Many people take for granted that consciousness exists. For most people, the absolute, as in the most real thing they ever will experience in life, is being conscious. But what does it mean to be conscious and what does it mean to have a mind? How can you know any mind other than your own mind is real if you can't experience it first hand? How can you know that your consciousness is real and not just an illusion of space time?
A philosophical zombie (p-zombie) is a philosophical being which is indistinguishable from a human with the exception that it does not experience sentience, qualia, it lacks conscious experience. A p zombie would respond to pain and pleasure as if they actually feel pain or pleasure.
A solipsist recognizes that they are the absolute and only true existence in the universe. In fact, a solipsist would recognize that they are the universe. If the universe were a simulation, the solipsist would believe they are the master of that simulation. So why is it that people who may hold these views do not act it out? It's because from a consequential perspective it might not be practical or in the best interest of an individual to live as a solipsist even if an individual deep down truly believes they are the master of the universe, or that their mind is the only mind.
There are of course individuals who claim solipsism is mental illness. As a result, the consequences for living as if your mind is the only mind, could upset the others even if you believe the others not to be anything more than p-zombies. An example of the reaction to solipsism in the video below:
Solipsism is not falsifiable. It is not possible to prove one way or the other which is true. This leads to the problem of other minds which is also something which can't be proven. My own take on solipsism is that whether I internally believe I'm the only mind or that there are other minds, I have to act as if there are other minds in order to avoid the negative consequences that come with acting as if I'm the only mind. The consequentialist and pragmatic ethics I have are what outweigh any possible philosophical truth that may be within solipsism.
In society we act as if because if we don't act as if we will likely be locked away either in a prison, or in a mental institution. Famous mathematician John Nash was brilliant because of his discovery of Nash equilibrium but if someone tried to live out exactly the kind of life of a solipsist and apply game theory then it could quickly lead to paranoia, which can lead to negative consequences from others who respond to that paranoia. Real or not, we must act as if when the consequences for not doing so are worse than the consequences for doing so.
The problem of other minds is based around the fact that even if you believe in the existence of your subjective self, of your consciousness, how do you prove it exists anywhere else? It turns out philosophically you can't solve this problem. You can't really know for sure that anything outside of your own subjective experience exists. In fact there is a faction of philosophers who do not believe that subjective experience exists.
The eliminativist philosophical faction is led by individuals such as Paul and Patricia Churchland, Daniel Dennett, Georges Rey, and others. Eliminativists believe that certain commonly accepted ideas about mental states are just folk psychology and do not exist. This can include beliefs, desires, subjective sensation of pain, and even qualia (subjective experience) itself.
Daniel Dennett in particular has expressed the view that the universe is deterministic. It would be fair to say that Daniel Dennett's ideas are prolific and many people have likely seen some of his videos before. For those who haven't, here are a couple:
The viewpoint of Daniel Dennett contrasts with the viewpoint of David Chalmers. They are in different camps, along different schools of philosophical thought. Daniel Dennett belives in determinism but what is his take on free will? If consciousness is an illusion then is free will also an illusion?
In his video he mentions the concept of agents. Intelligent agents are a concept which is pertinent to the discussion of consciousness and free will. But if we are talking about an intelligent agent which is for example a robot then we would say that the intelligent agent is simply following it's code? At the same time, biologically defined intelligent agents are defined by their genetic code. So what exactly is consciousness and if it exists how can we ever prove it?
An intelligent agent as defined by Wikipedia:
In artificial intelligence, an intelligent agent (IA) is an autonomous entity which observes through sensors and acts upon an environment using actuators (i.e. it is an agent) and directs its activity towards achieving goals (i.e. it is "rational", as defined in economics[1]). Intelligent agents may also learn or use knowledge to achieve their goals.
Currently most people think of AI are p-zombies. People assume at the moment that these p-zombie intelligent agents we call AI do not have true self awareness, true sentience, and are somehow distinctly different from us. This is currently an easy position to take while AI is at best insect like in it's intelligence. If or when AI begins to approach an intelligence which can sufficiently act as if it has sentience, self awareness, subjective experience, then it may only be a matter of time before human beings begin treating the AI as if it is a person with a mind. The consequences for not treating an AI as if it has a mind could be as serious as the consequence for not treating a human as if a human has a mind, whether the AI enforces it or human beings. So from a consequential basis it would seem that eventually the problem of other minds is resolved by humans collectively acting as if other minds exist, no matter what an individual human may internally believe.
Just as the problem of other minds can be resolved by acting as if other minds exist. The same would apply to AI. Once society accepts AI then eventually for the consequentialist thinker the choice will be to either act as if that AI is conscious or face the social ramifications. In the end the consequences force even a person who internally may be a solipsist to act as if other minds exist because whether they internally believe other minds exist or not the society they live in is acting as if they do.
This acting as if mechanism is actually very common and applies to other ethical dilemmas as well. In the case of ethics, even if a person does not agree with the beliefs of the majority of people in a society, the individual who decides to act as if the majority is right, may face more positive consequences. From a consequence based outlook the acting as if works to avoid ethical dilemmas and pitfalls where there is no objective truth.
This highlights an aspect of society where social consensus shapes ethics. The individual negotiates right and wrong with the society and culture they are in. The individual might have a personal belief but a society is a group of individuals and may have the capability to enforce the collective personal beliefs whether founded or unfounded on everyone else. Social consensus will determine if AI is sentient or not because there is no objective way to determine it.
References
