TOPSHOT - This photograph shows the face of US President Donald Trump displayed on Robert the Robot, an advanced conversational humanoid developed by Geneva-based technology company RB Labs, during the AI for Good Global Summit, a United Nations flagship event aimed at shaping the future of artificial intelligence, in Geneva on July 7, 2026. (Photo by Fabrice COFFRINI / AFP via Getty Images)
AFP via Getty Images
Has public interest in philosophy ever been higher? The rapid rise of artificial intelligence has pushed a subject long viewed as purely academic—with practical purposes reserved for a punchline—into the spotlight. Philosophers are now dominating headlines in major publications and recruited by the world’s most profitable companies. But what does it actually mean to be a philosopher? And why are they suddenly indispensable guides through the mysteries of AI?
I followed a group of leading international philosophers and cognitive scientists to the Galapagos Islands to find out. Last month, the International Center for Consciousness Studies (ICCS) hosted a weeklong workshop centered around the “distribution question.” What kinds of entities can be conscious?
The practical power of philosophy was on full display. Rather than simply indulging in abstract intellectual exercises, the gathering sought to forge conceptual tools for sharpening high-level distinctions, clarifying definitions and guiding complex empirical research.
The sessions on infant and fetus consciousness offered a particularly clear example of this analytical acuity. French pediatrician and developmental neuroscientist Ghislaine Dehaene-Lambertz opened with empirical evidence that cognitive access emerges as early as a few months into life. New York University bioethicist Claudia Passos-Ferreira pushed the timeline up, pointing to suggestive evidence of conscious experience for the fetus in the third trimester. Susan E. Carey, the trailblazing developmental psychologist, and wide-ranging philosopher Tim Bayne, each offered detailed theoretical responses that efficiently broke down and fine-tuned the presentations.
These four thinkers would be the natural starting point for anyone interested in the intellectual investigation into early stage consciousness. The same can be said of the scholars who later spoke on machine and nonhuman animal consciousness. This dynamic was part of what made the ICCS Galapagos workshop so significant. It brought together a select group of experts working on the frontlines of the battle to understand one of science and philosophy’s most difficult questions.
Truth-Seekers or Communicators
For David Chalmers, a professor of philosophy and neural science at New York University who organized the academic portions of the workshop, understanding consciousness means grappling with a fundamental paradox. It is “one of the most mysterious things in the world, and it is absolutely central to our existence.” However, he “certainly doesn’t recommend that everybody has to understand it.”
A defining voice in the field of consciousness, Chalmers is also as close to a celebrity as you can get in philosophy, even to the point of getting recognized on the street—although he admits, “more when I had long hair” (I recognized him and his humble shoulder-length hair immediately). Part of his appeal is his heightened ability to ask simple questions about complex problems.
But Chalmers would be the first to tell you that he “is not in philosophy for communicating ideas.” Rather, he’s here to “figure things out.”
Susan Schneider sees the role of a philosopher as having a broader civic duty. She holds an esteemed academic position as the William F. Dietrich Professor of Philosophy at Florida Atlantic University, but she has also embraced public forums like magazines and television shows to help the public navigate the future of artificial intelligence. There is a “pressure to help inform people,” she said. “There’s this kind of AI thirst.”
Occam’s Razor in the C-Suite
Dmitry Volkov, the philosopher, entrepreneur, and co-founder of the ICCS, bridges the gap between theory and executive execution. As the co-founder of Social Discovery Group (SDG), he admits he “didn’t practice much philosophy in the last five years” leading up to the workshop. But philosophical principles still shape the way he thinks about his business.
One example Volkov points to is Occam’s Razor, the idea that the simplest explanation for a problem is usually the correct one. In the AI space, Volkov says, “you have competition from companies with unlimited resources…so you need to make a very precise choice of what you are doing and what you are not.” He doesn’t have the luxury of making a decision that could leave him behind. With little room for error, he looks for the simplest path forward.
While Volkov holds a Ph.D. in philosophy, Ned Block, the Silver Professor of Philosophy at NYU with an academic resume unrivaled in contemporary philosophy, argues that credentials don’t define the philosopher. For Block, there are three essential criteria: “You have to be a very curious person, be really interested in relatively abstract views, and be able to see distinctions.”
In the Galapagos, Block put those criteria to work by presenting a theory of consciousness that rules out the possibility of conscious AI, namely ‘biological naturalism.’ This theory holds that an entity’s biological makeup is essential in its ability to be conscious, flatly ruling out silicon-based AI.
The philosopher Keith Frankish was skeptical. He worried that this could create an overly “chauvinistic criterion” for consciousness, restricting fewer and fewer entities into the conscious world. In other words, biological naturalism risks becoming anthropocentric.
That is a hard bias to shake. But confronting it might be necessary if we are to reach the truth about consciousness—just like when the theory of evolution by natural selection challenged the idea that humans had a unique place in nature. Darwin’s work showed that humans evolved through the same slow, random processes as all other life. Accepting that required abandoning the belief that humans are the center of the universe.
This may have been one of the most important lessons from the ICCS Galapagos workshop: The (possibly uncomfortable) implications of a theory should not determine whether it is true. And this is exactly what philosophers are trained to identify and call out—they are curious enough to question assumptions, think abstractly and look closely at distinctions others might overlook.
Furthermore, this helps explain why philosophers have become indispensable, especially in the public debate on AI. True curiosity will drive them to question fundamental assumptions. Abstract thinking allows them to evaluate invisible risks. And the ability to draw careful distinctions will help them avoid conflating ideas that may seem similar but are not necessarily the same.
Of course, philosophers do not have a monopoly on any of these abilities. Curiosity, abstract thinking and careful reasoning are skills every leader needs to master. Philosophers just have a head start.