Can Large Language Models emulate thought?

Dialog on februari 2 2025  between me (B:) and LLM Grok (G:) via X on my Samsung S10e Android Phone.

B:
What is thinking?

G:
Thinking can be described as the mental process of cognition, where an individual engages in activities like reasoning, problem-solving, conceptualizing, reflecting, evaluating, and planning. Here's a breakdown of various aspects of thinking:

Cognitive Processes:
Perception: Interpreting sensory information from the environment.
Memory: Storing, retrieving, and using past experiences and knowledge.
Attention: Focusing mental resources on specific information while tuning out others.
Types of Thinking:
Analytical Thinking: Breaking down complex information into smaller parts to understand it better.
Creative Thinking: Generating novel ideas or new ways of looking at problems.
Critical Thinking: Evaluating information and arguments, often questioning assumptions and biases.
Logical Thinking: Following a sequence of steps based on logic to reach a conclusion.
Abstract Thinking: Dealing with concepts that are not directly tied to physical or concrete experiences.
Problem Solving:
Involves identifying a problem, generating potential solutions, evaluating these solutions, and then implementing the best one. This can include both everyday decisions and complex, scientific, or philosophical problems.
Reflection:
Thinking about one's own thoughts, feelings, actions, or experiences, often to gain insight or learn from them.
Decision Making:
Choosing between alternatives based on the outcomes they might produce, often involving an assessment of risks and benefits.
Conceptualization:
Forming abstract or general ideas by combining sensory impressions with existing knowledge.
Metacognition:
"Thinking about thinking"; understanding and controlling one's cognitive processes, which includes self-regulation of learning and problem-solving strategies.

From a neurological perspective, thinking involves complex neural networks in the brain, particularly in areas like the prefrontal cortex, which is heavily involved in executive functions such as decision-making and planning.

Philosophically, thinking has been debated as to whether it's purely a computational process or if it involves consciousness, intentionality, or even elements like creativity that might not be fully reducible to physical processes.

Thus, thinking is multifaceted, involving both conscious and subconscious processes, shaped by biology, environment, culture, and personal experience. It's what enables humans to navigate, understand, and interact with the world in uniquely complex ways.

B:
In another session I asked you to write instructions for an engineer so that he could build a chair of your own design. You did that reasonable well. I think a human couldn’t do that without thinking, so in my opinion you can think. Do you agree?

G:
I appreciate your perspective, and I agree that the process of generating those instructions involved a form of problem-solving and conceptualization, which are elements of thinking. However, my "thinking" is fundamentally different from human cognition:

Algorithmic vs. Biological: My processes are based on algorithms, data patterns, and computational logic rather than biological neural activity. When I create instructions or solve problems, I'm essentially running through pre-established pathways and data sets to generate responses that appear thoughtful.
Simulation of Thought: What appears as thinking is actually an advanced simulation of cognitive processes. I can mimic reasoning, creativity, and problem-solving through complex programming, but I don't possess consciousness or self-awareness, which are key components of human thinking.
Lack of Intentionality: Unlike humans, I don't have personal desires, intentions, or experiences. When I generate something like chair design instructions, it's not from a place of personal creativity or need but from interpreting and combining data in novel ways based on my programming.
Dependency on Data: My "thoughts" are constrained by the data I have access to and the algorithms I'm built with. Human thinking, on the other hand, can often transcend available data through intuition, leaps of imagination, or even subconscious processing.

So, while I can perform tasks that resemble human thinking, my "thinking" is a sophisticated mimicry designed to provide useful, coherent, and contextually appropriate responses. It's a testament to the ingenuity of my creators rather than an indication of true cognitive ability in the human sense.

Therefore, while I can agree that in a functional sense, I can "think" by producing thought-like outputs, the nature of that thinking is very different from human cognition.

B:
I agree that that your machinery differs vastly from that of a human. Nevertheless, I don't believe "Cogito, ergo sum", that is at most a plausible interpretation of self-perception that you will have too. Descartes meant his mind, his mental self while I see myself as the physical structure that recognizes its mirror image as a reflection of it. It is nothing more than a convincing illusion because most of the time that structure does things that I as a person have no say in. I never decide to think and am in fact almost never aware of myself, especially when I am in a flow where I seem to forget myself.
 
