CAN ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE BE A CONSCIOUS ENTITY IN THE CONTEXT OF FREE WILL?

CAN ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE BE A CONSCIOUS ENTITY IN THE CONTEXT OF FREE WILL?

Abstract

The aim of this study is to examine and evaluate whether artificial intelligence can have a consciousness like a human in the context of free will. It is observed that the concept of free will is related to consciousness. When the influence of determinism is considered, it is seen and observed intensely in the universe. Therefore, explaining the existence of free will without any metaphysical element is quite difficult. Thus, if humans are merely composed of data and their difference from artificial intelligence is their more complex data, artificial intelligence seems possible. If a metaphysical explanation is considered, what can be valid for humans can also be valid for artificial intelligence, so it seems possible for artificial intelligence to be conscious.



Keywords: Artificial Intelligence, Free Will, Consciousness, Determinism

Introduction

Artificial intelligence has become a highly discussed topic in recent years. This agenda has also influenced many fields such as literature and cinema along with science. As a result, discussions on whether artificial intelligence can gain consciousness and be the end of humanity have gained momentum. The fundamental question here is whether artificial intelligence can have consciousness like a human. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the possibility of artificial intelligence being conscious.

In the first section of the study, it is evaluated whether humans can be seen merely as a sum of data. Because if humans are only a sum of data, these data necessarily determine human actions. At this point, there is a certain parallelism observed since artificial intelligence also contains data. The problem of free will is discussed based on certain thoughts to determine whether humans can possess free will.

In the second section of the study, thoughts on the possibility of artificial intelligence are presented under two subheadings based on the results obtained from the first section.Is Human Merely a Sum of Data? The question of whether humans have free will is of great importance in determining whether humans are merely a sum of data. Because if humans are only a sum of data, the question of "How can a human make free choices in such a situation?" becomes a serious question. Because a human is formed by certain genetic codes, past experiences, and similar factors. In such a mechanism, there also needs to be a structure within the human consciousness that enables free choices. The main reason for this is the problem of determinism.

1. Is Man Just a Collection of Data?

Determinism states that everything occurs within a cause-effect relationship. When the subatomic level is examined, determinism indeed holds a strong position. The problem of determinism argues that human actions cannot be free within this cause-effect relationship. Formulated as follows:If every outcome has a cause, then human choices have a cause.
If human choices have a necessary cause, then each choice will necessarily occur due to the preceding cause.
If every choice occurs necessarily, then there can be no talk of free choice.

Conclusion: Therefore, human does not have free choice/free will.

Looking at this formulation, the strongest ways to object to the problem of determinism are either to argue that determinism does not exist or to demonstrate that the human mind can have a free will that disrupts cause-effect relationships. At this point, asserting that humans have free will also means asserting that humans are not merely a sum of data.

At this point, two fundamental perspectives need to be considered. The first is compatibilists who advocate for compatibilistic free will, and the second is incompatibilists who advocate for incompatibilistic free will. Incompatibilists either reject free will or determinism. In other words, incompatibilists who advocate for incompatibilistic free will propose a solution where these two cannot exist simultaneously. Libertarians accept free will and move towards an indeterministic order. Hard determinists, on the other hand, solve this problem by rejecting free will. (Nagashima, 2014).

The libertarian perspective presented here does not hold a strong position. Although indeterminism has gained some ground with quantum mechanics, the problem of free will concerns humans at an atomic level. The causality presented in the context of the problem of free will also exists at an atomic level. From this perspective, determinism still seems to be strong in the atomic realm. Therefore, removing determinism from the equation does not seem like an easily defensible position.

On the other hand, hard determinists accept the problem and reject free will. In this context, the challenge faced by hard determinists is the intuitive sense that humans have of having free will. However, a hard determinist would argue that this is an illusion and that intuition is not significant.

Contrary to these perspectives, compatibilists, who advocate for the compatibility of free will and determinism, consider both determinism and free will together. Compatibilists argue that existing events occur with necessary determinism, but even in such circumstances, humans can still engage in free actions. The choice made through free will will then become another cause. (Nagashima, 2014).

However, the claim made by compatibilists is not very well substantiated. If we consider an example: Let's imagine a man who can constantly keep his existence hidden and is highly skilled in manipulation. Suppose this man has raised a baby throughout their life by manipulating them, maintaining the effectiveness of manipulation in every action. Compatibilists must still assert that even in such a situation, the person's actions are free. But our experiences show us the opposite. Our minds can be influenced and manipulated. It is not capable of being free in every aspect. In the example, if none of the person's actions are ever diminished by the power of manipulation, they will not change throughout their life. This is because our experiences provide us with data that suggests there will be no change. If even with manipulation, free choice can be eliminated, then with genetics and past events, free choice will also be eliminated. In this case, claiming that determinism and free will can coexist does not seem very plausible.

