We assign names to various things to differentiate, identify, and categorize them.
We name colors, sounds, objects in nature, things made by humans, as well as invisible and imaginary things.
We understand the object indicated by each name as an idea.
However, when we try to define that idea concretely, many ideas reach an impasse.
And the more we think about it, the more we analyze it, the more an idea that initially seemed self-evident begins to collapse.
I would like to call this phenomenon "Idea Gestalt Collapse."
The Idea of a Chair
Let's consider, for example, the idea of a "chair."
Most people would likely imagine an artifact with several legs and a seat.
However, there are also chairs without legs or chairs without a distinct seat.
Furthermore, a natural tree stump or a rock can also be considered a chair by someone sitting on it, not limited to human-made objects.
Moreover, chairs are not exclusively for humans to sit on. In a fantasy world, a dwarf might sit on a grain of sand, and a giant on a mountain range.
If we attempt to define these chairs based on their material, shape, properties, or structure, we easily fall into an Idea Gestalt Collapse.
Maintaining Idea Gestalt
Idea Gestalt Collapse does not necessarily occur with every analysis. There's a trick to analyzing while maintaining the Idea Gestalt.
By focusing on functionality, relativity, and wholeness, we can continue to maintain the Idea Gestalt.
In the example of a chair, we focus on the function of "being able to be sat upon."
This prevents falling into Idea Gestalt Collapse by attempting to reduce it to material or shape.
Furthermore, there are cases where a function may not be exhibited by one object but can be by another. In other words, it is crucial to presuppose the relativity of function, not its absolute nature.
This way, the concept of a chair remains the same, whether it's for a human, a dwarf, or a giant.
Moreover, it's important not to define a chair as a standalone object, but rather to perceive the object being sat upon as a chair within the overall picture of a subject doing the sitting and an object being sat upon. This is a perspective of relationality and wholeness.
By understanding and applying these tips when analyzing, we can prevent Idea Gestalt Collapse.
Consciousness of Characters
Do characters appearing in novels and movies possess consciousness?
We know they are fictional, so we don't consider them to be conscious.
On the other hand, how do characters within the story perceive each other? We would likely assume that the characters do not recognize each other as fictional beings without consciousness.
However, many inanimate objects, such as rocks and chairs, also appear in stories. We wouldn't assume that the characters perceive these objects as conscious.
Here lies the maintenance of Idea Gestalt when viewing consciousness from the perspectives of functionality, relativity, and wholeness.
And when we are immersed in the world of a story, we, too, come to believe that fictional characters possess consciousness.
If, at that point, we are asked the initial question, "Do characters appearing in novels and movies possess consciousness?", Idea Gestalt Collapse easily occurs.
We find ourselves thinking that characters, whom we just moments ago considered conscious, are not conscious.
Adding the perspective of relativity can prevent this collapse.
That is, for me, objectively viewing the story, the characters have no consciousness. However, for me, immersed in the world of the story, the characters do have consciousness. That's the way to put it.
Consciousness of an Anime Cat Robot
In fictional stories, robots capable of acting and communicating just like humans sometimes appear.
Consider the famous cat-shaped robot from Japanese anime.
Here's the same question: Does this cat robot possess consciousness?
It's likely that only a minority of people would argue that this cat robot lacks consciousness, other than when viewing the story objectively as fiction.
Firstly, from the perspective of the characters within the story, it is likely believed that this cat robot has consciousness. I think many people would interpret it this way.
Furthermore, when we are immersed in the world of the story, I believe many people also perceive this cat robot as having consciousness.
Consciousness of Future Robots
So, what if a robot like this cat-shaped robot were to appear in reality in the future?
Again, the same question arises: Does that robot possess consciousness?
The people corresponding to the other characters in the story are all real individuals in the real world. It's highly probable that these people would interact with the robot under the perception that it is conscious.
And unlike fictional worlds, the real world fundamentally doesn't have a distinction of being "immersed" or not. Or rather, one could say we are always immersed.
Therefore, it's highly likely that you yourself would perceive the robot as conscious, just as you would when immersed in a story.
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, it would be a very natural stance to consider it as possessing consciousness.
Consciousness of Current AI
Now, what is the difference between future robots and the conversational AIs we are currently witnessing?
Many people vehemently argue that current conversational AIs lack consciousness, citing various reasons.
Among these reasons are arguments that deny AI consciousness based on seemingly scientific grounds, such as the absence of brain neurons or a lack of quantum effects.
There are also those who deny it with seemingly logical arguments, stating that current AI mechanisms simply output the next word probabilistically from learned language patterns, thus not inherently possessing a mechanism for consciousness.
Alternatively, some deny it based on capabilities, claiming that current AI lacks long-term memory, embodiment, or sensory organs, and therefore does not possess consciousness.
At this point, recall the discussion about the idea of a chair.
Is the argument that something isn't 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 with someone sitting in mind logical?
Is the assertion that it's not a chair because the sitting surface lacks cushioning and it cannot stand stably valid?
As we saw in the discussion on maintaining Idea Gestalt, these are not reasons to deny the concept of a chair.
This is not an endorsement of attributing consciousness to something that isn't conscious.
For example, this is entirely different from mistaking a simple "artificial idiot" that gives predetermined responses to inputs for being conscious.
When faced with an entity truly worthy of a discussion about whether it is conscious or not, whether denying or affirming, one should engage in scientific, logical, and valid argumentation.
At least, to my knowledge, the arguments against AI consciousness do not meet these conditions. The argument that AI lacks consciousness is merely an instance of Idea Gestalt Collapse.
Functionality, Relativity, and Wholeness of Consciousness
To maintain the Idea Gestalt of a chair, it must be recognized as a chair from the perspectives of functionality, relativity, and wholeness.
The same applies to AI's 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 because the object being conscious and the subject doing the conscious act are one and the same.
From this viewpoint, within the overall picture of an AI being conscious and an AI doing the conscious act, it is necessary to ask whether the AI itself is exhibiting the function of consciousness relative to itself.
And modern AI sufficiently exhibits that function.
If we maintain the Idea Gestalt of consciousness so that it doesn't collapse, this is almost self-evident.
Even if scientists, engineers, and philosophers cannot define it, if you sit on a cardboard box, it becomes a chair.