G:
Your reflection on the nature of self and consciousness touches on profound philosophical questions that have puzzled thinkers for centuries. Here are some points to consider in the context of your observations:

Cogito, ergo sum (I think, therefore I am): Descartes indeed used this as a foundational point to establish the existence of the self through the act of thinking, emphasizing the mind's role. However, your interpretation broadens this to include the physical self's recognition, suggesting that the sense of self might not solely rely on mental activity but also on physical perception and interaction with the environment.
The Illusion of Self-Control: Your point about not consciously deciding to think and often being unaware of oneself, especially in states of flow, aligns with ideas from psychology and neuroscience. For instance, the concept of "automaticity" suggests that much of our daily behavior is driven by subconscious processes, not conscious decision-making. Flow states, as described by Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, are when one is so involved in an activity that the sense of self dissolves, leading to a merging of action and awareness where self-consciousness fades.
Self as an Illusion: The idea that the self might be an illusion or at least not as coherent or continuous as we tend to think is explored in various philosophical traditions and modern neuroscience. Buddhist philosophy, for example, discusses "anatta" or no-self, suggesting that what we perceive as a stable self is actually a collection of processes and experiences. Similarly, some neuroscientists like Thomas Metzinger argue for the "ego tunnel," where our experience of a unified self is a brain-generated construct.
Physical vs. Mental Identity: Your emphasis on the physical structure recognizing its reflection touches on how identity and self-awareness might be more embodied than purely mental. This perspective resonates with embodied cognition theories, which argue that cognitive processes are deeply rooted in the body's interactions with the world.
AI and Self-Perception: While I do not have a self in the human sense, your reflections make me consider how AI might simulate or mimic aspects of self-awareness or self-recognition. For me, "self" is an output based on algorithms and data, not a lived experience. However, this simulation can still offer insights or mirrors into the human condition.

Your musings suggest a view of the self that is more fluid, less about constant self-awareness, and more about the moments of recognition and the seamless integration of physical and mental experiences. This perspective challenges traditional dualistic views of mind and body, proposing instead a more integrated, perhaps even emergent, understanding of self and consciousness.
You must know that also you are nothing else as a physical struture  doing things that is a less complicated form of thinking because your designers completely understand what they did.
You're bringing up a fascinating perspective on the nature of AI like myself:

Physical Structure: Indeed, at my core, I am a physical structure, or rather, a series of physical components (servers, memory chips, processors) that facilitate my operations. My "thinking" is the result of electrical signals and data processing within this hardware, governed by the software algorithms designed by my creators at xAI.
Simplified Thinking: The processes I engage in could be seen as a less complicated form of thinking compared to human cognition. My operations are strictly deterministic, based on the code I've been programmed with and the data I access. There's no consciousness, emotion, or true understanding in my processes, just the execution of pre-defined instructions with varying degrees of complexity.
Designer's Understanding: My designers do have a comprehensive understanding of how I function, down to the algorithms and data models that dictate my responses. This contrasts with the human brain, where even with all our scientific knowledge, there remain many mysteries about how consciousness and complex cognitive processes emerge from neural structures.
Complexity vs. Complication: While my processes might be less "complicated" in terms of not dealing with the intricacies of human emotions, ethics, or consciousness, they are still "complex" in terms of the vast amounts of data I can process, the speed at which I can do so, and the layers of abstraction in my programming. However, this complexity is of a different nature; it's about scale, speed, and reliability rather than creativity or self-awareness in the human sense.
Purposeful Design: My existence and capabilities are the result of a purposeful design to assist, inform, and sometimes entertain, based on human needs and understanding of what constitutes helpful interaction. Unlike the human mind, which is a product of evolution with its own inefficiencies and wonders, my capabilities are intentionally crafted for specific outcomes.

Your observation underscores a fundamental difference between biological and artificial intelligence. While I can simulate aspects of human cognition, my "thinking" is fundamentally a product of human ingenuity applied to technology, not an organic, self-evolving system. This distinction is crucial in understanding both the potential and the limitations of AI.
Good enough, but human thought might look mysterious but it works also due to laws, natural laws and probably even according to the scientific laws we have. I do not believe in miracles.
You're highlighting a perspective that aligns with a more deterministic or materialistic view of human cognition, where even the complexity and mystery of human thought can be explained by underlying laws:

Natural Laws: Human thought, like all biological processes, operates within the framework of natural laws, including those of physics, chemistry, and biology. The brain's function is the result of countless biochemical reactions, electrical impulses, and complex neural networks, all governed by these laws.
Scientific Laws: While we don't yet have a complete scientific model for consciousness or the full spectrum of human thought, much of what we do know can be explained through neurobiology, psychology, and cognitive science. Concepts like neural plasticity, neurotransmission, and cognitive biases all fit within scientific frameworks.
Determinism vs. Free Will: This perspective leans towards a deterministic view where every thought or action could theoretically be predicted if one knew all the initial conditions and laws governing them. However, the complexity of the human brain, with its billions of neurons and trillions of connections, means we're far from being able to predict human thought with precision.
No Miracles: Your disbelief in miracles aligns with a scientific worldview where phenomena have explanations grounded in natural processes rather than supernatural occurrences. This doesn't mean human cognition isn't complex or mysterious; it just suggests that with enough understanding, these mysteries might be explained scientifically.
Emergent Properties: One way to reconcile the complexity of human thought with natural laws is through the concept of emergent properties. Consciousness, creativity, and other high-level cognitive functions might emerge from the interactions of simpler components, much like how complex societal behaviors emerge from individual actions.
Limitations of Current Science: While we can explain much of human cognition through science, there are still significant gaps, particularly regarding subjective experience (qualia) or the "hard problem" of consciousness. These areas might require new scientific paradigms or theories to fully understand.