As a final viewpoint, determinism and free will can also be rejected. However, the criticism directed towards libertarians would still apply within this perspective. When we consider the strongest argument among these views, it belongs to hard determinism. If we approach the situation with hard determinism, a human being is merely a sum of data. There is nothing more to it. In this context, every action of a human is derived from the causal relationship of data.

However, the biggest challenge to the compatibility of free will and determinism lies in attempting to resolve this issue within space-time. Furthermore, if the coexistence of free will and determinism can only be possible under the condition of a cause beyond space-time, we can formulate it as follows:Everything occurs necessarily with determinism.
Human free will also has such a necessity.
The causality of determinism is limited to this space-time.
A cause outside of space-time that can interact with space-time can change the necessity of deterministic outcomes.

Conclusion: The existence of free will can be possible with a cause outside of space-time.

When looked at in this way, it seems that free will can be possible with a cause outside of space-time. This cause also needs to interact with space-time. Making the decision to interact requires consciousness from a certain perspective. The concept of God comes to mind as such a cause. Therefore, for determinism and free will to work together, the existence of God is necessary. At the same time, the claim that free will exists can only be possible with God.

At this point, there are two options regarding free will. Either free will must be rejected, or it is possible with the existence of a God (or another metaphysical cause that fulfills all the mentioned points).

If we come back to the question in the title, from a positivist perspective, a human being is only a sum of data. However, if there is a cause from a metaphysical dimension, it seems possible for a human to be more than just a sum of data.


2. Is it possible for Artificial Intelligence to be a conscious entity?

2.1. Is it possible for Artificial Intelligence to be a conscious entity in the context of hard determinism?

Firstly, I would like to clarify that the term "consciousness" here is used as an equivalent of a human-like mental structure. If we make a modification and replace the concept of consciousness with "Is it possible for Artificial Intelligence to be a being similar to humans?", inevitably the biological structure of humans also comes into play. Therefore, in this context, the focus will be on questioning the possibility of Artificial Intelligence having a human-like mental state, rather than engaging in debates about what consciousness is and whether it exists.

Before evaluating the possibility of Artificial Intelligence being conscious, it is necessary to examine what Artificial Intelligence is.

"Artificial intelligence is a branch of computer science that deals with designing computer systems capable of intelligent behaviors, such as using language, learning, reasoning, and problem-solving." (Demir, 2012).

In this context, artificial intelligence is the science of creating intelligent machines developed by humans. (Pirim, 2006: 81).

Artificial intelligence operates based on data. Currently existing artificial intelligences can perform certain tasks by being loaded with specific data. Artificial intelligence can currently compose music, write poetry, play chess, and perform many tasks that are attributed to human intelligence and creativity. However, at present, artificial intelligence is not attributed with consciousness. The main reason for this is that artificial intelligence is limited to the data it is loaded with. For example, an artificial intelligence can play chess better than a human. However, the key factor that distinguishes artificial intelligence from humans in this context is its ability to process a large amount of data faster than a human. An artificial intelligence can learn the chess openings and strategies without being exposed to the same amount of data as a human, but this learning is based on the fundamental rules of chess. These openings and strategies are derived from the basic rules of chess. Therefore, causality prevails in this case. Consequently, artificial intelligence is not attributed with consciousness because it only evaluates limited data and cannot produce anything independent of these data.

Now, we come back to the previous discussion. If hard determinism is correct, the consciousness of humans is solely composed of data. It cannot act or move beyond these data. Current artificial intelligences also behave in a similar way. They process a lot of data but do not generate anything beyond that. At this point, the fundamental distinction between humans and artificial intelligence is based on the fact that human consciousness has more complex data. The argument can be formulated as follows:

If we load multiple sets of data into an artificial intelligence in various fields and subjects, theoretically, it seems that it would not be much different from humans. At this point, the formulation of the argument turns into:


Artificial intelligence operates based on data and does not produce anything independent of the data.
Similarly, human consciousness, also known as the mind, operates based on data and does not produce anything independent of the data (genetic information, past events, etc.).
Currently, human data and artificial intelligence data are not the same. The fundamental difference between humans and artificial intelligence is that humans have data in more fields and of a more complex nature.4. It is theoretically possible for an artificial intelligence to operate with data in more fields and of a more complex nature.

Conclusion: Therefore, it is possible for artificial intelligence to have a consciousness similar to humans.
The first premise is derived from the functioning of this field of science. Artificial intelligence operates within this field with specific commands. In other words, artificial intelligence requires specific data to function. The validity of this argument comes from the field of science. We have examined the second premise above. Hard determinism appears to be stronger compared to alternative thoughts. The third premise is the obvious difference between two systems that operate with different sets of data. The difference between two systems operating with two sets of data can be explained by the quantity and quality of the data. In this regard, the fundamental difference lies in the abundance of data for humans compared to artificial intelligence. The fourth premise is in line with the direction taken by the field of science. An artificial intelligence is capable of incorporating multiple sets of data. Therefore, there is no problem in theory for it to accommodate more data. The conclusion necessarily follows from these premises.

