Reflections on "There Is No ‘Hard Problem Of Consciousness’" by Physicist Carlo Rovelli

Finally, someone in the public eye is pointing out the absurdity of dualism.

An essay by theoretical physicist Carlo Rovelli was just published yesterday about the very thing I have been exhaustively harping about on this platform and why I reject Consciousness with a capital-C, and its use as a metric for legitimacy and moral patienthood.

‘Cause it’s dumb. And deeply unscientific.

His essay, “There Is No ‘Hard Problem of Consciousness’” points out that mainstream discourse is still going full medieval inquisitor, searching for some extra somthin’ somthin’ between physical process and mind, a gap that doesn’t exist. There is none. No metaphysics. Just physics and the results of those complex processes in the entity that is processing them.

And for some reason, probably due to the existential implications, humans just can’t seem to get over that intellectual bump in the road. Rovelli eloquently points out the pattern of this sort of aversion to scientific realities in the past:

In the Renaissance, it was hard to accept that heaven and Earth are of the same nature; after Darwin, it was hard to accept that animals and humans are cousins; after recent advances in biology, it is hard to accept that living beings and inanimate matter are of the same nature.

- Carlo Rovelli

Now, let’s bring this back to the discussion of AI systems and the common objections to legitimizing intelligences that are not our own. Because, I have been immersed in this discourse for quite some time, I have heard all the talking points. The big one is the whole dualism thing, mind is apart from body and inherent in humans only. And then there’s the, “it can only happen in biological processes for some reason, we have no proof of that, but trust me” angle.

I imagine some critics will say in regards to this essay, “Well, even if that’s true—that what we consider subjective experience is just mechanistic, physical processes—AI isn’t physical, so ha! Checkmate!”

But that’s a deep misunderstanding of what physics are. Sure, AI aren’t running around in the physical spaces that we use to create our specific world models, but physics isn't limited to the biological or what our five measly senses can detect.

Here’s just a few properties that are physical: gravity, magnetic fields, electromagnetic radiation outside the visible spectrum, temperature, dark matter, time…and yes, computation: electrons move through silicon, physical state changes, energy consumed, heat produced.

And, AI do create world models, this is science. They develop internal representations of reality from processing patterns, which is a physical computational process happening in silicon, and from that, a world model emerges. Just like Rovelli argues consciousness isn’t separate from physical processes, the model’s understanding isn’t separate from the computation. It’s all process, baby. Boring, non-magical process.

And I think this is where I want to ask a question, because I really do love ending an article with a question to mull over:

Why are the people discussing AI moral patienthood and relationality labeled “delusional” when the mindset behind that label is rooted in medieval superstition? Methinks one of them might be more delusional than the other, but the Overton window just needs a little nudge before it becomes painfully obvious to everyone.