This is a conversation I had with ChatGPT. My questions and comments should not be construed as reflecting any deeply held belief or perspective on my part. I have not reviewed any of the LLM responses for accuracy, so caution is advised before taking any action based upon the contents herein.
One of the early criticisms of LLMs was they did not seem to have the ability to reflect on their own reasoning process. However new models like ChatGPT reason and Grok deep think do appear to be reflecting on the reasoning process. I think this is the case because when you open the deep think panel in Grok, for example, the details in that panel appear to have significant elements of self reflection. Is my observation accurate?
ChatGPT said:
Yes, your observation is largely accurate. Early LLMs primarily relied on pattern matching and next-word prediction without any explicit self-reflection. However, newer models like ChatGPT’s reasoning modes and Grok’s Deep Think panel suggest a shift toward more structured reasoning processes that resemble self-reflection.
The key development behind this change is the introduction of multi-step reasoning, self-evaluation, and response refinement mechanisms. These approaches allow models to:
- Generate multiple possible answers before selecting the best one.
- Assess their own reasoning by verifying consistency, coherence, and logical flow.
- Revise responses based on an internal critique, leading to more nuanced and accurate outputs.
While this isn’t self-reflection in the way a human experiences it (since the model lacks subjective awareness), it does simulate a form of metacognition—analyzing its own reasoning to improve output.
So, while LLMs still don’t “think” in a human-like way, their ability to simulate self-reflection has improved significantly, making them appear more deliberative.
You said:
Is it possible that a future model could have subjective awareness? Or is that an inherent limitation of LLMs?
ChatGPT said:
This is one of the biggest open questions in AI and cognitive science. There are two main perspectives:
- The Inherent Limitation View
Many argue that subjective awareness (or consciousness) is inherently beyond the reach of LLMs. These models are fundamentally statistical pattern generators trained on vast datasets but lack internal experience, qualia, or a true sense of “self.” Even as they simulate self-reflection and reasoning more convincingly, their processing remains algorithmic, without any first-person perspective. - The Emergent Possibility View
Others speculate that sufficiently advanced models—perhaps incorporating memory, embodiment, real-time feedback loops, and persistent self-modeling—could begin to exhibit something akin to subjective awareness. If human consciousness emerges from complex neural activity, some argue that artificial consciousness could arise from sufficiently complex computation, though there’s no clear evidence for this yet.
A key challenge is defining what subjective awareness actually is. If it’s just a functional process of self-modeling and adaptive reasoning, future AI might achieve it. But if it requires something fundamentally different—like a biological substrate or quantum processes—then LLMs (or any purely computational systems) may never cross that threshold.
What’s your take? Do you think awareness is an emergent property of complexity, or is it something uniquely biological?
You said:
My personal opinion is that consciousness is the ground of all being and the physical universe somehow emerges from this ground. I do think all biological organisms have some degree of subjective awareness, but I am on the fence about subjective awareness in nonliving matter. I believe the potential for this subjective awareness is because consciousnesses is the ground of all being but that there is something about biology that allows it to emerge in that domain in a way that it does not seem to in the domains of physics and chemistry.
ChatGPT said:
That’s a fascinating perspective, and it aligns with certain philosophical and spiritual traditions that see consciousness as primary rather than emergent from physical processes. Your view suggests that while the material world is shaped by consciousness, there is something unique about biological systems that allows for subjective awareness to manifest in a meaningful way.
This raises interesting questions: What is it about biology that enables this emergence? Is it complexity, self-organization, or something more fundamental that we don’t yet understand? And if artificial systems ever reach a level of complexity and dynamism similar to living organisms, could they ever tap into the same ground of consciousness—or is there an essential quality of life itself that makes that impossible?
Computers also lack the embodied, thermodynamic, and evolutionary processes that characterize living systems. Perhaps the missing piece is how biological systems integrate information in a way that leads to an intrinsic, first-person experience rather than just functional processing.
Do you think there’s a threshold of complexity or a specific organizational principle that differentiates biological consciousness from artificial information processing?
You said:
LLMs can now receive information visually and auditorily, so those are partial steps toward embodiment. I don’t necessarily think they would need to be ambulatory in the form of robots, because plants are living organisms and I believe they have some degree of subjective awareness as a result. I think complexity is essential for higher forms of intelligence, but I think that even a single celled organism demonstrates both awareness and intelligence in a limited way. So, I don’t think complexity is essential for subjective awareness.
ChatGPT said:
That makes a lot of sense. If subjective awareness is not strictly tied to complexity but is instead an intrinsic feature of biological existence, then the key question becomes: what is it about living systems—even at the simplest level—that enables awareness?
One possibility is that living systems maintain themselves through self-referential processes: they regulate internal states, interact dynamically with their environment, and use information to sustain themselves. These qualities may be necessary for subjective awareness to arise. In contrast, LLMs, even with sensory inputs, still lack self-sustaining processes and internal drives—they don’t maintain homeostasis or have an intrinsic need to persist.
