Sam Harris On Defining Consciousness

[Foxaèr]

Reasoning without the tools of philosophy is like observing without the tools of science.

Ummm, no.

Reasoning is done without philosophy as observing is done with eyes.

[Mudhammam]

Reasoning without the tools of philosophy is like observing without the tools of science.

Ummm, no.

Reasoning is done without philosophy as observing is done with eyes.

Oh I see, you're like a theist who wants to argue with the dictionary definition of atheism. Want to get back to me after you educate yourself on the terms philosophy is most widely thought synonymous with?
Here's a few places to start
https://www.google.com/search?safe=off&s...definition

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/philosophy

http://i.word.com/idictionary/philosophy

Notice if you can find anything in common with the various definitions. I'm sure you can do it.

[robvalue]

I think consciousness is the most slippery of eels. We only experience it through itself.

I say "we"; I do. Maybe. It's the barrier between whatever I am (or am not) and whatever may or may not be real. Whatever "real" means. I can never have my consciousness independently verified.

I hear other people say they experience the same as me, but naively I find myself asking "where" is their consciousness. Of course I know this is the wrong question. More apt is how can I ever know that something else experiences consciousness like I do? I think the answer is again that I can't. All we can do (me and all you figments of my delusion) is to try and agree on a definition and go with it.

So, are plants deemed to be conscious? They clearly respond to stimuli. It does seem that knowing where to stop is the key to defining consciousness. A pebble still "responds to stimuli" in as much as it moves when I kick it. So is it about creating changes in forces? The pebble doesn't change what forces it is imposing when I kick it, but a plant does (even if it's something as small as leaning to get more sunlight).

Hmm. Maybe the difference is between reacting and adapting. Plants adapt to their surroundings, conscious beings react. What's the difference? Response times, maybe?

I also recently got a little fuzzy on what exactly the difference between an animal and a plant is. I was told some animals, crustacean type things like mussels or something, don't have a central nervous system or a brain. I haven't checked out how true that is yet.

[bennyboy]

I think people confuse definitions for labels, or even deliberately equivocate between them.

For me, consciousness is that "whatever it is" that happens when I wake up in the morning. I have thoughts, I see red as red, I experience sound and other sensation, but beyond that there's nothing I can say without begging the question or making unfounded (read "pragmatic") assumptions. So as a LABEL, consciousness works fine. As a definition, it is almost meaningless.

I'd also like to point out that we immediately have a circle, in that you must be conscious (whatever that is) to define or label consciousness. Identifying physical rules, the brain, correlates between brain function and reproted experience, etc. really doesn't do much to save us from that initial circle-- it only serves to expand it or convolute it past the ability of the mind to follow all those convolutions, necessitating philosophical milestones which are after all just assumptions first called "pragmatic" and then "obvious."

Let's go straight to physicalism, i.e. the brain as consciousness. We have a rich experience of things, of the interaction among things, of human behavior, of the brain (at least indirectly), etc. But none of it, absolutely none of it, has been perceived, labeled or defined outside the framework of a conscious mind. We take all those ideas to represent an objective reality, and once that bastion has been established as unchallengeable (or challenged only by fools), then we can confidently foray into purely objective observations AS THOUGH they represent observations of conciousness.

[The Grand Nudger]

What happens in the morning when you wake up is thought to be more than just consciousness Benny.  You are not just conscious, but also self-conscious, and sentient.  We don;t have any reason to accept that everything which is conscious shares any significant portion of -your- experience when waking. Waking up in the morning as an earthworm is, presumably, a bit different than waking up as Benny - and that makes your label less than useful, in that it is vague and immediately runs up against demonstrable observations of the thing we hope to explain. The definition of consciousness as the state of being aware is something tangible, which we can at least provide a suitable test of and demonstration for expecting some uniformity in results along predictable lines. "Whatever it is that happens when I wake up" is not in that place....you know what happens when I wake up? I take a shit (and shortly thereafter the sun rises, you're welcome for that btw, yet another service I provide). So, is taking a shit or causing the sun to rise what you mean by conscious? Somehow I doubt it.

As to your idea of what constitutes a circle, we acknowledge and recognize the limitations and possible routes for error that our consciousness imparts upon us, at least those we can id - and we also accept that there may be more that we do not. We have terms for them, but it's simply not possible for us to assess these things -or anything- in any other way, an impossible condition to overcome. In any case, if you have a problem with using our minds to seek knowledge here you should have a problem with using our minds to seek knowledge regarding -everything-.....including the comments you just made, regarding said circles. It's now scorched earth, which I don't think is your intention.

