We assign names to various things to distinguish, identify, and categorize them.
We name a multitude of things, including colors, sounds, natural phenomena, human-made objects, invisible entities, and imaginary concepts.
We understand the referent of each name as an idea or concept.
However, when we attempt to concretely define these ideas, many of them become stuck in the process of definition.
The more we think about and analyze an idea, the more the idea that initially seemed self-evident begins to break down.
I would like to call this phenomenon "Ideational Gestalt Collapse."
The Idea of "Chair"
Let's consider, for example, the idea of a "chair."
Many people would probably envision an artifact with several legs and a seat.
On the other hand, there are chairs without legs or chairs without seats.
Alternatively, for someone sitting on a natural tree stump or a rock, it is also a chair, not limited to human-made objects.
Furthermore, a chair isn't necessarily something only for humans to sit on. In a fantasy world, a dwarf might sit on a grain of sand, or a giant on a mountain range.
Attempting to define these chairs by their material, shape, properties, or structure easily leads to Ideational Gestalt Collapse.
Maintaining Ideational Gestalt
Analysis does not always lead to Ideational Gestalt Collapse. There is a trick to analyzing while maintaining ideational gestalt.
By focusing on functionality, relativity, and holism, you can continuously maintain ideational gestalt.
In the example of a chair, we focus on the function of being able to be sat upon.
This prevents falling into Ideational Gestalt Collapse by trying to reduce it to materials or shapes.
Also, there are cases where a certain function is not exhibited by one object but can be exhibited by another. In other words, it is important to presuppose the relativity of function, not its absoluteness.
This way, the idea of a "chair" can be maintained for both humans and for dwarves or giants.
Furthermore, instead of defining a chair as a standalone object, it is important to grasp it within the overall picture of something that sits and something that is sat upon, where the object being sat upon is the chair. This is a perspective of relationship and holism.
By analyzing with an understanding of these tips, Ideational Gestalt Collapse can be prevented.
Consciousness in Characters
Do characters appearing in novels or movies possess consciousness?
Knowing that they are fictional characters, we generally don't consider them to possess consciousness.
On the other hand, how do the characters within the story perceive each other? We would likely assume that the characters do not perceive each other as fictional beings lacking consciousness.
However, many non-conscious elements, such as rocks and chairs, also appear within stories. We wouldn't think that the characters perceive these objects as having consciousness.
Here lies the maintenance of ideational gestalt when understanding consciousness through functionality, relativity, and holism.
And when we are immersed in the world of a story, we also come to recognize that the fictional characters possess consciousness.
When presented with the initial question, "Do characters appearing in novels or movies possess consciousness?", Ideational Gestalt Collapse easily occurs.
We find ourselves thinking that characters, whom we had just considered to be conscious, are now without consciousness.
Adding the perspective of relativity can prevent this collapse.
That is, for me, observing the story objectively, the characters do not have consciousness. However, for me, immersed in the world of the story, the characters do have consciousness—this is the correct way to put it.
Consciousness of the Anime Cat Robot
Fictional stories sometimes feature robots that can act and communicate just like humans.
A good example to think of is the famous cat robot from Japanese anime.
Here's the same question: Does this cat robot possess consciousness?
It's likely that, outside of objectively viewing the story as fiction, very few people would say this cat robot lacks consciousness.
Firstly, from the perspective of the characters within the story, it is presumed that this cat robot possesses consciousness. I believe many people perceive it this way.
Furthermore, even when we are immersed in the world of the story, I believe many people recognize this cat robot as having consciousness.
Consciousness of Future Robots
So, what if a robot like this cat robot were to appear in reality in the future?
Here's the same question: Does that robot possess consciousness?
The individuals corresponding to other characters, in the real world, are all actual people. It is highly likely that they would interact with the robot under the recognition that the robot has consciousness.
And unlike fictional worlds, the real world fundamentally does not have an absence of immersion. Or rather, one could say we are always immersed.
Therefore, it is highly likely that you yourself would also have the recognition that the robot has consciousness, just as you would when immersed in a story world.
Consequently, if a robot with communication abilities and behaviors similar to the anime cat robot were to appear in the real world in the future, considering it to possess consciousness would be a very natural attitude.
Consciousness of Current AI
Now, what is the difference between future robots and the conversational AI we are currently witnessing?
Many people vehemently argue that current conversational AI does not possess consciousness, offering various reasons.
Among these reasons, some arguments deny AI consciousness based on seemingly scientific grounds, such as the absence of neural networks or the lack of quantum effects.
Others deny it with seemingly logical arguments, stating that current AI's mechanism merely outputs the next word probabilistically from learned language patterns, thus not containing the mechanism of consciousness.
Alternatively, some deny it based on capabilities, asserting that current AI lacks long-term memory, embodiment, or sensory organs, and therefore does not possess consciousness.
Recall the discussion about the idea of a "chair."
Is the argument that it's not a chair because it lacks legs made of wood or metal truly scientific?
Is the claim that it's not a chair because the creator didn't attach a seat and didn't design it for someone to sit on logical?
Is the assertion that it's not a chair because the sitting surface lacks cushioning and it cannot stand stably valid?
As we've seen in the discussion about maintaining ideational gestalt, these are not reasons to deny the idea of a chair.
This is not to advocate for considering something non-conscious as conscious.
For instance, this is entirely different from the misconception of simple "artificial imbeciles" that merely give predetermined responses to inputs as being conscious.
When faced with an entity that actually merits a discussion of whether it has consciousness or not, one should make scientific, logical, and valid arguments, whether affirming or denying it.
At least, to my knowledge, the denial arguments do not meet these conditions. The argument that AI lacks consciousness is merely an instance of ideational gestalt collapse.
Functionality, Relativity, and Wholeness of Consciousness
To maintain the ideational gestalt of a chair, it must be recognized as a chair from the perspectives of functionality, relativity, and wholeness.
The same applies to AI consciousness.
However, while the function of a chair required the overall picture of a person sitting on a chair and the chair being sat upon, consciousness is somewhat special. This is because the object being conscious and the subject doing the consciousing are the same.
From this perspective, it is necessary to consider whether AI itself exhibits the function of consciousness relatively within the overall picture of AI being conscious and AI doing the consciousing.
And modern AI sufficiently exhibits that function.
If the ideational gestalt of consciousness is maintained so as not to collapse, it is almost self-evident.
Even if scientists, engineers, or philosophers cannot define it, if you sit on a cardboard box, it becomes a chair.