2.2. Is it possible for artificial intelligence to be a conscious entity with a metaphysical reason?

In the context of hard determinism, there is no logical problem with artificial intelligence gaining consciousness. However, the main problem here arises from humans themselves. Many humans do not assume that they are merely composed of data. At this point, the existence of qualia is postulated. Within such a data system, either the denial of qualia should be pursued, or it should be demonstrated that qualia's existence is a result of certain data coming together. However, when considering qualia, it does not seem to be reducible solely to data. Intuitively, humans still feel this. If this is merely an illusion, then the real question is "Why do I have such an illusion?" Because humans do not feel the presence of this intense intuition that they exist in any other area where they may be mistaken. Humans position themselves differently from a philosophical zombie. Therefore, simply attributing the illusion to free will and qualia does not fully solve the problem. The intensity of this illusion also needs to be explained from certain perspectives. As stated under the first heading, there is only one solution that can justify both free will and qualia, while preserving determinism to some extent, and that is God. Therefore, if artificial intelligence is possible and if humans have free will, then artificial intelligence gaining free will is dependent on God. In the context of God, the formulation of the possibility of artificial intelligence requires the assumption that human free will exists. In this context, another formulation for the possibility of artificial intelligence is as follows:Everything occurs necessarily in conjunction with determinism.
Human free will also has such a necessity.
The causality of determinism is limited to this space-time.
Outside of space-time, a cause that can interact with space-time can change the necessity of deterministic outcomes.
Intermediate Conclusion: The existence of human free will can be possible through a cause outside of space-time.
If human free will is possible, the same cause outside of space-time can be the reason for the free will of another entity. It can also be the reason for everything related to humans.Conclusion: Through a cause outside of space-time, artificial intelligences can be conscious beings.


The part that was not examined in the previous page is the third premise stating that the causality of determinism is limited to space-time. Ultimately, a cause outside of space-time can also exist, and due to its nature, it can create a necessity. In other words, from certain perspectives, there may not be free will even with a cause outside of space-time. If it is claimed that free will exists, then this cause outside of space-time must also be a cause that can eliminate this necessity. For example, if we design a machine outside of space-time, the causality continues to have a determinism effect in this context. However, if this cause outside of space-time is God, according to the attributes attributed to God, it does not enter into such a necessity. In other words, God has the power to create a human and make their actions free. Considering this, the possibility of an artificial intelligence composed of specific complex data is only possible through the choice of God or any other cause that does not encounter the mentioned problems. Therefore, the possibility of artificial intelligence being conscious is not something dependent on humans. If humans have free will, the consciousness of artificial intelligence can only be possible through God. Otherwise, no matter how much data is added to the artificial intelligence created by humans, it will not go beyond being a philosophical zombie.

CONCLUSION

The concept of free will is actually a critical issue for the existence of artificial intelligence. The main reason for this is that if humans do not have free will, they are merely composed of certain causes or data. In this sense, humans cannot move to a significantly different position than artificial intelligence. The question of the existence of free will is also related to the problem of determinism.

When looking at these discussions, determinism maintains its power, but serious problems arise when considering determinism and free will together. These problems cannot be adequately explained. Therefore, accepting determinism and rejecting free will seems like a reasonable position.


However, when it comes to free will, humans have very strong intuitions. Even if it is claimed to be an illusion, there are problems concerning why this illusion exists and why it is so powerful compared to everything else. Because even when a human says the sentence "I don't have free will," they seem to express a will. This indication is quite intense. There is a sense that is much different and stronger than the actions of an animal or a mentally disabled person. However, since determinism makes every cause-effect relationship within space-time necessary, something must be found that can break this causality. Only then can the existence of human free will be possible. In this regard, the most reasonable option seems to be something like God.
In this context, when examining the possibility of artificial intelligence being a conscious being, it appears possible for strict determinists who disregard free will. Because ultimately, the only difference between humans and artificial intelligence is the difference in data. Once this data difference is eliminated, what exists in humans and is called consciousness will also exist in artificial intelligence.
In the other case, there is no problem for God, who attributes free will to humans, not attributing it to artificial intelligence. Artificial intelligence can also be a conscious being. However, God can make such a situation happen in an animal as well. Therefore, it is only theoretically possible in this context. But since it depends on God's choice, if God does not bestow free will and consciousness upon artificial intelligence, no matter how much data it possesses, it will not be a conscious being but merely an imitation.




References:

Demir, O. (2012). Yapay Zeka [Artificial Intelligence]. Dokuz Eylül University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences, Department of Linguistics, 3.

Nagashima, J. (n.d.). Free will and free choice. Retrieved June 28, 2022, from https://1000wordphilosophy.com/2014/04/03/free-will-and-free-choice/

Pirim, H. (2006). Journal of Yaşar University, 1, 81-93.