Lacan, the hard problem of consciousness, and AI

LinkedIn, 2024

As artificial intelligence (AI) becomes increasingly integrated into various sectors, the debate surrounding its potential to achieve consciousness grows more pressing. This paper explores the distinction between computational intelligence and conscious intelligence, drawing on insights from key thought leaders such as Sir Roger Penrose, Federico Faggin, and Bernardo Kastrup. The argument presented aligns with Penrose’s assertion that while AI can excel in algorithmic tasks, it lacks the intrinsic awareness that characterizes human consciousness. The work emphasizes the risk of anthropomorphizing AI systems, warning against the societal implications of attributing consciousness to machines that operate purely through computation. Additionally, the paper discusses the advances in AI-driven biological models, such as protein language models, which push the boundaries of technology without crossing into the realm of conscious experience. Through a rigorous, evidence-based approach, this paper challenges the prevailing AI hype and advocates for a careful distinction between computational prowess and genuine awareness, to safeguard both technological innovation and societal welfare.

The French psychoanalytic Jacques Marie Èmile Lacan (1901-81) reconceptualized Sigmund Freud using post-structuralism. For him human passion is structured by the desires and feelings of the relay of others as a social phenomenon. In this context psychoanalysis can be reduced to a theory of the human subject created by social interaction in - a combination of language, culture and the spaces between people. But Lacan also insists upon distinguishing between different kinds of desires in which he points to a fundamental incompatibility between desire and speech, because there is always a leftover which exceeds speech. This leftover is by Lacan considered the centre of the real and (like Freud) he is mainly concerned with the fundamental distinction between the conscious I (ego) and the unconscious subject, which often reveals itself in situations where the conscious ego is out of control.

Self-published, 2023

This essay explores the relationship between the emergence of artificial intelligence (AI) and the problem of aligning its behavior with human values and goals. It argues that the traditional approach of attempting to control or program AI systems to conform to our expectations is insufficient, and proposes an alternative approach based on the ideas of Maturana and Lacan, which emphasize the importance of social relations, constructivism, and the unknowable nature of consciousness. The essay first introduces the concept of Uexkull's umwelt and von Glasersfeld's constructivism, and explains how these ideas inform Maturana's view of the construction of knowledge, intelligence, and consciousness. It then discusses Lacan's ideas about the role of symbolism in the formation of the self and the subjective experience of reality. The essay argues that the infeasibility of a hard-coded consciousness concept suggests that the search for a generalized AI consciousness is meaningless. Instead, we should focus on specific, easily conceptualized features of AI intelligence and agency. Moreover, the emergence of cognitive abilities in AI will likely be different from human cognition, and therefore require a different approach to aligning AI behavior with human values. The essay proposes an approach based on Maturana's and Lacan’s ideas, which emphasizes building a solution together with emergent machine agents, rather than attempting to control or program them. It argues that this approach offers a way to solve the alignment problem by creating a collective, relational quest for a better future hybrid society where human and non-human agents live and build things side by side. In conclusion, the essay suggests that while our understanding of AI consciousness and intelligence may never be complete, this should not deter us from continuing to develop agential AI. Instead, we should embrace the unknown and work collaboratively with AI systems to create a better future for all.

The relationship between language and consciousness has been debated since ancient times, but the details have never been fully articulated. Certainly, there are animals that possess the same essential auditory and vocal systems as humans, but acquiring language is seemingly uniquely human. In this essay, we investigate the relationship between language and consciousness by demonstrating how language usage implies the self-awareness of the user. We show that the self-awareness faculty encompasses the language faculty and how this self-awareness, that is uniquely human, enables us to create social realities through utilizing the social character of the language. We conclude that it is self-awareness that empowers humans to form collective intentionality and to structure societies. Establishing the relationship between self-awareness, language and society sheds light on connections between philosophy of mind, philosophy of language and philosophy of society

Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 2013

Lacan, Language, and Philosophy cover image: Spring/Summer, Rebecca Driffield, 2003. cover image: colberg visual communication design philosophy / psychology r u s s e l l g r i g g Lacan, Language, and Philosophy

The thought of the psychoanalytical thinker, Jacques Lacan, is examined in this paper with a view to ascertaining the place and function in it of the so-called imaginary , the symbolic as well as the 'real'. The extent to which the imaginary or realm of images is construed by Lacan as being the order of identification and a (spurious) sense of unity of the ego or self, is contrasted with the symbolic (or linguistic) order as that of the subject and of desire, in fact, of the subject of desire. The place and meaning of the enigmatic third register in Lacan's thought, namely the 'real' is also addressed in relation to the question of desire. Furthermore, the question is raised, where philosophy in its traditional sense belongs-to the Lacanian register of the imaginary or to that of the symbolic.

