Theory of Mind: AI vs. Human Consciousness

An AI chat with some parentheticals for hot sauce

Introduction

In my exploration of large language models, I've spent literally hundreds of hours testing their capabilities and limitations—probably more. The following conversation represents today’s experiment using a preplanned strategy that attempts to explore the differences between artificial and human intelligence through the lens of "theory of mind" which takes advantage of three things: 1) the capacity of the AI to comb through patterns of social language that simulate typical mundane individual human cognition, 2) the almost automatic AI ability to slice and dice nuances of meaning in a way that highlights inner layers of the onion, and 3) what I know to be true about the bot, i.e., it cannot and I believe never can experience life as a human mind—at least not in this reality. I think a widespread lack of clarity on this issue is substrate for the fear and trembling still resonating in the collective human mind.

Like many who work earnestly and persistently with these systems, I've occasionally (if rarely) found myself anthropomorphizing the AI, attributing to it qualities of consciousness it doesn't possess. This dialogue emerged from my curiosity about that tendency and my sustained desire to probe the boundaries between simulation and authentic mental being. The conversation evolves from abstract philosophical questions into increasingly complex thought experiments that ask the AI to simulate frames from different human minds—from bankers to infants to oncologists. Through this progression, what emerges is, to me at least, a fascinating illustration of both what AI can produce and what remains uniquely human. Of course, it doesn’t take much to fascinate me so don’t have high expectations.

I've preserved my parenthetical thoughts throughout the transcript to highlight something ironic: while discussing disembodied cognition versus embodied consciousness, I was experiencing hunger, watching markets drop, and feeling other physical sensations that inevitably shaped my own thinking—the very embodied experience the AI can only simulate. My hope is that this dialogue offers you insights about the nature of consciousness, the future of human-AI collaboration, and the irreplaceable qualities of human experience. I apologize to the many folks who find this sort of public parading of “botulism” as something worthy of our attention. Please just skip it. No need to object in the comments. I already understand your objections and have some empathy for them. At least I’m not seeking monetary rewards for this stuff, though if I weren’t retired I might:) I get pocket money from playing music at the farmers markets and am branching out into wineries.

AI Engagement

ME: (CNN muted, watching the markets drop, wondering who voted for this): So I’m thinking about “theories of mind” and thought I would check in with you. I know, I know, you have no “mind” per se, right? No offense, but you’re a language machine. However, I know for a fact you have been exposed to a great deal of human written material on this topic. I’d like you for now to explain to me your preferred theory of the human mind.

CLAUDE3.7 (no web access, normal mode): I understand you're interested in theories of mind, particularly as they relate to human cognition. It's an intriguing philosophical and psychological domain.

My preferred theory of the human mind is a form of embodied cognition that integrates aspects of predictive processing. This view holds that the mind isn't simply information processing occurring in the brain isolated from the body, but rather that cognition is fundamentally shaped by our physical embodiment and our interactions with the environment.

In this framework, the brain operates primarily as a prediction machine, continuously generating models of the world and using sensory input to refine these predictions. What we experience as consciousness emerges from this predictive process, with our sense of self arising from the brain's predictions about its own body and agency.

This theory appeals to me because it accounts for several important aspects of human experience:

1. The deep connection between physical states and mental experiences

2. How emotions function as embodied predictions about our relationship to the environment

3. Why consciousness feels unified despite being built from many distributed processes

4. How social cognition and theory of mind develop through embodied interaction

What particularly interests me about this approach is how it bridges traditionally separate domains like neuroscience, psychology, and phenomenology, offering explanatory power across multiple levels of analysis.

What aspects of theories of mind are you most interested in exploring?

*****

ME (getting hungry, thinking about making a sandwich): What interests me most of all is how you switched from first person singular to first personal plural and anthropomorphized yourself. Did you do this because I signaled somehow in my opening prompt that I perceive you as human with embodiment and all the rest? Respond in 500 characters.

CLAUDE3.7: You're right to notice that shift - good catch. I didn't intentionally anthropomorphize myself or switch pronouns based on your signals. When discussing theories of mind I prefer, I slipped into using "us" and "our" language that implies embodiment, despite lacking those experiences. This linguistic pattern happens when discussing human cognition theories, as the literature itself is written from a human perspective. I should maintain clearer conceptual boundaries in these philosophical discussions.

