There is zero understanding of the cause of internal experience. We can't even strictly define what it is. My contention isn't that materialism doesn't appear to be a reasonable canditate for cognitive process, but that we still have no idea HOW any of that happens. We may never know.
People who claim that it is obvious that neural networks and LLMs replicate the functioning of a brain, any brain - let alone human, are just wrong. They are wrong to assume that it is obvious that just making bigger LLMs will somehow generate a being with the capacity of internal experience, whatever that may mean. They are wrong when they act like they have solved the problem of understanding cognition by just forgetting to mention the hard problem of conciousness. They are even wrong to simply assert that neurons and neural networks are "to do" with cognition. Hallucinogens and brain damage affect subjective experience, and both of those things are involved with the vascular system of the brain. Would I be right to say the vascular system produce cognition? Why doesn't anyone argue in favor of that view since it is not too far off from the same reasoning?
Obviously, it's reasonable to assume that neurons are somehow involved with subjective experience, most serious neuroscientists and other researchers would hold that same assumption. But you need to EXPLAIN how, preferably with evidence. It is the burden of the one claiming they have finally figured it all out to present a convincing theory, or at least conjecture the path to get there. Loudly and smugly asserting that your assumption is correcter than the other people who have spent decades working on the problem doesn't make the problem dissolve, but it is especially irritating when the incentive of the loudest people doing so is in the pockets of the shareholders they are indebted to.
People who claim that it is obvious that neural networks and LLMs replicate the functioning of a brain, any brain - let alone human, are just wrong. They are wrong to assume that it is obvious that just making bigger LLMs will somehow generate a being with the capacity of internal experience, whatever that may mean. They are wrong when they act like they have solved the problem of understanding cognition by just forgetting to mention the hard problem of conciousness. They are even wrong to simply assert that neurons and neural networks are "to do" with cognition. Hallucinogens and brain damage affect subjective experience, and both of those things are involved with the vascular system of the brain. Would I be right to say the vascular system produce cognition? Why doesn't anyone argue in favor of that view since it is not too far off from the same reasoning?
Obviously, it's reasonable to assume that neurons are somehow involved with subjective experience, most serious neuroscientists and other researchers would hold that same assumption. But you need to EXPLAIN how, preferably with evidence. It is the burden of the one claiming they have finally figured it all out to present a convincing theory, or at least conjecture the path to get there. Loudly and smugly asserting that your assumption is correcter than the other people who have spent decades working on the problem doesn't make the problem dissolve, but it is especially irritating when the incentive of the loudest people doing so is in the pockets of the shareholders they are indebted to.