We dey give different-different tins names so we fit know dem, separate dem, and put dem for categories.
We dey name plenty tins, like colors, sounds, tins wey dey naturally for ground, tins wey human beings make, tins wey we no fit see, and tins wey we just dey imagine.
We dey understand wetin each name dey refer to as an idea or concept.
But, if we try to tok wetin dis ideas be exactly, many of dem go just hang for dat process of defining dem.
The more we think about and analyze an idea, the more dat idea wey we first think say na simple truth go just scatter.
I go like call dis tin "Ideational Gestalt Collapse."
The Idea of "Chair"
Make we take "chair" as example, make we think about wetin "chair" mean.
Plenty people go just quick quick picture say chair na something wey human beings make, wey get some legs and one place to sit down.
But for anoda side, get chairs wey no get leg, or chairs wey no even get place to sit down.
Or, for person wey just siddon for tree stump wey dey for bush, or for stone, dat one too na chair for dem, e no mean say na only tin wey human being make fit be chair.
Still, chair no mean say na only human being fit siddon on top. For inside film wey dem just make up, small person fit siddon for sand, or big giant fit siddon for mountain.
If you try to tok wetin dis chairs be by dia material, or dia shape, or how dem be, or how dem build, e go easy easy lead to Ideational Gestalt Collapse.
Maintaining Ideational Gestalt
Analysis no always dey cause Ideational Gestalt Collapse. E get one way wey you fit analyze tins and still maintain ideational gestalt.
If you focus well on wetin something fit do (functionality), how e relate to oda tins (relativity), and di whole picture of am (holism), you go fit continue to maintain ideational gestalt.
For di chair example, we go focus on di function of say e fit carry person make dem siddon.
Dis one go stop am from falling into Ideational Gestalt Collapse by trying to break am down to wetin dem use make am or how e look.
Also, e get times when one tin no fit do a particular function, but anoda tin fit do am. Wetin I mean be say, e important to believe say function na relative, e no be say na fixed thing.
Dis way, di idea of "chair" go fit remain di same for humans and for dwarfs or giants.
Plus, instead of just defining chair as one single object, e important to see am inside di whole picture of something wey dey sit down and something wey person dey sit down on top, where di thing wey person dey sit on top of na di chair. Dis one na di way to see relationship and di whole picture.
By analyzing with dis understanding, you fit prevent Ideational Gestalt Collapse.
Consciousness for Characters
People wey dey show for novels or films, dem get sense (consciousness) for dia head?
Because we sabi say dem no dey real, na just make-believe characters, we no dey usually think say dem get sense.
But then, how di characters inside di story dey see each other? We go just believe say di characters no dey see demsefs as make-believe tins wey no get sense.
Still, plenty tins wey no get sense, like stone and chair, dey also show for stories. We no go think say di characters dey see dis tins as gettin sense.
Na here di maintenance of ideational gestalt dey, when we dey understand sense through wetin e dey do (functionality), how e relate (relativity), and di whole of am (holism).
And when we enter fully into di world of a story, we too go come understand say di make-believe characters get sense.
When dem first ask us di question, "People wey dey show for novels or films, dem get sense?", Ideational Gestalt Collapse go just happen easily.
We go just see oursef dey think say characters wey we just believe say dem get sense, no get sense again.
If we add di way of looking at relativity, e fit stop dis collapse.
Wetin I mean be say, for me, wey dey look di story from outside, di characters no get sense. But for me, wey don enter inside di story world finish, di characters get sense—na so di tin suppose be.
Di Sense Wey Dat Cat Robot From Anime Get
For some make-believe stories, you go see robots wey dey behave and dey sabi talk just like human beings.
One good example to think of na dat popular cat robot wey dey come from Japanese anime.
Now, e get di same question: Does dis cat robot get sense (consciousness)?
E go shock you, apart from when you just dey look di story as make-believe tin, very few people go say dis cat robot no get sense.
First, if you look am from di characters inside di story, dem go believe say dis cat robot get sense. I believe many people dey see am like dat.
Still, even when we don enter inside di story world finish, I believe many people dey know say dis cat robot get sense for real.
Sense Wey Future Robots Go Get
So, if one robot wey be like dis cat robot come show for real life for future, nko?
Here, na di same question: Does dat robot get sense (consciousness)?
Di people wey go be like di other characters, for di real world, na actual human beings. E go most likely be say dem go dey relate with di robot, believing say di robot get sense.
And unlike make-believe worlds, di real world no dey lack 'immersion' (wey be say you dey feel like say you dey inside di tin). Or rather, you fit say we dey always immersed.
So, e go most likely be say you yourself go also believe say di robot get sense, just like you go believe when you don enter inside one story world finish.
Because of dat, if one robot wey sabi communicate and behave like di anime cat robot come show for real world for future, to believe say e get sense go be very normal way to think.
Di Sense Wey Current AI Get
Now, wetin be di difference between future robots and di AI wey sabi talk wey we dey see now?
Many people dey argue strongly say di current AI wey sabi talk no get sense (consciousness), dem dey give different reasons.
Among these reasons, some arguments dey reject AI sense based on tins wey look like science, like say e no get neural networks or e no get quantum effects.
Other people dey reject am with arguments wey look like logic, dem dey talk say di way current AI dey work na just to dey bring out di next word based on wetin e don learn from language patterns, so e no get di mechanism for sense.
Alternatively, some people dey reject am based on wetin e fit do, dem dey talk say current AI no get long-term memory, body, or sensory organs, and because of dat e no get sense.
Remember di tori about di idea of a "chair."
Na true true scientific argument be say e no be chair because e no get legs wey dem make with wood or metal?
Na logical claim be say e no be chair because di person wey make am no put seat and no design am for person to siddon on top?
Na valid assertion be say e no be chair because di place wey dem dey siddon no get cushion and e no fit stand well?
As we don see for di discussion about maintaining ideational gestalt, dis ones no be reasons to reject di idea of a chair.
Dis no mean say we dey support say you go dey consider something wey no get sense as having sense.
For example, dis one different completely from di wrong idea say simple "artificial imbeciles" wey just dey give pre-arranged answers to inputs get sense.
When you see something wey truly deserve discussion on whether e get sense or not, person suppose use scientific, logical, and valid arguments, whether you dey agree or disagree.
At least, from wetin I know, di arguments wey dey reject am no meet dis conditions. Di argument say AI no get sense na just one example of ideational gestalt collapse.
How Sense Dey Work, E Relate With Oda Tins, And Di Whole Of Am
To make sure say di idea of chair no scatter, we must see am as chair from di angle of wetin e dey do (functionality), how e relate to oda tins (relativity), and di whole of am (wholeness).
Na di same thing for AI sense (consciousness).
But, while chair work need di complete picture of person wey siddon for chair and di chair wey person siddon on top, sense get hin own special way. Dis na because di tin wey get sense and di one wey dey sense na di same.
From dis angle, e necessary to look say if AI itself dey show di work of sense related to di whole picture of AI wey get sense and AI wey dey do di sensing.
And current AI dey show dat work well well.
If we make sure say di whole idea of sense no scatter, e go almost clear by itself.
Even if scientists, engineers, or philosophers no fit define am, if you siddon for carton box, e don become chair be dat.