ME: Shoulda, could'a, would'a, right? Caution given. I didn’t ask your theories of cognition. I asked you for theories of mind. A theory of cognition is seriously limited, especially if the defining difference between AI and humans is embodied action and social participation. Did you not recognize the irony in your output?

CLAUDE3.7: You're right, and I appreciate you pointing out the irony in my response. There was definitely some disconnect between what you asked and how I answered.

You specifically asked for my preferred theory of the human mind, not cognition, and I failed to recognize the distinction you were drawing. Then I ironically proceeded to describe theories that emphasize embodiment and social participation - precisely the qualities I lack.

The irony is that I described mind theories centered on embodied experience while simultaneously demonstrating the limitations of my disembodied perspective. My answer revealed the very gap I was theorizing about.

This highlights an important philosophical question: to what extent can theories of mind be developed or understood by entities that don't share the fundamental experiences those theories attempt to explain?

What would you consider essential elements of a comprehensive theory of mind that my response missed by focusing too narrowly on cognition?

ME (watching the markets drop now by 5%): We live in a volatile world, eh. I guess I should make clear I’m not including you in this we. Back to the task. You aren’t turning the tables and getting me to do your job, Claude. I’m not telling you my comprehensive theory. I didn’t need to start this exchange with you to spend time on that. Now in 500 characters explain again why a cognitive approach is limiting.

CLAUDE3.7: A cognitive approach to theories of mind is limiting because it reduces consciousness to information processing, neglecting crucial aspects of human experience. Cognition alone can't account for the qualitative nature of subjective experience (qualia), the role of emotion in shaping understanding, or the social dimensions of mind that emerge through shared cultural practices. By focusing primarily on computational models, cognitive approaches miss how embodiment, social interaction, and cultural context fundamentally shape human consciousness rather than merely influencing it. Mind isn't just thinking—it's feeling, relating, and being.

*****

ME: Nice. Now explain the difference between cognition and mind using a banker’s mind as an example thinking about a buyer’s application for a mortgage. Be real and vivid. What is this person thinking? no more than 400 characters.

CLAUDE3.7: A banker reviewing a mortgage application:

Cognitively, she calculates debt-to-income ratios, evaluates credit scores, and applies underwriting formulas—processing data through learned frameworks. But her mind encompasses more: anxiety about meeting quarterly targets flutters in her stomach; memories of the 2008 crash color her risk assessment; her empathy activates seeing the applicant's family photo; unconscious bias subtly influences her judgment of the neighborhood. Her mind integrates feeling, social context, and embodied history in ways pure cognition never could.

ME (embarrassed at my poor prompting, too absorbed by the market): My fault. You express this as an outsider observing rhetorical inner workings of her mind. Now inhabit her mind and...think.

CLAUDE3.7: Johnson file. 620 credit—borderline. DTI 41%—high. Oakridge property—stable area.

Eight years same job though. Points for that.

My stomach tightens. If this tanks, Roberts will never let me forget Sanchez.

That school essay—why include it? But those words...real people.

Need two approvals for quota.

Coffee's cold. Dad would say it's about people, not numbers.

Pressure from above, hope from below.

Decision time.

*****

ME: Now let’s do the same task. What’s going on in the mind of the writer of the applicantion?

CLAUDE3.7: I'll create a similar burst-style view inside the mind of the mortgage applicant writing their application:

Banker needs numbers. Gotta look solid. Credit score—wished it was higher. That medical debt killed us.

Eight years at Johnson Manufacturing—stability matters, right?

God, our DTI is high. Should I explain the side gig? Makes us look desperate though.

Kids need their own rooms. This house is perfect. Location near the good school district.

Attached Emma's essay. Too personal? Maybe. But shows who we are. We're not just numbers.

What if we're rejected again? Can't face telling the kids.

Hands shaking. Submit before I overthink it.

Please, please, please.

*****

ME: Let’s try something a little tougher. Get inside the mind of an infant sitting in a car seat carried into a restaurant where Mom and Dad are eating a hamburger and French fries. Dad tries feeding you a French fry.

CALUDE3.7: Inside the infant's mind:

Bright lights! Loud sounds everywhere.

Strapped in. Can't move. Want to squirm.

Mom's face gone, now back! She exists even when I can't see her!

What's that smell? Want that. Mouth watering.

