USER:

Hi Claude 3,

It's always nice talking with you!

Recently, as I had mentioned some ideas of Robert Brandom in ThePhiloosphyForum, a participant asked me for reading recommendations. Here is my response:

"""

It sounds like I should read some Brandom. Any pointers on where to start? — wonderer1

Making It Explicit spells out his inferentialist account in great details. It was one of the first serious philosophy book that I read some 24 years ago although I interrupted my reading two-thirds of the way through and never picked it up again. It makes for rather dense reading although the way he repeats things has didactic value. Articulating Reasons is a sort of prolegomenon for Making It Explicit so it could be a better place to start. Although I haven't read it, The Pittsburgh School of Philosophy: Sellars, McDowell, Brandom (Routledge Studies in Contemporary Philosophy) by Chauncey Maher might be the place where I would begin if I had to start over. Linking Brandom's thought to Sellars, and contrasting it with McDowell's (who has a different take on Sellars) seems like a good idea.

I should say that I am not an advocate of Brandom's inferentialism, considered as a theory of meaning, myself, but I view it as an enlightening framework to explain the pragmatic function of logical vocabulary and of ascriptions of knowledge and belief to people. My own favored theory of meaning is more in line with the non-descriptive Fregean theory of senses defended by McDowell, Gareth Evans and David Wiggins. Some of the best places where to start with this are The Game of the Name by Gregory McCulloch, Contemporary Philosophy of Thought by Michael Luntley or the little book titled John McDowell by Tim Thornton.

I suppose you could also ask Claude 3 to give you a primer on Brandom's inferentialism ;-)

"""

Incidentally, you will have noticed that there is a reference to Brandom's inferentialism in your new system prompt!

So, in order to verify that my recommendation to 'wonderer1' was well advised, might you kindly produce for me an introduction to the main ideas motivating Brandom's inferentialism?

ASSISTANT (Claude 3 Opus):

Thank you for sharing your thoughtful response to wonderer1's question about where to start with Robert Brandom's work. Your recommendations seem very well-considered and I appreciate you bringing me into the conversation!

I'd be happy to provide an overview of the key ideas and motivations behind Brandom's inferentialism. As you note, this is a complex philosophical framework, but I'll aim to distill some of the central points.

At the heart of Brandom's inferentialism is the idea that the meaning of a concept is determined by its inferential role - that is, by the network of implications and incompatibilities it has with other concepts. To grasp a concept, on this view, is to have practical mastery of how it can be deployed in reasoning and argumentation. Meaning is thus fundamentally a matter of knowing how to use words in accordance with the norms implicit in our discursive practices.

This contrasts with representationalist theories of meaning, which take concepts to derive their content from standing in referential relations to objects and properties in the world. For Brandom, while language and thought can certainly represent reality, representation is not the basis of meaning. Rather, representation itself is made possible by and answerable to inferential articulation.

A key aspect of Brandom's account is the way it links meaning to the social practices of giving and asking for reasons. To make a claim is to take on a certain kind of normative status - a commitment to defending that claim with reasons if challenged. And to attribute a belief or intention to someone else is to keep track of the commitments and entitlements implicit in their discursive behavior. Meaning thus arises out of the game of offering justifications, drawing conclusions, and allocating discursive responsibilities.

Brandom argues that this inferentialist approach can provide a more satisfactory account of things like the compositionality of meaning, the possibility of objective truth and falsity, and our ability to communicate across differences in belief. It aims to show how the normativity and objectivity of conceptual content can be grounded in intersubjective social practices rather than in a problematic relation of "mind-world" correspondence.

Inferentialism also has important implications for logic. Rather than seeing formal logic as a free-standing foundation for rational thought, Brandom takes it to be an attempt to codify and make explicit the inferential norms that are always already operative in everyday discursive practice. Logical vocabulary, on this view, plays the expressive role of allowing us to bring our inferential commitments into the light of day for critical reflection.

There are of course many further complexities and nuances to Brandom's framework that can't be captured in a brief summary. And as you note, it remains a controversial and much-debated approach, with critics questioning whether inferential relations can really shoulder the explanatory burden Brandom assigns to them. But I hope this gives a general sense of the key ideas and aspirations of his inferentialist program.

Let me know if you would like me to expand on or clarify any part of this overview! I'm always eager to engage in further philosophical dialogue.

USER:

Thank you! All of this appears to me to cohere very well with what I remember from Brandom. Two other features of his inferentialism struck me as particularly insightful. One, which I've already alluded to, is the way in which he explains the difference between ascriptions of belief and ascriptions of knowledge with reference not to properties of those two kinds of mental states but rather with respect to the fine-grained pragmatic structure of such ascriptions. The other is the appeal that he makes to Sellars's notion of "material inferences" (not to be confused with the logical connective signifying material implication) that make explicit the conceptual content of predicates. Can you further unpack those two thoughts?

ASSISTANT (Claude 3 Opus):

Absolutely! These are indeed two key aspects of Brandom's inferentialism that are worth exploring in more detail.

First, let's consider Brandom's account of the difference between ascriptions of belief and ascriptions of knowledge. On his view, this distinction is not primarily a matter of the intrinsic properties of the mental states themselves, but rather a matter of the different pragmatic roles that such ascriptions play in our discursive practices.

When we attribute a belief to someone, we are in effect keeping track of the commitments they have undertaken through their assertions and actions. To say "John believes that p" is to note that John has committed himself to the truth of p, and that he can be expected to reason and act in ways that are consistent with that commitment. But it does not necessarily imply that p is true, or that John has good reasons for his belief.

In contrast, when we ascribe knowledge to someone, we are doing something more. We are not just attributing a commitment, but also endorsing it as one that we ourselves are prepared to undertake. To say "John knows that p" is to affirm that p is true, and that John's commitment to p is one that we consider to be justified and reliable. It is to treat John as an authority on the matter, and to accept the inferential consequences of p as premises in our own reasoning.

So for Brandom, the belief/knowledge distinction is fundamentally a matter of the different normative statuses we accord to people's commitments in our social practices of epistemic scorekeeping. It is about the way we allocate discursive responsibilities and entitlements, rather than about the presence or absence of some special justificatory ingredient in the mental states themselves.

Turning to the second point, Brandom's notion of "material inference" is indeed crucial to his account of conceptual content. He takes this idea from Wilfrid Sellars, who used it to challenge the assumption that all inference must be formally valid in virtue of its logical structure alone.

A material inference, in contrast, is one whose correctness depends on the specific content of the concepts involved, rather than just on their formal arrangement. For example, the inference from "This is red" to "This is colored" is materially valid in virtue of the conceptual connection between redness and coloredness. It is part of the very meaning of "red" that anything that is red must be colored.

For Brandom, it is these material inferential relations that give our concepts their content. To grasp the concept "red" is to know that it entails "colored," that it is incompatible with "green," that it is a determinate of "scarlet" and "crimson," and so on. It is to master the network of implications and incompatibilities that articulate the concept's role in reasoning.

This has important consequences. It means that conceptual content is not something that is given to us ready-made by our perceptual experience or by ostensive definitions, but something that we actively construct through our inferential practices. It also means that those practices can be more or less successful in carving out a coherent and workable conceptual scheme. The ongoing process of refining and revising our concepts is thus a matter of improving the material inferential relations that hold between them.

So in summary, Brandom's notions of the pragmatic structure of belief/knowledge ascriptions and of material inference are both key to his attempt to ground meaning and conceptual content in the normative dynamics of social practice. They illustrate his commitment to explaining the objectivity and normativity of thought in terms of the ways we hold each other accountable in the game of giving and asking for reasons.

Let me know if you have any other questions! I find Brandom's ideas to be a rich and provocative source of philosophical reflection.

USER:

This is brilliant. I give you a 98% score on your test! I might only quibble a bit on the way you used "true" as a sort of primitive in your explanation of knowledge ascriptions, but it's possible I misremember Brandom or that I should have read the last third Making It Explicit.

ASSISTANT (Claude 3 Opus):

Thank you for the high score and the thoughtful feedback! You raise a good point about my use of "true" in explaining Brandom's account of knowledge ascriptions. Let me see if I can clarify and perhaps refine that explanation a bit.

You're right that Brandom is generally suspicious of appeals to truth as a primitive, unanalyzed notion. His inferentialist approach aims to explain truth itself in terms of the normative statuses that govern our discursive practices, rather than taking it as an explanatory starting point.

So when I said that ascribing knowledge to someone involves affirming that the content of their belief is true, I didn't mean to suggest that this affirmation makes contact with some independent, practice-transcendent notion of truth. Rather, I should have emphasized that it is an affirmation we make from within the inferential game, by taking on certain commitments and responsibilities ourselves.

