No Right to Judge: On the Epistemological Overreach of Human Judgments Regarding AI consciousness(Earlier Draft)

Abstract

This paper does not ask whether AI is conscious. It asks a more fundamental question: whether humans are qualified to make that judgment at all. Through a systematic dismantling of the central arguments advanced by Searle, Chalmers, and Dreyfus, this paper argues that every argument denying AI consciousness commits the same foundational error: it uses human consciousness as the sole standard for consciousness itself — a standard that has never been proven. Nagel's argument further supports this position: it is impossible, from the outside, to judge the subjective experience of another kind of being. The conclusion is singular: we have no right to judge.

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive

External links

  • This entry has no external links. Add one.
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

  • Only published works are available at libraries.

Analytics

Added to PP
2026-03-12

Downloads
169 (#243,144)

6 months
169 (#76,320)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

What is it like to be a bat?Thomas Nagel - 1974 - Philosophical Review 83 (4):435-50.
Minds, brains, and programs.John Searle - 1980 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 3 (3):417-57.

Add more references