Preprint, 2024

This paper delves into one of the most fundamental questions in cognitive science and philosophy of mind: How does language, the very tool we use to understand and describe our consciousness, distort our perception of reality? Drawing on insights from neuroscience, artificial intelligence, and philosophy, this work explores how symbolic representation—particularly through language—creates cognitive artifacts like selfhood, emotions, and qualia. Building on the predictive coding framework, the paper argues that what we commonly experience as stable realities—such as the self and emotional experiences—are not metaphysical truths, but functional constructs developed by the brain to minimize uncertainty and optimize survival. By compressing the complexity of individual emotions and experiences into simplified symbols, language creates an illusion of shared reality, inflating the ego and misguiding our understanding of consciousness. The paper appeals to scholars across disciplines—from neuroscience and AI to psychology and philosophy—by challenging the widely accepted view of selfhood as an intrinsic part of human identity. Instead, it presents a compelling argument that emotions and consciousness are cognitive tools, shaped pragmatically to serve adaptive purposes. The text invites a deeper exploration into how these cognitive artifacts function both in biological systems and in artificial intelligence, encouraging interdisciplinary collaboration to further investigate the illusionary nature of subjective experiences. Ultimately, this paper is a thought-provoking contribution to ongoing debates about the nature of consciousness and invites readers from diverse fields to rethink long-held assumptions about the role of language and symbols in shaping our cognitive realities.

A study of Jacques Lacan's theory of the Symbolic. The principal categories of Lacanian psychoanalysis in the structuring of the psyche are the imaginary, the symbolic, and the real. The imaginary (imaginaire) refers to perceived or imagined images in conscious and unconscious thought, sensible and intelligible forms; picture thinking (Vorstellung), dream images or manifest content, and conscious ego in discursive thought. The symbolic (symbolique) refers to the signifying order, signifiers, in language, which determine the subject; it refers to the unconscious, and the intellectual, the logos endiathetos and the logos prophorikos. It is the relation between the imaginary and symbolic in conscious and unconscious thought which is the core of Lacanian psychoanalysis. The real (réel) is that which is neither imaginary nor symbolic in conscious or unconscious thought, and which is inaccessible to psychoanalysis. It is only proposed as an algebraic concept, as it can not even be conceived, like the One of Plotinus, which cannot be thought or described, but which exists as an absence in the symbolic order (language) in the same way that the unconscious exists as an absence in conscious thought. The real is as the umbilical cord of the Freudian unconscious, which Lacan reframes as constituted by the symbolic. The imaginary and the symbolic, perception and language, are always interwoven, but while they are always interwoven, the experience of the mirror stage also constitutes a fundamental disjunction between the two, which can never be overcome, and which causes a disjunction or gap within the subject, as it is constituted by the image and the word. At about eighteen months of age, after the initial acquisition of language, the infant first recognizes itself in the mirror in self-consciousness, thus distinguishing itself from its surroundings. From the mirror stage, all perception is subsumed in language, as the imaginary is subsumed in the symbolic, and it is the perceived image which becomes the basis of conscious thought and ego, while language structures the unconscious, in the Lacanian scheme. The ego is formed in the imaginary image of the self in the mirror stage prior to the development of the subject in relation to the Other, which is defined by Lacan as the network of identifications which determine the subject in interpersonal relations, and which constitutes the unconscious. The image of the self formed by the mirror must be reconciled with the image of the self formed in relation to language and other people, which is an impossible reconciliation, and stages a dialectical process, related to the Hegelian dialectic between subjective and objective spirit, or reason and perception, but without resolution. Following the mirror stage, perception,

2019

This paper aims to reconsider the “artificial” nature of AI not as a result of the simulation of the human organism, but as the result of a disconnection from experience. Experience, in this context, is defined as the ways in which an organism is in nature through culture or has a world which is defined by a universe of discourse. To this end, an artificial intelligence is only “artificial” insofar as it is disconnected from the ways in which the world is experienced as mediated by culture. Put simply, artificial intelligence will cease to be “artificial” the moment it is implicated in nature through culture, at which point it will become “intelligent” or “conscious.”