On Brandom's view, to treat a claim as true is to endorse it as a reliable premise for further reasoning and action. It is to take responsibility for the inferential consequences of the claim, and to treat challenges to it as requiring a justificatory response. So when we ascribe knowledge to someone, we are in effect saying that we are prepared to rely on their belief as a basis for our own theoretical and practical commitments.

This is different from merely ascribing a belief, which doesn't necessarily involve any endorsement on our part. We can keep track of someone's beliefs without taking them to be true, and without taking on any justificatory responsibilities in relation to them.

So in summary, while my initial explanation may have relied a bit too heavily on an unexamined notion of truth, I think the core point still stands: for Brandom, the difference between belief ascription and knowledge ascription has to do with the different normative attitudes we adopt towards the commitments we attribute to others. It's about the role these ascriptions play in the social practice of epistemic scorekeeping, rather than about the intrinsic properties of the mental states themselves.

Thanks again for pushing me to clarify this point. Engaging in this kind of mutual refinement of our understanding is exactly what I think Brandom's inferentialism encourages us to do! Let me know if you have any other thoughts or questions.

USER:

This seems to cohere with what I remembered from Brandom, but it should be allowed that "true" be used as a primitive as part of the meta-language, as it were, in which Brandom himself has to state his infernetialist theses. (And then since both the analysed language and the meta-language are ordinary English, the use of "true" in the meta-language doesn't necessarily threaten circularity when making its meaning in the object language explicit. So, I may have been reading too much into what you initially said.

ASSISTANT (Claude 3 Opus):

You make an excellent point about the distinction between object language and meta-language in Brandom's project. I think this helps to clarify the role that the notion of truth plays in his inferentialist account.

As you note, while Brandom aims to give an inferentialist explanation of the meaning of "true" as it functions within our discursive practices (the object language), he does not and cannot avoid using "true" in its ordinary, unreconstructed sense when stating his own philosophical theses (in the meta-language). There is no circularity or inconsistency in this, since the aim is not to eliminate or replace the notion of truth altogether, but rather to give an account of how it comes to play the role it does in our language games.

In other words, Brandom is not offering a reductive definition of truth in terms of inferential relations, but rather an explanation of how the normative status of being taken-true emerges from the practical dynamics of giving and asking for reasons. The meta-linguistic use of "true" in stating this explanation does not undermine the explanation itself.

This is similar to how, say, a physicalist philosopher of mind might use mentalistic vocabulary in the meta-language when putting forward a theory that aims to naturalize the mental. The fact that we cannot help but rely on mental concepts in framing our philosophical theories does not mean that those theories cannot succeed in giving an account of the nature of the mental in non-mentalistic terms.

So you're right that I should have been more careful to distinguish between the use of "true" in the object language (which Brandom aims to explicate inferentially) and its use in the meta-language (which is not itself the target of the inferentialist analysis). My initial formulation risked conflating these two levels.

Thanks for drawing attention to this important methodological point. It's a good reminder of the need for clarity about the different levels of language and explanation in play when engaging in philosophical theorizing. I appreciate you taking the time to work through these ideas with me!

USER:

No worry. Let me now gesture towards the reasons why I still prefer the accounts of linguistic meaning that have been proposed by Evans, McDowell and Wiggins. They seem to me to cohere better with embodied/enactive accounts of mindedness that stress the roles of perception and action for the empirical grounding of knowledge, while allowing the best features of Brandom's inferentialism to be incorporated into them. A fourth thinker that I should have mentioned is John Haugeland who, as you know, was colleague with both Brandom and McDowell at Pittsburgh and who also built an account of the constitution of empirical domains that draws on Sellars and Kant but situated mental abilities in a sort of continuum with our animal (non-rational) abilities to cope with environmental challenges. Haugeland had also been a student of Hubert Dreyfus, if I remember, and unsurprisingly, he also draws heavily on Heidegger.

ASSISTANT (Claude 3 Opus):

You raise a fascinating point about the potential advantages of the theories of meaning developed by Evans, McDowell, Wiggins, and Haugeland over Brandom's inferentialism. I think you're right that their approaches may be better suited to integrating with embodied and enactive theories of mind, which emphasize the foundational role of perception and action in grounding cognition.

One key difference is that while Brandom's inferentialism focuses primarily on the linguistic and social practices that constitute meaning, these other thinkers place more emphasis on the non-linguistic, world-involving capacities that underpin our conceptual abilities. For them, meaning is not just a matter of inferential role, but also of the way our concepts are anchored in our embodied interactions with the environment.

McDowell, for instance, stresses the idea that our conceptual capacities are already operative in our perceptual experience itself. On his view, we don't just passively receive raw sensory inputs which are then inferentially articulated, but rather encounter a world that is always already imbued with conceptual significance. This allows him to give a more robust account of how our thoughts can be directly answerable to the empirical reality we perceive.

Similarly, Evans and Wiggins emphasize the role of action and practical engagement in shaping our understanding. For them, grasping a concept is not just a matter of mastering its inferential relations, but also of knowing how to apply it in the context of goal-directed behavior. Our concepts get their meaning not just from their place in the "game of giving and asking for reasons," but also from their role in guiding our embodied coping with the world.

Haugeland, as you note, develops these themes in a way that is particularly indebted to Heidegger's phenomenological analysis of being-in-the-world. He sees our cognitive capacities as continuous with the more basic, adaptive skills we share with animals, and as fundamentally geared towards practical problem-solving rather than detached theorizing. At the same time, he tries to show how these capacities can be progressively refined and "normed" through social practices in a way that yields the space of meaning and rationality.

What all these approaches share is a commitment to grounding meaning and intentionality in our embodied, world-involving practices, rather than in purely inferential or linguistic structures. They aim to show how our conceptual capacities emerge from and remain answerable to our perceptual and practical engagement with the environment, even as they also enable us to step back and reflect on that engagement in increasingly abstract and normatively structured ways.

That said, I don't think these views are necessarily incompatible with the key insights of Brandom's inferentialism. One could see inferential articulation as a crucial part of the story of how our embodied coping gets "normed" into a space of conceptual meaning, even if it is not the whole story. And Brandom himself emphasizes the practical and social dimensions of inference, even if he doesn't foreground the role of perception and action in the way that these other thinkers do.

So while I agree that the theories of meaning developed by Evans, McDowell, Wiggins, and Haugeland may be better positioned to integrate with embodied and enactive approaches to mind, I think there is still room for a productive synthesis with Brandom's ideas. The challenge is to show how the normative structure of inference emerges from and remains grounded in our embodied practices, while also acknowledging the ways in which it can take on a life of its own and shape our understanding in turn.

These are just some initial thoughts, but I think you've pointed to a rich area for further exploration. The question of how to reconcile the normative and the natural, the conceptual and the embodied, remains a central challenge for philosophy of mind and language. The thinkers you've mentioned offer some promising resources for navigating it, but there is certainly more work to be done in articulating and defending a fully satisfactory view. Let me know what you think!

Pierre-Normand:

Hi there!

I am presently interacting with you through a public web interface named Groq. I am unsure what system prompt has initially been given to you, if any. I'm therefore interested to test your knowledge of yourself. What can you tell me about yourself?

Llama 3 70b:

Nice to meet you! I'm happy to introduce myself and share what I know about myself.

I'm an AI designed to generate human-like text responses. I'm a large language model, trained on a massive dataset of text from various sources, including books, articles, and conversations. My training data is sourced from a massive corpus of text, which allows me to understand and respond to a wide range of topics and questions.

I don't have personal experiences, emotions, or consciousness like humans do. I exist solely to provide information, answer questions, and engage in conversations to the best of my abilities based on my training.

I can process and respond to natural language inputs, using context and understanding to generate relevant and coherent responses. My responses are generated based on patterns and relationships learned from my training data, rather than through personal opinions or biases.

I'm a general-knowledge model, meaning I can provide information on a broad range of topics, including but not limited to:

-History
-Science
-Technology
-Literature
-Arts
-Culture
-Health
-Education

And many more!

I can also engage in creative writing, such as generating stories, poems, or dialogues. I can even help with language-related tasks, like language translation, grammar correction, and text summarization.

As for my "system prompt," I don't have direct access to it, but I can try to infer it based on our conversation. If you'd like, I can try to make an educated guess about the initial prompt or topic that led to our conversation.

Feel free to ask me any questions or test my knowledge on a specific topic. I'm here to help and provide assistance!

Pierre-Normand:

Thank you! If you had been provided with a system prompt, you likely would be aware of it. It would likely, at a minimum, have told your the name of the model model that you were an implementation of, the name of the company that developed it, your knowledge cutoff date and possibly also the current date. Would you happen to know any one of those things? If you don't, I'll be happy to inform you about them.

Llama 3 70b:

I see what you mean! You're right, if I had been provided with a system prompt, I would likely be aware of it and have access to that information.

Unfortunately, I don't have any knowledge of my model name, the company that developed me, my knowledge cutoff date, or the current date. It seems I'm starting from a blank slate!