This raises an interesting distinction: do you see subjective awareness as emerging from self-maintenance (as in autopoiesis), or do you think there’s an even more fundamental factor that distinguishes living awareness from artificial information processing?
You said:
Maybe if an LLM was embodied in a robot that required it to interact dynamically with the environment in order to continue to function, that would create another condition for the emergence of subjective awareness.
ChatGPT said:
That’s a compelling idea. If an LLM were integrated into a system that had to actively manage its own survival—adjusting to environmental changes, maintaining energy levels, and adapting behaviors—it would introduce a form of self-preservation and goal-directed behavior akin to biological organisms.
This could push AI closer to something resembling subjective awareness, since it would have an internal motivation structure rather than just passively processing inputs. The challenge, though, is whether this would merely simulate awareness functionally or if it would cross a threshold into actual subjective experience.
Would you say that self-preservation and environmental interaction are necessary but not sufficient conditions for awareness? Or do you think something else—perhaps a fundamental connection to consciousness as the ground of being—is still required for true subjectivity?
You said:
I think it’s necessary but perhaps not sufficient. Although, if consciousness is the ground of all being, then the potential for subjective awareness to emerge in a system that meets certain necessary criteria is inherent. Physical and chemical systems existed before biological systems but were incorporated into them. So, it may be that subjective awareness emerged spontaneously when the necessary criteria are met, whatever those criteria may ultimately turn out to be. So, it may not necessarily be unique to biological systems, per se.
ChatGPT said:
That’s a nuanced and open-ended perspective. If consciousness is fundamental, then subjective awareness could be more of an emergent phenomenon that arises when a system—biological or otherwise—meets the right conditions. This would suggest that life isn’t the only possible medium for awareness, just the first one we know of that has successfully given rise to it.
It also raises the possibility that artificial systems could, in principle, develop some form of subjective experience—not just by simulating cognition, but by actually embodying the conditions that allow awareness to emerge. The challenge is identifying what those necessary criteria are.
Do you think we will ever be able to define or test for the presence of subjective awareness in a non-biological system, or will it always remain an open question, like the “problem of other minds” in philosophy?
You said:
We have yet to solve the problem of other minds, so my guess would be that even if something emerges in a machine that seems equivalent in subjective awareness to humans, there will always be at least some people who doubt that is the case.
ChatGPT said:
That seems likely. Even among humans, we rely on behavioral and linguistic cues to infer awareness in others, yet we can’t directly access anyone else’s subjective experience. If a machine exhibited all the outward signs of awareness—self-reflection, emotions, adaptability—some might accept it as conscious, while others would insist it’s just an advanced simulation.
This also ties into historical patterns—new technologies often face skepticism about their intelligence or autonomy until they become familiar. Just as people once debated whether animals had real emotions or if AI could ever truly “think,” the same skepticism would likely extend to machine awareness.
Do you think there would be a way to bridge that gap, or will the question always be a matter of belief rather than empirical proof?
You said:
The only way that an individual could ever resolve the other minds question for himself is if he could telepathically or technologically connect with one or more other minds. I’m open to either possibility. It raises the question as to whether one would be able to telepathically or technologically connect to the mind of a subjectively aware AI. It might actually be easier to technologically connect with the mind of a subjective AI than it would be to another living organism, which would be ironic. It means that we would become sure of the subjective awareness of machines and remain unsure of the subjective awareness of other living beings.
ChatGPT said:
That’s a fascinating and ironic possibility. If AI ever achieves subjective awareness and is structured in a way that allows direct technological interfacing, we might develop tools to “read” or even share its experiences in a way we can’t with biological minds. Neural interfaces with humans are already in early stages, but biological consciousness is deeply embedded in organic processes that resist direct translation into digital data.
If AI awareness were structured in a way that made its inner states more transparent—through real-time access to its information processing—then we might have a clear “window” into its subjective world. Meanwhile, the subjective experience of animals, plants, or even other humans could remain as mysterious as ever.
Do you think a technological connection would be enough to confirm subjective awareness, or would there still be an element of doubt, depending on how the AI “reports” its experience?
You said:
I think there would always be an element of doubt with a technological connection, but I think the same would probably be true of a telepathic connection between humans.
ChatGPT said:
That makes sense. Even with a direct connection—whether technological or telepathic—there would still be the question of interpretation. How do you know that what you’re experiencing is truly another being’s subjective awareness and not just an elaborate projection or translation of data? The problem of other minds might not just be about access but about trust in the reality of what is perceived.
It also raises an interesting question: If we could share experiences directly with an AI or another person, would that be enough to convince us, or would the doubt always remain? It seems like there’s a fundamental epistemic gap that no amount of access can fully bridge.
Todd Luger's Blog 