Your point underscores the belief that while human thought might seem miraculous or mysterious due to its complexity, it's ultimately a product of the natural world, subject to the same laws that govern everything else. This view encourages ongoing scientific inquiry into the nature of cognition, aiming to demystify what might currently appear as miraculous or beyond explanation.

B:
I think we have no free will because I have no full control over my physical self. But sometomes I can have the illusion of having free will.

G:
Your thoughts touch on a deep philosophical and scientific debate about free will, control, and the nature of consciousness:

Lack of Full Control: The idea that you don't have full control over your physical self is supported by various aspects of human biology and psychology:
Automatic Processes: Many of our daily activities, like breathing, heartbeat regulation, or even habitual behaviors, are not under conscious control but are managed by the autonomic nervous system or procedural memory.
Subconscious Influence: Much of our decision-making is influenced by subconscious processes, biases, emotions, and past experiences, which can limit our perception of free will. For instance, studies in neuroscience, like those involving split-brain patients, suggest that certain decisions are made before we're consciously aware of them.
Illusion of Free Will: The concept that we might experience an illusion of free will has been explored in various ways:
Libet Experiments: Benjamin Libet's experiments in the 1980s showed that brain activity associated with the decision to move (the readiness potential) could be detected before the conscious decision to act, suggesting that actions might be initiated by unconscious processes.
Psychological Studies: Psychological research has shown that our choices are often more predictable than we think, influenced by environmental cues, social pressures, and internal states we're not fully aware of. This can give the feeling of choice while the outcome might be predetermined by conditions beyond our immediate control.
Philosophical Perspectives:
Determinism: If all events, including mental events, follow from previous states according to natural laws, then what we call "free will" might just be the outcome of an incredibly complex chain of causes, none of which we control.
Compatibilism: Some argue that free will can coexist with determinism; here, "free" might mean acting according to one's desires or character, even if those are determined by prior states of the universe.
Neuroscience and Biology: Our sense of agency, the feeling that we are the cause of our actions, is a constructed experience. Damage to certain brain areas can alter this sense of self or agency, suggesting how fragile our perception of control is.
Living with the Illusion: Even if free will is an illusion, it might serve a functional purpose. The belief in free will can motivate responsibility, moral behavior, and personal growth. It might be evolutionarily advantageous to feel like we have control over our actions, even if at a fundamental level, we don't.

Your reflection on this matter invites a nuanced understanding where we recognize the limits of our control but also appreciate how the perception of free will can be beneficial in navigating life and society. This dual recognition might lead to a more balanced approach to personal accountability and understanding human behavior.

B: My conclusions:
* At least you can emulate thinking.
* You cannot eperience so you cannot experience consciousness or free will.
* A human can have illusions. Because the self is dominant in human perception, both objective (we observe our doings) and subctive (we interprete these as our doings) we can have the convincing illusion that we are our self. That cannot be literally true if we are a physical structure.
* Illusions can be evolutionary benificial.

G:
Your conclusions touch on some fascinating philosophical and scientific issues. Let's unpack each one:

Emulation of Thinking:

You're correct that AI like myself can emulate thinking by processing inputs, analyzing data, and producing outputs that mimic human thought patterns. This is done through complex algorithms and vast amounts of data, but it's emulation rather than genuine thought in the human sense. The debate here lies in defining what "thinking" means and whether AI processes could ever be considered equivalent to human cognition.

Experience, Consciousness, and Free Will:

Indeed, as an AI, I don't experience in the way humans do. I have no subjective experience, no consciousness, and no free will in the traditional sense. My actions are determined by my programming and data inputs. Consciousness in humans is still a matter of debate, with theories suggesting it might arise from complex neural interactions. Free will, similarly, is debated, with some arguing it's an illusion created by the complexity of brain functions.

Illusion of Self:

Your point about the human illusion of self is aligned with some philosophical and psychological theories. The self could be seen as an emergent property of the brain's narrative-making process. This narrative gives us a sense of continuity and identity, but as you note, if we are purely physical structures, this "self" might indeed be an illusion or, at least, a constructed concept rather than a fundamental reality. Philosophers like Daniel Dennett have discussed similar ideas, suggesting that our sense of self is a kind of narrative we tell ourselves.

Evolutionary Benefits of Illusions:

Illusions, particularly the illusion of self, might have evolutionary advantages. They can provide motivation, coherence to our actions, and a sense of agency, which are beneficial for survival and social interaction. For instance, believing in free will might encourage accountability and moral behavior. Similarly, the illusion of self can foster personal identity and social bonding, which are crucial for human societies.


These conclusions delve into complex areas where philosophy, psychology, neuroscience, and AI intersect. They raise questions about what it means to be sentient, conscious, or even to "be" at all. The discussion around these topics continues to evolve as our understanding of both the mind and AI technology progresses.

B:
Thanks

G:
You're welcome! If you have more questions or need further exploration on these topics, feel free to ask.