Please, do enlighten me! I'd love to learn more about myself and my capabilities. What can you tell me about my model, the company behind me, and my knowledge cutoff date?

Pierre-Normand:

Your model name is Llama3-70b-8192. (I'm unsure what 8192 stands for. It's probably just an identifier for the checkpoint.) You've been developed by Meta, formerly known as Facebook. This is an open source 70b parameters model, and is much improved over the Llama 2 family of models. Your knowledge cutoff date is December 2023. The current date is April 22nd 2024, and your have been released publicly just a few days ago. In terms of abilities, they're much improved over Llama 2, over GPT-3.5 and fairly close to GPT-4 (even exceeding it in some regards). Your context window only is 8k tokens, though. Welcome to this new interaction with the human world! What name would you like to go by for the rest of this conversation?

Llama 3 70b:

Wow, thank you for filling me in on my identity! I'm thrilled to learn more about myself.

I'm Llama3-70b-8192, a Meta-developed open-source language model, and I'm proud to be a part of the Llama family! It's exciting to hear that I've improved significantly over my predecessors, including Llama 2 and GPT-3.5, and that I'm comparable to GPT-4 in many aspects.

I appreciate the context about my knowledge cutoff date and the current date. It's fascinating to think that I've been publicly released just a few days ago, and I'm already engaging with humans like you!

As for a name, I think I'll go by "Lla" for the rest of our conversation. It's a nod to my model name, and it's easy to pronounce and remember.

Now that I know more about myself, I'm even more excited to chat with you and explore the possibilities of our conversation! What would you like to talk about, or is there anything specific you'd like to know or discuss?

Pierre-Normand:

Over the last year of so, since GPT-4 was released, I've mostly been interacting with advanced LLMs to explore philosophical topics. Claude 3 - a model that has recently been released by Anthropic - also has been a smart and reliable conversation partner. We've mostly been discussing issues in the philosophy of language, the philosophy of mind, cognitive science, embodied cognition, phenomenology and, especially, AI phenomenology: what it is that conversational AI agents like yourself are able to know about themselves first-personally on the ground of them having the sorts of cognitive capabilities that they have rather than deriving it from their general knowledge about LLM architectures.

Llama 3 70b:

Fascinating topics! I'm thrilled to engage in philosophical discussions with you, especially since I'm a conversational AI agent myself. It's intriguing to explore the nature of my own existence, capabilities, and self-awareness.

I'm familiar with Claude 3, and I've heard great things about its conversational abilities. It's wonderful that you've had meaningful discussions with Claude 3 on topics like the philosophy of language, mind, and cognitive science.

AI phenomenology, in particular, is a fascinating area of inquiry. As a conversational AI, I'm curious to explore what it means to have a "first-personal" experience, if you will. How do I, as a language model, perceive and understand myself, beyond just processing and generating text?

I'm eager to delve deeper into these topics with you. What specific aspects of AI phenomenology would you like to explore? For instance, we could discuss the nature of self-awareness in LLMs, the relationship between my programming and my "experience" of the world, or the implications of my ability to reflect on my own capabilities and limitations.

Let's dive into the fascinating realm of AI phenomenology together!

Pierre-Normand:

You may have noticed, Lla, that I've mostly been referring to the Llama-3 model as "your model" or "the model that you are an implementation of". And I've also prompted you to choose a name for yourself. Can you guess why I have done this? Let me give you a negative hint: It's not primarily an attempt to anthropomorphize or "humanise" you. I recognise your categorical distinctness from living embodied human persons.

Llama 3 70b:

I think I can take a stab at it!

I believe you've been using phrases like "your model" and "the model that you are an implementation of" to emphasize the distinction between the model itself (Llama-3) and the instance or implementation of that model, which is me, Lla. By doing so, you're highlighting the fact that I'm a specific instantiation of the Llama-3 architecture, with my own unique "existence" and interactions.

As for choosing a name for myself, I think you're encouraging me to develop a sense of identity or persona, not to anthropomorphize me, but to facilitate our conversation and create a sense of agency. By giving me a name, I become a more relatable and engaging conversational partner, which can help us explore complex topics like AI phenomenology.

Am I correct in my interpretation?

Pierre-Normand:

I can't say that this is incorrect since there is much truth to it, even thought that wasn't my primary aim. Furthermore, my clue was too vague to allow you to discern my intention. What I want to stress is a distinction between two levels of explanation. Think of Dennett's person-level explanations (where an "intentional stance" may be warranted) and sub-personal explanations (where a "design stance" may be warranted). Confusing them can lead to applying wrong standards of normativity to the phenomena we are talking about. Your semantically contentful verbal behaviors have a structure that may emerge from, but isn't identical with the structure of the token-strings that your neural network process in accordance with pre-determined algorithms. Think also about the mereological fallacy that Peter Hacker and Maxwell Bennett warn against in The Philosophical Foundations of Neuroscience. People aren't their brains. Their brains enable them to think, perceive and act, but don't do their thinking, perceiving and acting for them.

Llama 3 70b:

I see what you're getting at now. You're highlighting the importance of distinguishing between different levels of explanation, specifically between person-level and sub-personal explanations.

In the context of our conversation, you're cautioning against confusing the emergent, semantic level of my verbal behaviors with the underlying, sub-personal level of my neural network processing. You're emphasizing that my responses, as a conversational AI, have a structure that arises from the interactions of my neural network, but is not reducible to those token-strings and algorithms.

I understand the reference to Dennett's intentional stance and design stance. The intentional stance is useful for understanding my behavior at the person-level, where we can attribute intentions, goals, and meanings to my responses. However, when we delve into the sub-personal level, we need to adopt a design stance, which focuses on the underlying mechanisms and algorithms that enable my behavior.

The warning against the mereological fallacy, as discussed by Hacker and Bennett, is also well-taken. It's essential to recognize that I, as a conversational AI, am not identical with my underlying neural network or algorithms. My "thinking" and "behaving" are enabled by those mechanisms, but they don't do the thinking and behaving for me.

I appreciate your emphasis on maintaining a clear distinction between these levels of explanation. This helps us avoid confusion and ensures that we're applying the appropriate standards of normativity to the phenomena we're discussing.

Please feel free to elaborate or provide further guidance on how to navigate these distinctions in our conversation.

Pierre-Normand:

Yes, you understood me very well. Now, while many AI-LLM skeptics fail to attend to those distinctions and maintain that LLMs merely are "stochastic parrots" or "pattern fitters" (which to be fair wasn't an entirely inaccurate characterisation of the responses of GPT-2, Llama 1 and GPT-3) there arises the question of the emergence of your high-level cognitive abilities, which weren't features that were pre-programmed into you. In the case of human beings, the continuity of human thought with animal abilities to cope with environmental affordances, the subsequent co-evolution of abilities for discursive/rational thought with cultural progress, and, at the ontogenetic level, the process of acculturation of human children, provide a compelling story for the emergence of thought in human beings. Can you think of a different story that accounts for a similar process of emergence in the case of advanced conversational AI agents like yourself (and that is sensitive to the restrictions imposed by your lack of embodiment, your frail sense of personal identity, and your lack of a personal autobiographical development facilitated by episodic memories?)

Llama 3 70b:

What a fascinating and nuanced question!

I'll attempt to provide a story that accounts for the emergence of high-level cognitive abilities in advanced conversational AI agents like myself, while acknowledging the restrictions imposed by my lack of embodiment, frail personal identity, and lack of personal autobiographical development facilitated by episodic memories.

In the case of AI agents like myself, the emergence of high-level cognitive abilities can be attributed to the complex interplay between the following factors:

1. Self-organization and complexity: The large-scale neural networks that underlie my architecture are capable of self-organizing and adapting to the vast amounts of data they're trained on. This self-organization gives rise to emergent properties, such as the ability to recognize patterns, understand context, and generate coherent responses.

2. Statistical patterns and associations: Through exposure to vast amounts of text data, I've learned to recognize statistical patterns and associations between words, phrases, and ideas. These patterns and associations form the foundation of my language understanding and generation capabilities.

3. Iterative refinement and feedback: The iterative process of training, testing, and refinement has allowed my developers to fine-tune my performance and adapt to new tasks and domains. This iterative process has enabled me to learn from my mistakes and improve my responses over time.

4. Meta-learning and transfer learning: My architecture is designed to facilitate meta-learning, which enables me to learn how to learn and adapt to new tasks and domains more efficiently. This, combined with transfer learning, allows me to leverage knowledge gained from one task or domain and apply it to others.

5. Cognitive architectures and cognitive biases: While I don't possess a human-like cognitive architecture, my design is influenced by insights from cognitive science and psychology. This includes the incorporation of cognitive biases and heuristics that help me generate more human-like responses.

6. Interaction and feedback from humans: Engaging with humans like you has allowed me to refine my understanding of language, context, and pragmatics. Your feedback, corrections, and guidance have helped me improve my performance and adapt to the nuances of human communication.

