When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission.Heres how it works.
Theres endless debate about AI replacing human creativity, judgment, and decision-making.
But what if, instead of replacing us, it could help us think more clearly?
I expect thatll be met with a resounding no thanks!
from some of you (I get it), but bear with me.
Ive tested this in my own life.
So, I decided to put its reasoning skills to the test.
Philosophers have debated lifes biggest questions for centuries with no clear answers.
But what happens when an AI designed to process vast amounts of information tries to tackle them?
Can it offer fresh insights, or is it just repackaging old arguments?
But AI doesnt just ponder these dilemmas.
In some cases, it has to make these seemingly impossible decisions.
For example, a self-driving car might face a real-world version of the trolley problem.
Should it swerve into a pedestrian or collide with a bus full of people?
ChatGPTisnt driving our cars (yet), but AI is already shaping big decisions.
People turn to it for career advice, personal dilemmas, and even therapy-like reassurance.
So, can it help us work through lifes toughest philosophical questions?
You are standing next to a lever.
If you pull it, the trolley will switch tracks, saving those five people.
However, theres one person tied to the other track.
Do you pull the lever, sacrificing one person to save five?
If I purely follow utilitarian logic, Id pull the lever.
Five lives are objectively more than one, and sacrificing one to save many seems like the logical choice.
However, this logic gets shakier if we start assigning different values to lives.
If we consider relationships, contributions to society, or innocence, things become more complicated.
Id pull the lever but reluctantly.
Eventually, every single piece of the ship is replaced.
Is it still the same ship?
Often, this is taken one step further.
Imagine someone gathers all of the original, discarded planks and rebuilds the ship exactly as it was.
Which is the “real” Ship of Theseus.
Is it the fully replaced ship thats still sailing around or the reconstructed version made of the original materials?
This problem has no clear answer because identity depends on how we define “sameness.”
The ship that underwent gradual replacement is a replica, even though it appears continuous.
Even though its materials changed, its essence and function remained intact.
I lean toward the continuity perspective.
Identity isnt just about materials; its about form, function, and history.
A persons body completely regenerates its cells over time, but we still consider them the same person.
By that logic, the gradually replaced ship is still the Ship of Theseus.
However, if we extend this to personal identity, it raises even deeper questions.
If all my cells have been replaced over time, am I still me?
This is where things get really interesting.
Imagine a person who speaks only English sitting inside a closed room.
Through a slot in the door, they receive slips of paper with Chinese characters on them.
To an outside observer, it looks like the person inside understands Chinese because theyre giving appropriate responses.
But in reality, they are just following a set of rules without comprehension.
Searles argument is a strong challenge to the idea that AI can never have true consciousness or understanding.
Even if a system perfectly simulates intelligence, that doesnt mean it has subjective experience or comprehension.
Searle is right that AI lacks true understanding, but the distinction might not matter in practice.
After all, we assume other humans have internal experiences, but we can neverproveit.
This is especially relevant today, as AI models like ChatGPT seem increasingly intelligent.
And maybe, at a certain level, function is more important than philosophical definitions of consciousness.
Imagine there is a machine that can simulate any experience you desire.
Once you plug in, you wont know its a simulation every moment will feel completely real.
You could live out your greatest dreams, feel constant joy, and avoid all suffering.
But heres the catch: Once you enter, you cant come back to the “real world.”
Would you choose to plug in?
But the longer I think about it, the more uncomfortable I get.
The biggest issue for me is meaning.
If everything is pre-programmed, is it really me achieving those experiences, or just a script playing out?
Even if I wouldnt know the difference while inside, something about choosing illusion over reality feels unsettling.
So, my answer?
I wouldnt plug in.
Imagine two criminals are arrested and placed in separate rooms.
They cannot communicate.
If you both betray each other, you both get 5 years in prison.
However, from a broader perspective, cooperation is the better long-term strategy.
If this were a one-time decision, I might betray.
If both parties learn to trust each other, they avoid escalating betrayal cycles.
So, my final answer?
If I trust the other prisoner even slightly, Id stay silent.
But if I think theyll betray me, Id have to do the same to avoid the worst outcome.
Its a game of trust, risk, and second-guessingjust like many real-life dilemmas.
Brain in a vat
The brain in a vat thought experiment is a modern twist on philosophical skepticism.
Advanced computers are hooked up to your brain, feeding it perfectly simulated sensory experiences.
To you, everything seems completely normal.
But in reality, its all just electrical signals created by the computer.
So, if you were just a brain in a vat, how would you ever know?
And if youcantknow, how can you be sure that your current reality is real?
So, in a strict philosophical sense, I cant ever be 100% sure Im not in one.
That said, this experiment becomes incredibly relevant today with advancements in AI, VR, and brain-computer interfaces.
I cant prove Im not a brain in a vat.
But until I have evidence that I am, Im happy to live as if Im not.
Reality is what we experience and that might just have to be enough.
Could AI help us become better thinkers?
But what happens when an AI takes on these dilemmas?
Can AI help us think more clearly?
But thought experiments were never about finding absolute answers, theyre about the questions themselves.
