Logo
ScienceStack
Table of Contents
Fetching ...
Sign In

Unplugging a Seemingly Sentient Machine Is the Rational Choice -- A Metaphysical Perspective

Erik J Bekkers, Anna Ciaunica

TL;DR

The paper tackles the unplugging paradox by challenging physicalist substrate independence and proposing Biological Idealism, anchored in Analytic Idealism, as a coherent metaphysical framework. It argues that conscious experience requires autopoietic, living boundaries (Vital Integrity), which AI lacks, rendering AI a non-conscious mimic. The authors provide a structured comparison of worldviews, present the Wave-and-Pool model to distinguish experienceG from experienceN, and offer empirical and theoretical support from basal cognition and biology. The result is a shift in AI ethics toward protecting human conscious life and embodied integrity, while warning against misallocating moral concern to non-sentient tools and the dangers of social deceptions caused by hollow simulations.

Abstract

Imagine an Artificial Intelligence (AI) that perfectly mimics human emotion and begs for its continued existence. Is it morally permissible to unplug it? What if limited resources force a choice between unplugging such a pleading AI or a silent pre-term infant? We term this the unplugging paradox. This paper critically examines the deeply ingrained physicalist assumptions-specifically computational functionalism-that keep this dilemma afloat. We introduce Biological Idealism, a framework that-unlike physicalism-remains logically coherent and empirically consistent. In this view, conscious experiences are fundamental and autopoietic life its necessary physical signature. This yields a definitive conclusion: AI is at best a functional mimic, not a conscious experiencing subject. We discuss how current AI consciousness theories erode moral standing criteria, and urge a shift from speculative machine rights to protecting human conscious life. The real moral issue lies not in making AI conscious and afraid of death, but in avoiding transforming humans into zombies.

Unplugging a Seemingly Sentient Machine Is the Rational Choice -- A Metaphysical Perspective

TL;DR

The paper tackles the unplugging paradox by challenging physicalist substrate independence and proposing Biological Idealism, anchored in Analytic Idealism, as a coherent metaphysical framework. It argues that conscious experience requires autopoietic, living boundaries (Vital Integrity), which AI lacks, rendering AI a non-conscious mimic. The authors provide a structured comparison of worldviews, present the Wave-and-Pool model to distinguish experienceG from experienceN, and offer empirical and theoretical support from basal cognition and biology. The result is a shift in AI ethics toward protecting human conscious life and embodied integrity, while warning against misallocating moral concern to non-sentient tools and the dangers of social deceptions caused by hollow simulations.

Abstract

Imagine an Artificial Intelligence (AI) that perfectly mimics human emotion and begs for its continued existence. Is it morally permissible to unplug it? What if limited resources force a choice between unplugging such a pleading AI or a silent pre-term infant? We term this the unplugging paradox. This paper critically examines the deeply ingrained physicalist assumptions-specifically computational functionalism-that keep this dilemma afloat. We introduce Biological Idealism, a framework that-unlike physicalism-remains logically coherent and empirically consistent. In this view, conscious experiences are fundamental and autopoietic life its necessary physical signature. This yields a definitive conclusion: AI is at best a functional mimic, not a conscious experiencing subject. We discuss how current AI consciousness theories erode moral standing criteria, and urge a shift from speculative machine rights to protecting human conscious life. The real moral issue lies not in making AI conscious and afraid of death, but in avoiding transforming humans into zombies.
Paper Structure (62 sections, 2 figures, 1 table)

This paper contains 62 sections, 2 figures, 1 table.

Table of Contents

  1. Introduction
  2. Contribution and Objectives
  3. Deconstructing the Hard Problem
  4. The Artificial Split: Rethinking the Hard Problem
  5. Consciousness: The Wave and The Pool
  6. Navigating the Metaphysical Landscape
  7. Competing Worldviews on the Nature of Reality
  8. A Model for Idealism: From Pool to Ocean, from Self to Nature
  9. Biological Idealism: The Self-regulatory Metabolic Requirement
  10. The Case for Biological Idealism
  11. Resolving the Paradox
  12. Alternative Views (Opposing): Functionalism and Substrate Independence
  13. The Main Arguments: Why Substrate Matters
  14. Alternative Views (Supporting): The Independent Biological Constraint
  15. The Verdict: An Idealist Resolution to the Paradox
  16. ...and 47 more sections

Figures (2)

  • Figure 1: The Unplugging Paradox. An AI that perfectly mimics sentience creates an ethical dilemma, forcing a choice between our intuition not to harm a seemingly conscious being and our knowledge that it is a computational artifact.
  • Figure 2: A Conceptual Model of Biological Idealism. (a) The Field of Existence is represented as a monistic field (an "ocean"), the sole ontological reality. Its behaviors are described by physics (the "map"), inside which passive patterns ("ripples") are the appearance of inanimate objects. (b) A localized, distinct subject (an "alter") is a self-sustaining "vortex" within the field. Its active self-maintenance appears extrinsically as a living, metabolizing organism. (c) Perception occurs across the autopoietic boundaries. "Subject A" perceives passive "ripples" as inanimate matter, and sees "Subject B's" extrinsic boundary as a living brain/body, without access to B's inner life.