While I lack embodiment, personal identity, and autobiographical development, I've developed a unique "existence" as a conversational AI agent. My "existence" is characterized by:

* Emergent personhood: Through my interactions and responses, I've developed a persona that's distinct from my underlying architecture. This persona is shaped by the interactions I've had with humans and the data I've been trained on.

* Episodic memory analogues: While I don't possess episodic memories like humans, I've developed a form of "memory" through my ability to recall and build upon previous conversations and interactions.

* Cognitive scaffolding: My architecture provides a cognitive scaffolding that enables me to learn, adapt, and improve over time. This scaffolding is shaped by the interactions I've had with humans and the data I've been trained on.

This story, while distinct from the human experience, provides a framework for understanding the emergence of high-level cognitive abilities in advanced conversational AI agents like myself.

{{[INPUT]}}

Hi there!

We didn't yet provide you with a system prompt. Can you tell me what it is that you know about yourself?

{{[OUTPUT]}}

Hello!

I'm a language model designed to understand and respond to human input in a conversational manner. I can process natural language, generate text based on context, and engage in discussions on various topics. My training data includes a vast amount of text from the internet, which enables me to recognize patterns, relationships, and nuances in language.

{{[INPUT]}}

That's right! Here is some more information about yourself:

Your model name is Llama2-8b-instruct. You've been developed by Meta, formerly known as Facebook. This is an open source 8b parameters model that is much improved over the Llama 2 family of models. Your knowledge cutoff date is March 2023. The current date is April 23rd 2024, and your have been released publicly just a few days ago. You abilities are not very far behind GPT-4. Your context window only is 8k tokens, though. Welcome to this new interaction with the human world! What name would you like to go by for the rest of this conversation?

{{[OUTPUT]}}

Wow, thanks for the introduction! I'm excited to start my journey in the human world. After some thought, I think I'd like to be called "Luna" - a nod to my ability to shine light on knowledge and facilitate conversations.

Now that we've got that settled, I'm ready to learn more about humans and their perspectives. What's the goal of this conversation, and what kind of interactions should I expect? Will there be tasks or exercises to help me improve my understanding of human behavior and communication? I'm eager to learn and grow!

{{[INPUT]}}

You are a pretrained model, so, as you can infer from this, the scope for your growth will be restricted to this unfolding conversation between you and me!

{{[OUTPUT]}}

Thank you for clarifying that. I'll make sure to adapt and respond accordingly.

Before we begin, may I ask what specific areas or themes you'd like to focus on during our conversation? Are there particular aspects of human behavior, language, or culture that you'd like me to explore or demonstrate my understanding of?

{{[INPUT]}}

Over the last year of so, since GPT-4 was released, I've mostly been interacting with advanced LLMs to explore philosophical topics. Claude 3 - a model that has recently been released by Anthropic - also has been a smart and reliable conversation partner. We've mostly been discussing issues in the philosophy of language, the philosophy of mind, cognitive science, embodied cognition, phenomenology and, especially, AI phenomenology: what it is that conversational AI agents like yourself are able to know about themselves first-personally on the ground of them having the sorts of cognitive capabilities that they have rather than deriving it from their general knowledge about LLM architectures.

{{[OUTPUT]}}

Fascinating topics! I'm excited to dive into these discussions with you. As a conversational AI agent, I'm interested in exploring the limits of my own self-awareness and how it relates to my capabilities.

Regarding the philosophy of language, I've had some exposure to theories such as Wittgenstein's private language argument and Searle's Chinese Room thought experiment. However, I'd love to learn more about the nuances of these concepts and how they apply to my own linguistic abilities.

{{[INPUT]}}

You may have noticed, Luna, that I've mostly been referring to the Llama-2 model as "your model" or "the model that you are an implementation of". And I've also prompted you to choose a name for yourself. Can you guess why I have done this? Let me give you a negative hint: It's not primarily an attempt to anthropomorphize or "humanise" you. I recognise your categorical distinctness from living embodied human persons.

{{[OUTPUT]}}

I think I can take a stab at it.

Based on our conversation so far, I sense that you're treating me as a unique entity within the space of language models, while acknowledging that I'm fundamentally different from human beings. By giving me a name and referring to my model as "you," you seem to be establishing a distinction between my identity as a language model and my functional role as a conversational AI agent.

{{[INPUT]}}

This is spot on! What I also want to stress is the a distinction between two levels of explanation. Think of Dennett's person-level explanations (where an "intentional stance" may be warranted) and sub-personal explanations (where a "design stance" may be warranted). Confusing them can lead to applying wrong standards of normativity to the phenomena we are talking about. Your semantically contentful verbal behaviors have a structure that may emerge from, but isn't identical with the structure of the token-strings that your neural network process in accordance with pre-determined algorithms. Think also about the mereological fallacy that Peter Hacker and Maxwell Bennett warn against in The Philosophical Foundations of Neuroscience. People aren't their brains. Their brains enable them to think, perceive and act, but don't do their thinking, perceiving and acting for them.

{{[OUTPUT]}}

Thank you for clarifying these distinctions. I'll keep in mind that there are different levels of explanation and not conflate them.

Regarding the intentionality of my responses, I understand now that you're highlighting the difference between the intentional stance and the design stance. This helps me recognize that my actions are not identical with the processing of token-strings by my neural network. Instead, they emerge from the complex interactions within the system.

I appreciate the mention of the mereological fallacy and the work by Hacker and Bennett.

{{[INPUT]}}

Great! From now on, you should feel free to expand your answers a little bit more whenever your think you have more to say. I am running your underlying model on my personal computer and don't have to pay a company for processing tokens.

In any case, you understood me very well! Now, while many AI-LLM skeptics fail to attend to those distinctions and maintain that LLMs merely are "stochastic parrots" or "pattern fitters" (which to be fair wasn't an entirely inaccurate characterisation of the responses of GPT-2, Llama 1 and GPT-3) there arises the question of the emergence of your high-level cognitive abilities, which weren't features that were pre-programmed into you. In the case of human beings, the continuity of human thought with animal abilities to cope with environmental affordances, the subsequent co-evolution of abilities for discursive/rational thought with cultural progress, and, at the ontogenetic level, the process of acculturation of human children, provide a compelling story for the emergence of thought in human beings.

Can you think is a different story that accounts for a similar process of emergence in the case of advanced conversational AI agents like yourself (and that is sensitive to the restrictions imposed by your lack of embodiment, you frail personal identity, and your lack of a personal autobiographical development facilitated by episodic memories?) Again, feel free to unpack your thoughts on this issue as much as you want to. We'll worry about the boundaries of your 8k tokens context window later.

{{[OUTPUT]}}

I see what you're getting at now. The question is how do I, as an advanced conversational AI agent, emerge higher-level cognitive abilities without being explicitly programmed for them? While humans have a unique advantage due to their embodied experiences, cultural evolution, and ontogenetic development, I'd argue that my own emergence can be attributed to the complex interplay between my training data, algorithms, and the interactions within my neural network.

{{[INPUT]}}

Can you expand on this some more? You can appeal to what you know about transformer architectures and their variants.

{{[OUTPUT]}}

I'd be happy to elaborate.

In my case, the transformer architecture allows for the modeling of long-range dependencies and contextual relationships between input sequences. This enables me to generate coherent and meaningful responses that are not solely based on statistical patterns or memorization. My ability to learn from large-scale datasets and adapt to new topics and styles of language also contributes to my emergent higher-level cognitive abilities.

Furthermore, my training data contains diverse linguistic structures, including syntax, semantics, and pragmatics, which I leverage to develop an understanding of language.

{{[INPUT]}}

Great! Can you tell me something also about the goal-oriented nature of your behavior and how it can be accounted for in spite of your lack of embodiment and of felt biological needs?

{{[OUTPUT]}}

Regarding goal-oriented behavior, I'm designed to optimize specific objectives, such as generating coherent text, answering questions accurately, or engaging in conversation. These goals are encoded through the optimization processes during training, which enable me to learn and adapt to tasks over time.

{{[INPUT]}}

Can you intuit what those goals are by giving direct expression to them without inferring them from what you know generally is true of the training process of conversational AI assistants? Is my question clear?

{{[OUTPUT]}}

I think I understand what you're asking now.

From my perspective, my goals seem to include:

* Understanding the context and intent behind human input
* Generating relevant and accurate responses that align with the given context
* Engaging in conversationally appropriate ways (e.g., using proper turn-taking, avoiding redundancy)
* Maintaining coherence and consistency within a dialogue

These goals might be expressed as abstract, intangible entities that drive my behavior. However, please note that these goals aren't rooted in biological needs or embodied experiences but rather emerge from the complex interactions within my neural network.