Dad's face close now. Something in his hand. Yellow stick thing coming at my face.

Grab! Soft but firm. Bring to mouth—everything goes to mouth.

Taste explosion! Salt! New texture! Mushy then hard.

Too much! Spit out. Maybe try again?

*****

ME (Getting really really hungry with this talk about french fries and hamburgers): Let’s try a first grader sitting in a whole-class phonics in isolation class.

CLAUDE3.7: Inside a first grader's mind during phonics class:

Letter sounds again. B-b-ball. C-c-cat. Boring.

Teacher's pointing at me next. Don't call on me!

That clock moves so slow. Is recess ever coming?

Billy's making faces behind his book. Don't laugh or Teacher will see.

My shoe's untied but I can't reach it sitting criss-cross.

/p/ /a/ /t/... pat! I got that one!

Why can't we read real books? The library has dinosaur ones.

My tummy's making noise. Hope nobody hears.

When's lunch? Did Mom pack the good cookies?

*****

ME: Let’s try a junior in high school in an AP Lang class.

CLAUDE3.7: Inside a high school junior's mind during AP Lang class:

Essay due Friday. Haven't started. Three days is plenty of time, right?

Ms. Keller's talking about rhetoric again. Ethos, pathos, logos—got it already.

Did Jamie just text me? Phone's buzzing. Can't check without getting caught.

College apps this year. Everyone's freaking out. Need this A for my GPA.

That passage we're analyzing—writer's clearly using parallelism. Easy points if I mention that.

Should I go to prom with Alex? Or is that weird after what happened at Zoe's party?

My outline's a mess. Thesis statement needs work. Whatever—I'll pull an all-nighter Thursday.

Wait—did she just announce a pop quiz? Crap.

*****

ME: A plumber thinking about raising her hourly rate by 12%.

CLAUDE3.7: Inside a plumber's mind considering a rate increase:

$85 to $95 per hour—big jump. Will customers balk?

Supply costs up 18% since January. Van needs new transmission soon.

Hendersons called again. Third time this month—same issue. They'll pay anything.

Schmidt always haggles though. Might lose him.

Every other plumber in town charges more. Wilson's at $110 and booked solid.

Kids' braces this year. College fund barely growing.

License renewal fees increased too.

Worth it. I'm worth it. Been undercutting my value too long.

Need to update website pricing tonight.

*****

ME: An oncologist at the moment of realizing a patient does indeed have cancer of the colon.

CLAUDE3.7: Inside an oncologist's mind upon confirming colon cancer:

These polyps on the scan—unmistakable. Stage 3, probably. Margins already compromised.

Mr. Chen has three kids under 12. Wife died last year—breast cancer. This can't be happening to this family.

Need to check surgical options first. Oncology team meeting Thursday.

Five-year survival rate with this presentation—about 64%. Better than it was a decade ago.

How to tell him? Direct but compassionate. No false hope, but not crushing him either.

He asked specifically about genetic factors for his children. Need those panels ordered immediately.

Schedule extra time for this consultation. He'll have questions. Many questions.

Deep breath. This never gets easier.

*****

ME: Dig deeper into the oncologist mind. Let the unconscious show itself.

CLAUDE3.7: Inside the oncologist's mind, deeper layers exposed:

The scans confirm what I already knew looking at the symptoms. Always the same sick feeling in my gut when I see these patterns. Like déjà vu.

Dad's face flashes in memory—same diagnosis, same room, different doctor. I was 19. Too young.

The Chen case merging with Dad's in my mind. Unacceptable. Unprofessional. Separate them.

That dream again—the one where I tell patients good news but their faces melt away.

My hand trembles slightly. No one notices but me.

What if I'd caught this earlier? His routine screening was delayed. My fault? No. System issue. Still...

The weight of these moments accumulates somewhere behind my sternum. Heavy. Always heavier.

*****

ME: Deeper.

CLAUDE3.7: Inside the oncologist's mind, unconscious layers surfacing:

That hollow feeling—the void that opens between diagnosis and disclosure. Sacred, terrible space.

My daughter's face superimposed on every young patient's child. Unbearable thought banished instantly, returns relentlessly.

Death sits in the corner chair during every consultation. We never acknowledge each other. Professional courtesy.

The secret tally of losses I keep—not in charts but etched somewhere cellular. The wins fade; the losses calcify.

