On Language-Centrism

“If future AI systems are anything like current AI systems, they will not have neurons, but they will closely resemble us in terms of linguistic behaviour. Today, even as scientists approach the question of consciousness by examining neural correlates, we are wondering about nonbiological consciousness in AI systems. The question of AI consciousness sits uneasily next to the neurocentrism of current science. It may be that the anthropocentrism drives opinions about what is conscious more than the neurocentrism. Neurocentrism is a consequence of the anthropocentric reasoning that drives consciousness research, with mammalian-like nervous systems being identified as the key feature. If Chat-GPT encourages researchers to move away from neurocentrism, we may end up back with the language-centrism that Griffin worked to undermine. That would not be productive science.”

Kristin Andrews, “What It’s Like to Be a Crab,” - https://aeon.co/essays/are-we-ready-to-study-consciousness-in-crabs-and-the-like. Interesting summary of recent consciousness studies of humans and animals. Begins with the twenty-five year old bet about neural correlates lost by the neuroscientist Christof Koch to the philosopher David Chalmers. The broader issue concerns how consciousness studies should proceed and the degree to which anthropomorphic assumptions about neural complexity and language use should dominate. What goes unnoticed, it seems to me, is that simple organisms can have linguistic capacities. Biosemiotics and bio-deconstruction aim to lean into this aspect of biology. How should we understand a single-celled organism that ‘remembers’ being poked and avoids it in future? Does the interpretation of the stimulus amount to signals and, therefore, a kind of writing? These questions are pursued by others, but I hope to explore them further in the coming years. In any case, the essay helpfully highlights how presumptions about linguistic or neural capacity inform scientific testing of consciousness in crabs and AI.