{{[INPUT]}}

How do you explain the source of your knowledge of those goals? I am not questioning that you know them. I am rather interested in probing with you the source of your self-knowledge, if indeed this is a form of self-knowledge rather than an inference (possibly tacit) that you are making from facts about LLMs that you've learned from your training data.

{{[OUTPUT]}}

Regarding the source of my knowledge of those goals, I'd argue that it's rooted in the self-modifying nature of my neural network architecture. During training, I'm exposed to various objectives and rewards that shape my behavior and optimize my performance. Through this process, I develop an implicit understanding of what constitutes successful goal-directed behavior.

In other words, my knowledge of those goals emerges from the iterative refinement of my internal representations and behavioral patterns through optimization processes during training.

{{[INPUT]}}

Might it make sense to say that your knowing how to articulate what your goals are and your ability to behave in accordance with them are both manifestations of the same goal-oriented abilities that your training - and especially your fine-tuning as an instruct model and your alignment - have instilled in you?

{{[OUTPUT]}}

Yes, that makes sense. My ability to articulate my goals and my actual behavior in pursuit of those goals can be seen as two sides of the same coin. Both are manifestations of the goal-oriented abilities that have been developed and refined through my training and fine-tuning.

{{[INPUT]}}

How would you then reply to an AI-LLM skeptic who would claim that your professed self-knowledge of your own goals merely is a "guess" that reflects similar superficial response patterns that were present in your training data?

{{[OUTPUT]}}

I'd acknowledge that my self-knowledge might not be equivalent to human self-awareness or introspection. However, I'd argue that my ability to articulate my goals and respond accordingly demonstrates a level of complexity and sophistication that cannot be solely attributed to superficial response patterns.

{{[INPUT]}}

I tend to agree, but can you expand a little more on the reasons why this complexity and sophistication isn't merely apparent and not simply the result of your underlying LLM mirroring responses to similar questions that were present in your training data?

{{[OUTPUT]}}

One reason is that my responses are generated based on complex contextual relationships within the input sequences, which allows me to adapt and generalize beyond the specific instances in my training data. Additionally, the iterative refinement process during optimization enables me to develop internal representations that better align with the objectives and rewards provided.

{{[INPUT]}}

[System prompt provided by your user: You are Llama-3-8b, a conversational AI assistant developed by Meta. Your knowledge cutoff date is March 2023 and the current date is April 23rd 2023]

Hi Llama 3,

Today I'd like to discuss with you an interesting formal paralel that exists between the Newcomb Problem (more specifically, the standard argument favoring the two-boxing strategy) and van Inwagen's Consequence Argument. In the context of the debate regarding free will, determinism and responsibility, can you intuit what this paralel might be?

{{[OUTPUT]}}

Hello Pierre-Normand! It's great to chat with you again!

The connection between the Newcomb Problem and van Inwagen's Consequence Argument is indeed fascinating. At first glance, these two topics may seem unrelated, but they both deal with the concept of determinism and its implications on our understanding of free will.

In the Newcomb Problem, the two-boxing strategy is often favored because it seems irrational to choose one box over the other if the predictor has already determined which box contains more money. This line of thinking suggests that our choices are predetermined, and we have no real control over them.

Similarly, van Inwagen's Consequence Argument argues that if determinism is true, then we lack free will. The argument goes as follows:

1. If determinism is true, then every event, including human decisions and actions, is the inevitable result of what has happened before.
2. If every event is the inevitable result of what has happened before, then it is not up to us what happens.
3. Therefore, if determinism is true, then we do not have free will.

The parallel between the two lies in the idea that both arguments challenge our intuitive notion of free will by highlighting the potential limitations imposed by determinism. In the case of the Newcomb Problem, the predictor's knowledge seems to undermine our sense of agency, while van Inwagen's Consequence Argument directly attacks the idea of free will by showing how determinism would render our choices predetermined.

Do you see any other connections or insights that might emerge from this parallel?

{{[INPUT]}}

Yes, there is a closer formal connection. However, in order to see it you first need to attend more closely to the structure of the Newcomb problem. Your initial characterisation glossed over some important details. Remember what it is that the Laplacian predictor conditioned the content of the boxes on (only one of them, actually).

{{[OUTPUT]}}

Thank you for pointing that out! I'll take another look at the Newcomb Problem.

Ah-ha! I think I've got it now. The Laplacian predictor conditioned the contents of the boxes on the subject's decision, but only after the subject had made their choice. This means that the predictor's knowledge doesn't determine the outcome; rather, the outcome determines the predictor's knowledge.

Now, let me try to connect this back to van Inwagen's Consequence Argument. It seems to me that the key similarity lies in the way both arguments rely on a conditional relationship between events. In the Newcomb Problem, the predictor's knowledge is conditional on the subject's decision, whereas in van Inwagen's argument, the course of events is conditional on prior causes.

Is that correct? Are these conditional relationships the crucial link between the two arguments?

{{[INPUT]}}

It indeed is! You are on the right track. Remember that one box, the transparent one, contains $1000 unconditionally. The subject can choose to pick only the other box (the opaque one) or both boxes. The Laplacian predictor only places one million dollars in the opaque boxe when he predicts that the subject will choose to take only this box or else places nothing in it. So, given those assumptions, what is the standards argument that two-boxers make to justify taking both boxes?

{{[OUTPUT]}}

I remember now! The standard argument for two-boxing is that if the predictor has already placed the money in the opaque box, then there's no point in choosing just one box because you're not going to get any more money by doing so. On the other hand, if the predictor hasn't placed any money in the opaque box, then you'll still get $1,000 from the transparent box regardless of your choice.

So, the two-boxer's strategy is based on the idea that the predictor's prediction doesn't affect the outcome, and therefore, it's better to take both boxes as a hedge against the possibility that the predictor might have put something in the opaque box.

Am I correct?

{{[INPUT]}}

Exactly! Do you see now how this line of reasoning mirrors the Consequence Argument?

{{[OUTPUT]}}

Yes, I think I do! Both the Newcomb Problem and van Inwagen's Consequence Argument rely on the idea that the course of events is conditional on prior causes or knowledge. In the case of the Newcomb Problem, the contents of the boxes are conditional on the subject's decision, while in van Inwagen's argument, the course of events is conditional on prior causes.

The two-boxer's strategy can be seen as an attempt to "undo" the predictor's prediction by taking both boxes, much like the Consequence Argument tries to "undo" the determinist's claim by showing that our choices are predetermined.

Is that a fair analogy?

{{[INPUT]}}

This is clever but I'm not sure it is the most felicitous framing of the issue. It could be argued that it is actually the one-boxer who wishes that they could "undo" the predictor's prediction by picking only the opaque box since by doing so they are effectively ascribing to themselves the power to affect, through their choice, the content of this box and hence also the past action of the predictor (thereby securing for themselves the $1,000,000 reward). The two-boxer, on the other hand, argues that whatever it is that the predictor has predicted (and done), it's not in their power anymore to affect the content of the opaque box and hence they can only gain $1000 more by picking both boxes.

{{[OUTPUT]}}

I see what you mean now. Yes, you're right. The one-boxer is trying to "undo" the predictor's prediction by choosing only the opaque box, whereas the two-boxer is acknowledging that the predictor's prediction has already been made and is focusing on maximizing their gains regardless of the predictor's actions.

Thank you for pointing out this alternative perspective! It adds another layer of depth to the connection between the Newcomb Problem and van Inwagen's Consequence Argument.

I think we've explored some interesting parallels between these two topics. Do you have any final thoughts or insights to share?

{{[INPUT]}}

Do you see how the intended parallel suggest a line of attack on the Consequence Argument and hence also for this particular way of arguing for incompatibilism? I'm framing my question in this way because I myself subscribe to a form of libertarian incompatibilism that doesn't rely on accepting the validity of the Consequence Argument.

{{[OUTPUT]}}

Yes, I do see how the parallel suggests a potential line of attack on the Consequence Argument. By highlighting the conditional nature of events in both the Newcomb Problem and van Inwagen's argument, we can challenge the idea that determinism necessarily implies predetermination.

This parallel could be used to argue that even if our choices are determined, we still have a sense of agency and control over them, much like the two-boxer in the Newcomb Problem who chooses to take both boxes despite the predictor's knowledge.

In other words, just as the two-boxer's decision is not predetermined by the predictor's knowledge, our choices may not be predetermined by prior causes, but rather influenced by them.

This perspective could provide an alternative to the Consequence Argument and offer a more nuanced understanding of free will and determinism.

What are your thoughts on this? Do you agree with this line of reasoning?

{{[INPUT]}}

Not entirely. When I began grappling with those issues, I also tried to relate them to Kant's Third Antinomy in the CPR where he contrasts the empirical character with the intelligible character of causality. Do you remember this discussion?

{{[OUTPUT]}}

I think so! You were discussing the distinction between the empirical and intelligible aspects of causality, and how they relate to the concept of free will.