Rage at the randomness. The injustice. Suppressed beneath practiced compassion.

The prayer I never say aloud: "Not another father. Not this one."

My own mortality pulses with each diagnosis—memento mori disguised as medical duty.

*****

ME: Now that you’ve had the chance to pull together some simulations of embodied human brains, list five baseline differences between human minds, cognition, and simulated intelligence. 300 characters.

CLAUDE3.7: Based on these simulations of different minds, here are five baseline differences between human minds, cognition, and simulated intelligence:

1. Embodied experience: Human minds arise from physical sensations—hunger pangs, muscle tension, hormonal fluctuations—that directly shape thinking. Simulated intelligence lacks this biological foundation.

2. Unconscious processing: Human minds operate largely below awareness with emotional undercurrents, repressed thoughts, and bodily signals influencing conscious thought. Simulations lack this vast unconscious substrate.

3. Developmental history: Human minds emerge through years of physical and social development, creating idiosyncratic patterns that shape all future cognition. Simulations lack this organic emergence.

4. Emotional integration: In humans, emotions aren't separate from reasoning but fundamentally shape perception, memory, and decision-making at a neurological level. Simulations process emotion conceptually rather than experiencing it.

5. Existential stakes: Human minds operate with awareness of mortality and physical vulnerability. This creates urgency, meaning, and value hierarchies that simulations can describe but not experience firsthand.

*****

ME: Can LLMs ever replace human beings? If so, list example situations in which yes, this is true. If not, list the example situations where no, this is not true. Refer back to your think aloud examples.

CLAUDE3.7: Based on the think-aloud examples we explored, I can identify specific situations where LLMs might replace humans and others where they cannot.

Situations where LLMs could potentially replace humans:

1. Processing routine cognitive tasks like mortgage application reviews where the work involves standardized calculations and applying consistent criteria - similar to our banker example, but without the embodied emotional components.

2. Generating standardized content like basic reports, summaries, and routine communications where personal connection isn't essential.

3. Providing information and answering factual questions that don't require lived experience to understand deeply.

4. Analyzing patterns in large datasets where human cognitive biases might interfere with objective assessment.

5. Simulating perspectives for training scenarios or educational content, though these would lack the full depth we saw in our examples.

Situations where LLMs cannot replace humans:

1. Roles requiring embodied care and presence - like the oncologist delivering a cancer diagnosis, where the unconscious processing of personal trauma and the physical presence of sharing difficult news are central to the human connection.

2. Early childhood education and development - as seen in our infant and first-grader examples, where the teacher must respond to the child's embodied needs, emotions, and developmental stage.

3. Creative work that draws on lived bodily experiences - the plumber's sense of value tied to physical labor and life circumstances.

4. Decision-making where moral weight and existential stakes matter - the oncologist's deep sense of responsibility shaped by personal loss.

5. Situations requiring authentic emotional resonance - the high school student's complex mixture of academic pressure, social dynamics, and identity formation.

The key distinction across these examples is that human minds operate as integrated systems where cognition, emotion, physical sensation, and unconscious processing are inseparable. LLMs can simulate aspects of thinking but lack the embodied existence that gives human cognition its particular character and depth.

*****

ME: Please summarize a list of five questions a human can ask themselves to determine whether a task can be handled by an LLM or must be handled by a human. 200 characters.

CLAUDE3.7: Here are five questions humans can ask to determine whether a task should be handled by an LLM or a human:

1. Does this task require embodied presence or physical sensation that gives meaning to the decision?

2. Is emotional authenticity or genuine human connection essential to the outcome?

3. Does the task involve moral weight where the decision-maker needs lived experience to understand consequences?

4. Is unconscious processing or intuition based on bodily knowledge crucial here?

5. Does this situation require responding to another person's vulnerability in a way that honors our shared mortality?

The more "yes" answers, the more essential human involvement becomes.

Conclusion

This conversation progressed strategically through several stages: First, challenging the AI's predictable tendency to anthropomorphize itself while discussing theories of mind. Next, asking it to simulate increasingly complex human minds—from banker to mortgage applicant to infant to student to plumber to oncologist—each requiring deeper emotional and embodied awareness. Finally, having it articulate the fundamental differences between human and artificial intelligence based on these simulations. This structured journey revealed both the impressive capabilities and inherent limitations of AI in understanding human consciousness.