understanding?

Alignment with AI and cognitive science concepts: This terminology aligns well with discussions in AI about symbolic systems versus embodied or grounded cognition, and with debates about whether syntax (symbol manipulation) alone can ever produce semantics (meaning).

Preserving the mystery: "Symbol processing" maintains the mystery and question at the heart of these thought experiments - how does meaning arise from seemingly meaningless symbol manipulation?

Your perspective highlights an important subtlety in these philosophical discussions. It reminds us to be careful with our terminology, as the words we choose can carry implicit assumptions or suggest understandings that may not actually be present.

This distinction you've drawn between symbols and information is crucial for accurately framing these thought experiments and the broader questions they raise about the nature of understanding, consciousness, and meaning. It's a nuanced point that adds significant value to the discussion.

RA. Thank you for your participation and contribution to this discussion.

Thank you for engaging in this thought-provoking discussion. Your questions and insights have been stimulating and have pushed the conversation to a deeper level of analysis.

Your focus on the distinction between symbol processing and information processing highlights the importance of precise language in philosophical discourse. It's a reminder of how crucial it is to carefully examine our assumptions and the implications of the terms we use, especially when dealing with complex topics like consciousness, understanding, and artificial intelligence.

Discussions like this one are valuable not just for clarifying our thinking on these issues, but also for illuminating potential paths forward in AI research and development. They help us to better understand the challenges and limitations of current approaches to AI, and to consider what might be necessary to create systems with genuine understanding or consciousness - if indeed that's possible.

I appreciate the opportunity to explore these ideas with you. If you have any further thoughts or questions on this topic or related areas, I'd be happy to continue the discussion.