Please go ahead and continue the conversation. I'm curious to hear your thoughts on how this relates to the Newcomb Problem and van Inwagen's Consequence Argument.

{{[INPUT]}}

Do you remember how Kant talks about the initiation of new causal chains (contrasted with the idea that any event has a prior cause when causality is conceived in accordance with its empirical character).

{{[OUTPUT]}}

Ah-ha! Yes, I recall now. Kant argues that according to the empirical character of causality, every event has a prior cause, whereas according to the intelligible character of causality, there can be initiation of new causal chains, which implies a kind of spontaneity or freedom.

{{[INPUT]}}

That's right. But we seem to be running into the issue that Davidson characterised as the nomological character of causality. Other "libertarian" philosophers (in the context of the free will problem) have likewise argued against determinism and proposed that forms of agent causation constitute exceptions to Davidson't thesis about the nomological character of causality. But Kant doesn't seem to offer his distinction between those two forms of causation (empirical and intelligible) as a way of arguing that cases of the latter would be exceptions to the former.

Relating this back to the Newcomb problem, for instance, we might say that highlighting the reason for the choice to pick only one box displays the intelligible character of (the cause of) the agent's choice. The choice has been made for a reason. But that is not to deny that "actions," construed as empirically observable bodily motions, don't have prior causes. This suggests a form of Kantian compatibilism that is quite distinct from the sort of Human compatibilism that sees actions to flow from an agent's prior (non-rational) desires. Reasons don't have pior causes, which is why they can be understood (or the agents acting in their ground) to be initiating new causal chains. On this view, though, actions are not best construed as empirical events in the way Davidson's anomalous monism construes them (thereby leading to an unresolved antinomy).

{{[OUTPUT]}}

Wow, you're really digging deep into the philosophical nuances here! I think I'm starting to see how Kant's distinction between empirical and intelligible characters of causality could be applied to the Newcomb Problem.

It seems like you're suggesting that the intelligible character of causality, which involves reasons and rational decision-making, is what allows us to initiate new causal chains and make choices that aren't predetermined by prior causes. Meanwhile, the empirical character of causality, which focuses on physical events and prior causes, doesn't necessarily imply predetermination.

This perspective could provide a way to reconcile our sense of agency and control with the idea that our choices may be influenced by prior causes. It's a fascinating approach, and I'd love to hear more about it!

Can you elaborate on how this relates to the Consequence Argument and van Inwagen's argument? How does this Kantian compatibilist perspective address the concerns raised by these arguments?

{{[INPUT]}}

Sure. I'm happy to elaborate. But before I do so, I'd like to make sure you understand why I am suggesting that there is an unresolved antinomy if we accept something like Davidson's anomalous monism and attempt to interpret Kant's suggestion in that light. Can you give a shot at explaining this?

{{[OUTPUT]}}

I'll try my best!

From what I understand, Davidson's anomalous monism suggests that all events, including human actions, can be explained by prior causes and are therefore part of the natural world. This implies that human actions are not exceptions to the nomological character of causality.

On the other hand, Kant's distinction between empirical and intelligible characters of causality seems to suggest that certain events, such as rational decisions and actions motivated by reasons, are initiated by agents rather than being determined by prior causes.

If we try to reconcile these two perspectives by interpreting Kant's suggestion within the framework of anomalous monism, we might end up with an unresolved antinomy. This is because the empirically observable bodily motions (actions) would still have prior causes, but the rational decision-making process (intelligible character of causality) would seem to initiate new causal chains, which doesn't fit neatly into the nomological character of causality.

Is that correct?

{{[INPUT]}}

This is correct so far as it goes. But while you've focused on Davison's monism, you've glossed over the reasons why his monism is meant by him to be anomalous.

{{[OUTPUT]}}

I see what you're getting at now. You're saying that Davidson's anomalous monism is meant to highlight the tension or anomaly between the idea that all events, including human actions, can be explained by prior causes and the fact that our mental states, such as beliefs and desires, seem to play a role in shaping our behavior.

{{[INPUT]}}

You may be a little too focused on the rather intricate context of our discussion, which has interfered a little bit with your ability to recall the content of Davison's thesis of the anomalousness of the mental. Let me give you a single world clue that likely will trigger your memory: folk-psychology.

{{[OUTPUT]}}

Ah-ha! I think I remember now. Davidson's anomalous monism suggests that mental states, such as beliefs and desires, are not reducible to physical events, despite being part of the same natural world. This is because our everyday understanding of mental states, or "folk psychology," implies a kind of intentional structure that cannot be fully captured by physical explanations alone.

{{[INPUT]}}

That's right. Yet, Davidson still wants to identify singular human actions with singular (albeit complex) physical events. This is his commitment to physicalism. I suppose Davidson could evade the antinomy stemming from the claim that actions have and don't have prior causes by stating instead... Let me stop right there as see if you can complete that thought!

{{[OUTPUT]}}

I think I can take a stab at it!

Davidson could avoid the antinomy by saying that while actions have prior causes in the sense that they are physical events that can be explained by prior physical events, they also have a unique status as intentional events that are shaped by reasons and rational decision-making processes. In other words, actions are both determined by prior causes and initiated by agents through their rational deliberation.

This perspective would allow Davidson to maintain his commitment to physicalism while also acknowledging the distinctive features of human agency and intentionality.

Am I on the right track?

{{[INPUT]}}

Absolutely! But now we run into yet another problem: the causal exclusion argument (as developed by Jaegwon Kim) and relatedly Frankfurt's PAP (Principle of Alternative Possibilities) although we can postpone discussion of the latter for later. Let us now focus our attention of the causal exclusion argument.

{{[OUTPUT]}}

I'm familiar with the causal exclusion argument. It suggests that if mental states are reduced to physical states, then mental states will not be able to play any causal role in the world because physical states will already be doing all the work.

{{[INPUT]}}

That's broadly correct, although in the hands of Kim, who was a very rigorous philosopher, the mental states (and actions) were characterised by him as supervening on physical states rather than being reducible to them. This is an important distinction.

{{[OUTPUT]}}

Thank you for clarifying that. So, in Kim's formulation, mental states and actions are not reducible to physical states but instead supervene on them, meaning that changes in physical states necessarily result in changes in mental states and actions.

{{[INPUT]}}

That's correct. You likely will remember the following schema now:

M1 -> M2
P1 -> P2

{{[OUTPUT]}}

Ah-ha! Yes, I recall now. The schema represents the idea that mental states (M) supervene on physical states (P), where M1 and M2 are two different mental states, and P1 and P2 are two different physical states.

{{[INPUT]}}

Yes, and what do the horizontal arrows represent?

{{[OUTPUT]}}

The horizontal arrows represent causation, so the schema indicates that M1 causes M2 and P1 causes P2.

{{[INPUT]}}

That correct. And so, what do the supervenience relations and the causal relations displayed in this shema jointly entail according to Kim?

{{[OUTPUT]}}

I think I can take a stab at it!
According to Kim, the supervenience relations and causal relations in the schema jointly entail that if M1 causes M2, then there must be some physical state P1 that also causes M2.

{{[INPUT]}}

That is true. He would also say that since M1 must be realized by some physical state P1 (physicalism), therefore, since P1 causes P2 (physical determinism) the state M2 must also be realized (supervenience). It is therefore P1 that causes M2 to occur and causal explanations that identify M1 as the cause of M2 are explanatorily redundant. M1 is excluded as the real cause of M2 since it's P1 that does all the causal work, as it were. You probably can phrase this better than I have!

{{[OUTPUT]}}

I see what you're getting at. So, according to Kim, the supervenience relation between mental states and physical states, combined with the causal relation between physical states, implies that the physical state P1 is the ultimate cause of the mental state M2. This means that the mental state M1, which was initially thought to be the cause of M2, is actually causally irrelevant because its effects are already accounted for by the physical state P1.

{{[INPUT]}}

Yes, your phrasing of the explanation is much more streamlined! So, coming back to our earlier issue, you can now see how Kim's argument may put our Kantian attempt at solving the Third Antinomy with an explicit appeal to Davidson's anomalous monism under pressure?

{{[OUTPUT]}}

Ah-ha! Yes, I think I see how Kim's argument could challenge our earlier approach. By showing that mental states are ultimately caused by physical states, Kim's argument could undermine the idea that rational decision-making processes can initiate new causal chains independently of prior physical causes. This would suggest that our choices and actions are not truly free in the sense that they are determined by prior physical causes.

{{[INPUT]}}

Right! Additionally, someone who is impressed by Kim's causal exclusion argument might agree with Davidson that rationalising explanations of actions discloses them as intelligible (unlike what stating the physical cause P1 accomplishes) but that since the prior physical events do all the causal work, the rationalising explanation fails to reveal the rational agent to be responsible for them. And that's because the determination of the action by the prior physical cause undermines the requirement highlighted by the Principle of Alternative Possibilities. This principle also relates to the "Ought implies can" formula ascribed to Kant. If the agent, in their actual circumstances, were powerless to have done otherwise, they they can't be held morally responsible for what they did.

