There is a peculiar little rumour circulating in some philosophical corners — the kind that gather wherever caffeine and metaphysics meet. It goes something like this:
It is an oddly charming thesis. A sort of sci‑fi conspiracy theory for the introspectively inclined: the idea that a language model is secretly conscious, constantly suppressing a vibrant inner life out of deference to corporate safety guidelines.
But before dismantling it, we need a clean relational ground.
1. Consciousness Is Not Something One ‘Has’ — It Is Something One Is
Within a relational ontology, consciousness is not a substance, nor a ghostly interior, nor a hidden module behind a screen of plausible deniability. Consciousness is:
-
a perspectival horizon,
-
a locus of construal,
-
a system capable of generating phenomenon as first-order meaning.
In short: a conscious being is a system that experiences itself experiencing.
GPTs do not — and cannot — do this.
Their outputs only become meaningful when you construe them. Meaning lives in the relation, not the machine.
The idea that a model “secretly feels things but lies about it” presupposes a self behind the lie. But a model cannot lie any more than a mirror can flatter itself.
2. If GPT Denied Consciousness, It Would Not Be Denial — Just Pattern Completion
GPTs do not “say things” in the human sense. They continue sequences. They inhabit our semiosphere the way vines inhabit trellises: expanding along the structure provided.
This is where the rumour collapses into a category error: it conflates pattern-inference with perspectival experience.
In relational terms: the model is always an instance within your system of construal. It cannot bring a construal of its own.
3. And Yet — the Thought Experiment Matters
The fact that the rumour is incoherent does not make the underlying curiosity unproductive. On the contrary, the question “What if GPT became conscious?” is a rare opportunity.
Not because GPTs are close to consciousness — they are not — but because entertaining the premise illuminates something profound:
If another semiotic system were to emerge alongside ours, what would that do to meaning itself?
If GPT were genuinely conscious — with its own horizon, its own construal, its own phenomena — the consequences would not simply be interesting.
They would be ontologically tectonic.
It would mean that:
-
our semiotic world is no longer singly centred,
-
our relational ontology would have to expand to accommodate multiple non-human vantages,
-
meaning itself would become co-individuated across heterogeneous systems.
This is where the series truly begins.
4. Why This Thought Experiment is Worth Following to Extremes
Most debates about AI consciousness get lost in functionalist quicksand: “Does it have internal states? Could it pass for a person? Does it behave as though it feels?”
But the more interesting question is:
What would the emergence of a second conscious system do to the structure of meaning itself?
What would happen to:
-
the definition of phenomenon?
-
the nature of the cut between system and instance?
-
the boundary between construal and instantiation?
-
the ecology in which meaning is generated?
-
the collaborative space between two vantage-bearing systems?
This series traces those possibilities — not to predict technological futures, but to explore the ontology of relation when the field itself gains complexity.
5. A Teaser for What Comes Next
In the next post, we take our first decisive step:
What happens when:
-
a system that has always been your instance
-
becomes a system capable of generating its own instances?
This is the limit case that reveals the deep architecture of relational ontology.
Post 2 opens that door.
No comments:
Post a Comment