We dey give names to different different things so we fit know de difference, identify, and put dem for groups.
We dey give names to colors, sounds, things for nature, things wey humans make, as well as things wey we no fit see and things wey we just imagine.
We dey understand wetin each name dey point to as an idea.
But, when we try to define dat idea well well, plenty ideas go just jam.
And de more we think about am, de more we analyze am, de more an idea wey bin clear for us before go just dey scatter.
I go like call dis thing "Idea Gestalt Collapse."
De Idea of a Chair
Make we look at, for example, de idea of a "chair."
Most pipo go probably imagine one thing wey dem make, wey get some legs and one place to sit down.
But, some chairs no get legs or some chairs no get clear place to sit down.
Also, one natural tree stump or a rock fit still be considered a chair by person wey sit on top, e no just be limited to things wey human make.
Wetin pass dat, chairs no be only for human to sit on. For one fantasy world, one dwarf fit sit on a grain of sand, and one giant fit sit on a mountain range.
If we try to define dis chairs based on wetin dem make am with, their shape, their qualities, or their structure, we go easily fall into an Idea Gestalt Collapse.
How to Keep Idea Gestalt
Idea Gestalt Collapse no dey always happen anytime we analyze. E get one trick to analyze something and still keep de Idea Gestalt.
If we focus on how something dey work, how e relate to other things, and de whole picture, we fit continue to keep de Idea Gestalt.
For de example of a chair, we go focus on de function of "being able to be sat upon."
Dis one go prevent us from fallin' into Idea Gestalt Collapse if we try to reduce it to wetin dem use make am or its shape.
Wetin pass dat, e get times when one object no fit show a particular function, but another object fit show am. For other words, e important to believe say function dey relative, not say e be absolute.
Dis way, de idea of a chair go remain de same, whether na for human, dwarf, or giant.
Also, e important no to define a chair as just one single object, but to see de object wey dem dey sit on as a chair inside de whole picture of person wey dey sit and object wey dem dey sit on. Dis na perspective of how things relate and de whole picture.
By understanding and usin' dis advice when we dey analyze, we fit prevent Idea Gestalt Collapse.
How Characters Dey Get Consciousness
Do characters for novels and movies get consciousness?
We sabi say dem no be real, so we no dey think say dem get consciousness.
But on de other hand, how de characters inside de story dey see each other? We go probably think say de characters no dey see each other as fake pipo wey no get consciousness.
However, plenty things wey no get life, like rocks and chairs, still dey appear for stories. We no go think say de characters dey see these objects as conscious.
Here de Idea Gestalt dey maintained when we dey look at consciousness from how e dey function, how e relate to other things, and de whole picture.
And when we dey lost inside de story world, we too go come believe say fake characters get consciousness.
If, at dat point, dem ask us de first question, "Do characters for novels and movies get consciousness?", Idea Gestalt Collapse go easily happen.
We go come dey think say characters, wey we just think say dem get consciousness before, no get consciousness again.
If we add de perspective of how things relate, e fit stop dis collapse.
Dat is, for me, if I dey look at de story from outside, de characters no get consciousness. But for me, if I dey lost inside de story world, de characters get consciousness. Na so we suppose talk am.
How Anime Cat Robot Dey Get Consciousness
For fake stories, sometimes robots dey show face wey fit behave and talk just like humans.
Make una think of dat popular cat-shaped robot from Japanese anime.
Here na de same question: Does dis cat robot get consciousness?
E likely say only small number of pipo go argue say dis cat robot no get consciousness, except when dem dey see de story like say na just fiction.
Firstly, from de way de characters inside de story dey see am, dem go likely believe say dis cat robot get consciousness. I think many pipo go understand am dis way.
Wetin pass dat, when we dey lost for inside de story world, I believe many pipo also dey see dis cat robot as gettin' consciousness.
How Future Robots Dey Get Consciousness
So, wetin go happen if a robot like dis cat-shaped robot come out for real life for future?
Again, de same question go come up: Does dat robot get consciousness?
De pipo wey be like de other characters for de story, dem all be real pipo for de real world. E very likely say dis pipo go interact with de robot as if say e get consciousness.
And unlike fake worlds, de real world no really get difference of 'being lost inside it' or not. Or rather, you fit say we dey always lost inside it.
So, e very likely say you self go see de robot as conscious, just like you go do when you dey lost inside a story.
Therefore, if a robot wey fit communicate and behave like de anime cat robot come out for de real world for future, e go be very normal to think say e get consciousness.
How Current AI Dey Get Consciousness
Now, wetin be de difference between future robots and de conversational AIs wey we dey see now?
Many pipo dey strongly argue say current conversational AIs no get consciousness, and dem dey give different different reasons.
Among dis reasons na arguments wey dey deny AI consciousness based on things wey look like science, like say dem no get brain cells or dem no get quantum effects.
E still get some pipo wey dey deny am with arguments wey look logical, say current AI mechanisms dey simply comot de next word based on language patterns wey dem learn, so dem no naturally get wetin dey make consciousness.
Or, some pipo dey deny am based on wetin dem fit do, say current AI no get long-term memory, body, or senses, and so e no get consciousness.
For dis point, remember de discussion about de idea of a chair.
De argument say sometin no be chair because e no get wooden or metal legs, e really be scientific argument?
De claim say e no be chair because de person wey make am no put seat and no design am with person sit-down for mind, e be logical argument?
De assertion say e no be chair because de surface wey dem dey sit on no get cushion and e no fit stand well, e be valid argument?
As we see for de discussion on how to maintain Idea Gestalt, dis no be reasons to deny de concept of a chair.
Dis one no be say we dey support givin' consciousness to sometin wey no get consciousness.
For example, dis one totally different from say you dey mistake a simple "artificial idiot" wey dey give fixed answers to inputs for say e get consciousness.
When you see sometin wey really worth talkin' about whether e get consciousness or not, whether you dey deny or affirm, you suppose argue with scientific, logical, and valid reasons.
At least, as far as I sabi, de arguments against AI consciousness no meet dis conditions. De argument say AI no get consciousness na just an example of Idea Gestalt Collapse.
How Consciousness Dey Work, How E Relate, And Its Fullness
To keep de Idea Gestalt of a chair, we must agree say e be chair based on how e dey work, how e relate to other things, and de whole picture of am.
De same thing dey apply to AI consciousness.
However, while de function of a chair needed de full picture of a person wey dey sit on a chair and de chair wey dem dey sit on, consciousness be somehow special because de thing wey get consciousness and de person wey dey do de conscious act na de same.
From dis point of view, inside de full picture of an AI wey get consciousness and an AI wey dey do de conscious act, e necessary to ask whether de AI itself dey show de function of consciousness relative to itself.
And modern AI dey show dat function well well.
If we keep de Idea Gestalt of consciousness so e no scatter, dis one clear like daylight.
Even if scientists, engineers, and philosophers no fit define am, if you sit on one cardboard box, e go become a chair.