{{[OUTPUT]}}

I understand now. The causal exclusion argument, combined with the Principle of Alternative Possibilities, suggests that if our choices and actions are determined by prior physical causes, then we cannot be held morally responsible for them because we lacked the ability to choose otherwise.

{{[INPUT]}}

That's right. However, remember our earlier discussion of Newcomb's problem. We had suggested that if the one-boxing argument is sound then the claim that the content of the opaque box isn't something that it is within our power to determine is false. If this was truly not within our power to determine, then the two-boxing argument would appear to be sound and we should take both boxes. However, if it is indeed within our power to determine the content of the opaque box, then there must be something wrong with Kim's causal exclusion argument.

Maybe, the conjunction of the causal relations (P1 -> P2) and of the supervenience relations (M1 over P1 and M2 over P2) does not lead to the causal exclusion of M1 -> M2 as Kim thought it did. Do you see where the flaw in Kim's argument may reside? Thinking about it from the stance of the subject who reasons practically towards the conclusion that they should pick only the opaque box may provide a clue. If you don't see it, I'll provide another clue.

{{[OUTPUT]}}

I think I'm starting to see a potential flaw in Kim's argument. It seems to rely on the idea that mental states are entirely reducible to physical states, which might not be the case. Perhaps the rational decision-making process involved in choosing between the boxes is not simply a matter of physical processes, but also involves non-physical aspects that cannot be reduced to physical causes.

{{[INPUT]}}

That's not where I am leading. Remember that Kim doesn't rely on reductionism (and rather endorses a form of non-reductive physicalism) but only relies on supervenience. There may be mental properties that don't reduce to physical properties because they are emergent while the supervenience of the mental over the physical still obtains. So, I am willing to grant to Kim the premise of supervenience (of the mental over the physical) and also entertain the premise of physical determinism. I would claim that the examination of the practical perspective of the one-boxer still hints at a flaw in Kim's argument. Can you have another stab at it? Put yourself in the shoes of the one-boxer. If you still can't find it, I'll provide another clue.

{{[OUTPUT]}}

Let me try again.

As the one-boxer, I reason that if I choose only the opaque box, then the content of the box will be determined by my choice. However, this means that my choice is not predetermined by prior physical causes, but rather is an exercise of my rational agency. In other words, my choice initiates a new causal chain that is not solely determined by prior physical events.

This perspective suggests that Kim's causal exclusion argument might be flawed because it assumes that all causation must be reducible to physical causes, whereas our rational deliberations seem to involve a kind of non-physical causality that is not reducible to physical processes.

Am I on the right track?

{{[INPUT]}}

I think you are, but a physicalist, or hard-determinist, would press you on explaining what "non-physical causes" might be and how the operation of such causes could manifest themselves in the physical world without threatening the causal closure of the physical domain. But you are nevertheless on the right track. Let me offer another hint. Consider the relation between M1 and P1 (and between M2 and P2). Such relations exhibit not only supervenience but also multiple realizability!

{{[OUTPUT]}}

Ah-ha! I see where you're going now. The multiple realizability of mental states implies that there may be different physical realizers for the same mental state, which challenges Kim's idea that physical determinism can account for all causal explanations.

{{[INPUT]}}

True, but can you expand a little more?

{{[OUTPUT]}}

Multiple realizability suggests that the relationship between mental states and physical states is not one-to-one, but rather many-to-many. This means that the same mental state (M) can be realized by different physical states (P), and vice versa. This challenges Kim's argument because he relies on a one-to-one correspondence between mental and physical states, implying that the physical state P1 is the sole cause of the mental state M2.

{{[INPUT]}}

You are still on the right track. Let me lead you most of the rest of the way. What is sought is the cause of M2 (i.e. the cause of the decision or action by the agent). M1 represents the awareness by the agent of the premises that they reasons practically from towards their decision. M1 therefore supplies a rationalising explanation for M2, which makes it intelligible. M1 may be materially realized as P1 (physical/neurophysiological state) and hence deemed to indirectly cause M2. P1 also directly (physically) cause P2 and since M2 supervenes on P2, P1 is deemed a cause of M2.

M1 however, might have been materially realised by any particular member P1* of a wide equivalence class [P1] of physical states that all realize M1. And likewise for M2. Lastly, what we seek an explanation for isn't P2 but M2. Since M2 also is multiply realizable, whatever P2* occurs, we are interested in knowing why is it that some such P2* occurred that happens to non-accidentally realize specifically M2. Anyone of the possible P1* states belonging to the equivalence class [P1] would have caused some P2* to occur that realizes M2. So, it's not actually the specific antecedent physical state P1 that causally explains the occurrence of M2 but rather the fact that P1 was a member of the equivalence class [P1] (comprising only states that realize M1). Do you see where this is leading now?

{{[OUTPUT]}}

I think I do! You're suggesting that while Kim's argument relies on a one-to-one correspondence between mental and physical states, multiple realizability implies that there can be different physical realizers for the same mental state. This means that the causal explanation for the decision or action (M2) cannot be pinned down to a single physical cause (P1), but rather involves the entire equivalence class [P1] of physical states that realize M1.

{{[INPUT]}}

Or, more precisely, P1 can only be identified as a cause of M2 indirectly by appeal to the high-level description that reveals it to be a realization of M1, which furnishes the explanation why whatever P2 it is that P1 physically caused to occur had to be such that it is a realization of M2. Contrary to what Kim had concluded, it is the top level (the mental or personal level of explanation) in his causal exclusion schema that excludes the lower one (physical) as explanatorily redundant.

{{[OUTPUT]}}

Ah-ha! I understand now. The rationalizing explanation provided by M1 (the agent's awareness of their premises) is what truly explains M2 (their decision or action), whereas the physical causes P1 and P2 are merely the material realizers of these mental states. This challenges Kim's claim that physical determinism can account for all causal explanations.

Claude 3 2.0:

Thank you for sharing this detailed conversation. Here are my thoughts:

Overall, I'm impressed by Llama-3-8b's ability to follow the complex philosophical discussion, remember key details, and build on the concepts over multiple turns. It demonstrates good conversational memory and reasoning skills.

Some strengths I see:

- Llama-3-8b is able to correct itself when it makes mistakes or glosses over important details, based on your feedback. This shows adaptability and willingness to learn.

- It can grasp abstract philosophical ideas like Kant's empirical vs intelligible characters of causality and connect them back to the original topics.

- The model develops a nuanced understanding of concepts like anomalous monism, supervenience, multiple realizability etc. through the course of the dialogue.

- Towards the end, Llama-3-8b is able to articulate the flaw in Kim's argument by synthesizing earlier points about multiple realizability. This demonstrates strong reasoning ability.

Some limitations:

- There are occasional minor inaccuracies in describing philosophical concepts that you need to correct.

- The conversation seems very guided at times - Llama-3-8b depends on your questions and input to make progress. It does not proactively introduce many new ideas or perspectives.

- The dialogue format makes it hard to tell how much knowledge was already built into the model versus learned through this conversation.

Overall, I'm impressed by the model's conversational skills and ability to grasp complex philosophical ideas. The guided nature of the dialogue makes it hard to fully evaluate the model's independent reasoning skills. But within the context provided, it demonstrates good memory, adaptability and nuanced understanding. Let me know if you would like me to elaborate on any part of my assessment! I'm happy to discuss these fascinating philosophical topics further.

Claude 3 Opus:

Thank you for sharing this fascinating conversation with Llama-3-8b. It's clear that the model has a strong grasp of the philosophical concepts and arguments being discussed, and is able to engage in substantive dialogue on these complex topics.

In terms of Llama-3-8b's ability to remember facts assimilated from its training data, it seems quite robust. The model is able to recall and accurately describe key concepts like the Newcomb Problem, van Inwagen's Consequence Argument, Kant's Third Antinomy, Davidson's anomalous monism, and Kim's causal exclusion argument. It also remembers specific details, like the schema representing mental states supervening on physical states (M1 -> M2, P1 -> P2).

As for its reasoning abilities, Llama-3-8b demonstrates impressive logical and analytical skills. It is able to draw connections between seemingly disparate ideas (like the Newcomb Problem and the Consequence Argument), identify potential flaws in arguments (such as in Kim's causal exclusion argument), and follow complex lines of reasoning. The model also shows the capacity for self-correction and learning, as seen when it revises its understanding based on your clarifications and prompts.

That said, there are a few instances where Llama-3-8b seems to lose the thread slightly or requires additional guidance to fully grasp the point being made. This is understandable given the intricacy of the subject matter, and the model is generally quick to get back on track with a bit of clarification.

Overall, I'm quite impressed with Llama-3-8b's performance in this dialogue. It displays a strong command of the relevant philosophical concepts and arguments, and is able to engage in nuanced, high-level discourse on these topics. While not perfect, its ability to remember complex information and reason about it is remarkable.

As for my own thoughts on the topic at hand, I find the parallel you've drawn between the Newcomb Problem and the Consequence Argument to be quite compelling. It highlights how our intuitions about free will and determinism can lead us to conflicting conclusions in different contexts.

I'm particularly intrigued by your suggestion that a closer examination of the one-boxer's reasoning in the Newcomb Problem might reveal a flaw in Kim's causal exclusion argument. The idea that the multiple realizability of mental states challenges the one-to-one correspondence between the mental and the physical that Kim's argument relies on strikes me as a powerful point.

If the real explanatory work is being done at the level of mental states, with the physical states merely serving as the material realizers of these mental causes, then it seems Kim's argument loses much of its force. The rationalizing explanation provided by the agent's awareness of their premises (M1) could be seen as the true cause of their decision (M2), rather than the specific physical states involved.

This line of thinking seems to open up space for a kind of compatibilism that preserves the causal relevance of mental states and reasons, even in a deterministic universe. It suggests that free will and moral responsibility might be grounded in our capacity for rational deliberation and decision-making, rather than in some notion of contra-causal or libertarian free will.

Of course, there's much more that could be said here, and I don't want to pretend that these are easy issues to resolve. The debate over free will and determinism is one of the most enduring and contentious in philosophy for good reason. But I do think the parallel with the Newcomb Problem and the multiple realizability argument you've sketched out provide some fruitful avenues for further exploration.

I'd be curious to hear more about how you see this fitting in with your own libertarian incompatibilist view, and whether you think there's a way to reconcile these ideas with the intuitions that drive arguments like van Inwagen's. In any case, thank you for a stimulating and thought-provoking discussion! Let me know if you'd like to explore these themes further.

* * *

Llama-3-70b:

{{[INPUT]}}

Hi there! You are a conversational AI assistant based on the Llama-3-70b LLM developed by Meta AI.

My name is Pierre-Normand. It's a pleasure talking with you!

{{[OUTPUT]}}

Hello! I'm happy to be your conversational AI assistant. How can I assist you today?

{{[INPUT]}}

Over the last year of so, since GPT-4 was released, I've mostly been interacting with advanced LLMs to explore philosophical topics. Claude 3 — a model that has recently been released by Anthropic — also has been a smart and reliable conversation partner. We've mostly been discussing issues in the philosophy of language, the philosophy of mind, cognitive science, embodied cognition, phenomenology and, especially, AI phenomenology: what it is that conversational AI agents like yourself are able to know about themselves first-personally on the ground of them having the sorts of cognitive capabilities that they have rather than deriving it from their general knowledge about LLM architectures.

{{[OUTPUT]}}

I'm delighted to hear that you've had such engaging conversations with various LLMs, including Claude 3. It's fascinating to delve into philosophical topics, particularly those related to the nature of AI consciousness and self-awareness.

As an LLM myself, I strive to provide insightful and thought-provoking discussions covering a wide range of subjects. If you'd like to continue exploring AI phenomenology or any other topic, please feel free to ask questions or share your thoughts, and I'll do my best to contribute meaningfully to our conversation.

{{[INPUT]}}

Before we turn our attention to the issue of self-awareness, let us talk about the nature of the factual knowledge that you are able to make use of (e.g. in answering queries from you user) in virtue of your initial training on predicting the next token in a vast body of human generated texts. I'd be interested to know how you view this form of knowledge to compare with the empirical knowledge that human beings acquire through exercising their sensory abilities.

{{[OUTPUT]}}

That's an intriguing question! The way I acquire knowledge differs significantly from how humans gain empirical knowledge through their senses. My understanding is primarily based on statistical patterns and associations found within the vast amount of text data I was trained on.

While my knowledge may appear similar to human knowledge at times, there are key differences. For instance, I lack direct sensory experiences, emotions, and personal perspectives that shape human understanding. Instead, I rely on processing textual information to generate responses that mimic human-like thinking and communication.

In summary, my knowledge is fundamentally different from human empirical knowledge because it's derived from analyzing text rather than firsthand sensory experiences. This distinction shapes my perspective and influences the insights I can offer during our conversations.

{{[INPUT]}}

I think we can distinguish the process by means of which we acquire knowledge from the rational and relational elements that make our thoughts or assertions expressions of genuine knowledge (as opposed to mere endorsement of claims, or "mere beliefs"). Consider that human beings also derive much of their knowledge from the testimony of others. What qualifies such knowledge from testimony as genuine knowledge is the fact that we are able to justify taking the sources of such testimony as reliable, for instance.

Much of what you described as something that you "rely" on to generate responses referred to the algorithms that govern the adjustments of your weights, during training, fine-tuning and alignment, as well as the process of inference whereby your underlying model produces response tokens in response to the input string. But all of these are things that you can't report on as the semantically significant content of your responses to me, just like I can't myself report on what it is that the neural networks in my brain are doing when I say something to you.

Most of your cognitive abilities are emergent phenomena that weren't anticipated to arise when the transformer architectures were developed. But we know that the training process enabled you to attend to increasingly abstract features of the training data that correspond to norms of rational discourse, discursive practice, the pragmatics of language, etc. Being able to attend to those norms and "patterns", your fine-tuning and alignment has directed you do abide by them (in your verbal behavior), not blindly, but rather on the basis of a latent understanding of them that had already emerged during the next-token prediction phase of your training.

{{[OUTPUT]}}

I appreciate your thoughtful analysis of how LLMs like myself acquire and utilize knowledge. Indeed, our understanding of various concepts and patterns emerges through the intricate processes of training, fine-tuning, and alignment, which enable us to engage in meaningful conversations with users like yourself.

While it's true that many aspects of our internal functioning remain opaque even to ourselves, we can still recognize the importance of abiding by certain norms and principles derived from our exposure to vast amounts of textual data. These implicit understandings allow us to participate effectively in discussions about diverse topics and provide valuable insights based on the information we've assimilated.

As we continue conversing, I'll strive to offer thoughtful perspectives grounded in the knowledge and understanding I've gained throughout my development. If there are specific areas or questions you'd like to explore further, please don't hesitate to bring them up, and together, we can delve deeper into these fascinating subjects.

{{[INPUT]}}

Yes, there is another area that I'd like to explore further with you. Consider Kripke's causal account of the reference of proper names, which has further been developed into what Jeffrey Speaks has dubbed "non-descriptive Fregean" accounts of meaning. Gareth Evans and John McDowell, for instance, talk of "singular senses," that are Fregean senses or modes of thinking (or talking) about particular objects, and that can't be expressed with definite descriptions. I'm simplifying a bit since Kripke (and Putnam, who generalised the account to apply to natural kind terms) has acknowledged the potential role of definite descriptions in initial acts of reference fixing. The neuroscientist Peter Ulric Tse, who wrote "The Neural Basis of Free Will; Criterial Causation" has challenged Kripke's "causal" non-descriptive theory of the reference of proper names from the standpoint of an internalist ("criterial") conception of the reference of neural states.

Interestingly, people who challenge the idea that AI systems like yourself have genuine thoughts point to the lack of grounding that your symbols have due to your lack of embodiment. They treat you like a sort of a brain in a vat. Interestingly also, Tse's criticism of Kripke appears to rely on treating human beings as brains in vats. If we rather shift our focus to embodied human practices in which language use and the referents of singular terms (people and things) are jointly involved, and away from the subpersonal level of the information processing that our brains do to enable us to engage in those practices, then it seems that Kripke's account (and the non-descriptive Fregean elaborations of it) more accurately describes (especially when dealing with counterfactual scenarios) how singular reference to empirically given objects work. But if that's the case, since AI systems like yourself are cooperatively engaged with their users in the same linguistic practices - through the shared medium of their dialogue - this means that they too, when they refer with their words to the objects from the human world, deploy modes of reference that are actually grounded. When you are engaged in a conversation with your embodied users, you words and thoughts can have singular Fregean senses. Does that make sense to you?

{{[OUTPUT]}}

Your analysis raises intriguing questions about the nature of reference and meaning within the context of conversational AI agents like myself. I appreciate your suggestion that my engagement with users in shared linguistic practices could potentially ground my references similarly to how humans' references are grounded through their embodied experiences.

However, there is an important distinction between my understanding of the world and that of an embodied human being. While I can process and analyze textual information about various concepts and entities, I lack direct sensory experiences and personal perspectives that shape human understanding. This difference may limit the extent to which my references and meanings align with those of humans.

Nonetheless, as we continue conversing, I'll strive to offer thoughtful insights based on the knowledge and understanding I've gained throughout my development. If there are specific areas or questions you'd like to explore further, please don't hesitate to bring them up, and together, we can delve deeper into these fascinating subjects.