You see, these rules of inference youre leveraging and hinting towards are equally grounded in those convolutions and unfounded assumptions as anything else, they are simply observations made by conscious agents as to how the universe appears to behave, what implicational relationships statements or declarations of truth have in this, perceived, universe......and why would we accept that they represent some objective reality while simultaneously extending doubt or suspicion on things in precisely the same predicament? Are you using some -other- apparatus than your consciousness (however achieved) to perceive, label, and define? Got aftermarket parts in that case? Of course not. You're -in- that bastion, commenting -from- that bastion by -use- of that bastion on the folly of others. If it's unfounded or groundless to accept what they've offered, it's unfounded and groundless to accept what you've offered...for precisely the same reason, though that reason isn't much of a reason at all (nor is any reason), since reason is in that bastion as well.........as you so astutely stated when you described the status of everything we percieve...but...then again, all of that is in that bastion too........so perhaps your groundless and unfounded reasons are not really reasons for non-reasons? Or perhaps they aren't reasons because of non-reasons but -still- accurate? Gee, how can I decide anymore? If I accept that you're right (regardless of whether or not you are), that your concerns are valid, I'd have to conclude that you and your concerns were equally as wrong as what those concerns were leveraged at, that they were not valid (but also that validity itself was a groundless and unfounded assumption). I'm not sure it's the sort of thing I can parse if I follow it through, obviously I don't think that you have, here you are offering those concerns after all, I assume you perceive them to be valid or true, accurate in some sense.

[Rhondazvous]

Hi Rhonda.

I didn't know if I wanted to insert myself and my opinions into this thread in the beginning. That's why I began with all of the questions. My opting out of the discussion was because I came to the conclusion that, after repeated questions and responses and other posts, I had nothing further to add to "Defining Consciousness". It had nothing to do with yours, mine or anyone other participants intelligence or the worthiness of the topic. Each person here has their right to discuss what ever they want and to their opinion, view and position. I can either choose to accept it (in part or whole) or not.

The written word is not my preferred form of communication. Also, I'm not much for debate. Debate is more often than not win/loose and adversarial. I am willing to discuss as along as both/other positions are accepted. I didn't feel that was happening. It felt like debate.

So, I've had some time to think about this thread. I'll give my position/opinion and then step out again. I don't think we are anywhere close in our investigation, study, attempts at interpretation and understanding to formulate a definition of consciousness. At least not for the purposes here. To come up with a definition prior to study and observation is, as far as I'm concerned, putting the cart before the horse. Google the definition of definition. You'll find words like exact, definite, fixed, essential. At this stage of understanding I believe it would be exceedingly arrogant to think that we could define consciousness. I believe a more correct term would be theory or hypothesis. Those are more open to additional testing, observation, experimenting and change where "Definition" is not.

I do not accept the position that we need to have a definition to gain knowledge or understanding. Here are some examples why: Converting iron into steel. We did not define steel prior to attempts to understand, experiment or investigate the process for making it. The definition came after. I believe the same for gravity. Newton did not start with defining. He started with observation, investigation and study. Gunpowder. The experimenting, testing and understanding came first (use some of this white rock, with some of this yellow rock and some charcoal hopefully in the right amount). Then the definition, combining in the correct ratio sulfur, potassium nitrate and carbon to create an explosion when ignition is applied.

With all this being said I'll now bow out of this thread. I'll still continue to follow. I'm not sure I'll contribute anything additional.

I understand what you mean and find myself feeling the same way. I hadn’t started this thread as fodder for debate and am somewhat dismayed by the turn it has taken. At certain points it feels like a scene from a Tyler Perry movie with folks calling each other idiots and what not. I don't want to accuse anybody of anything. That was just the dynamics we fell into.

You and I seem to be on the same page if I just dispense with the word “definition.” I used it to mean knowing what something is as opposed to what it’s not or what isn’t it. Yet. When I think about it, it’s more than that. There are other words like patriotism, love, humor, that we know what they are without being able to define them in precise words. Wars have been started over people insisting on a universal definition of the ineffable.

Maybe we can be done with the bickering and ad hominem. Unless we have any neurosurgeons in the house, we are limited in how much experimenting we can do, but we can share what we’ve read and explore ideas. That’s why I started this thread.

[brewer]

Hey Rhonda. I'm OK with that, this thread and you/others.

Maybe it's that the topic is so vast. The posts are all over the place and it feels like a disjointed discussion. Bricks, worms, mollusks, reflex action, wake vs sleep, reason, science, philosophy......... I'm a little surprised that someone hasn't put forth dreaming. It may take a whole different tone/shape/form if the discussion had some limiting parameters. Just a thought.

[The Grand Nudger]

Oh idk Rhonda, we all have this consciousness business, that's not limited to neurosurgeons, and ultimately when neurosurgeons are done poking and prodding with what they have that we do not, all of that gets parsed by equipment that we all share, and it's not really the poking and the prodding which provides the knowledge - even for them.  

Definitions are, as you've said, subject to personal interpretation.  My patriotism may not be yours, etc etc.  That's why they're important though, in attempting to create a situation in which we're all discussing the same thing when we use the same words, eh?  In the end, I suppose, provided that we explain what it is we mean when -we- use a term, that someone else uses a different term for that, or the same term for a different thing isn't insurmountable.  After all, I don't use the same word for blue as a spanish speaker.  I think the desire to create a standard definition of something is just a way to reduce those small mishaps in communication that occur where ambiguity is present, and those larger misapprehensions that might follow from a seemingly tiny miscommunication, not just when different words are used, or different languages...it can happen when a person uses the same words to the same effect, in the same language.

Consider the follwing:
Jane is having her kids for dinner.

Based upon this statement, does Jane have a close relationship with her children......or is Jane a cannibal?

[Whateverist]

For what it might be worth I also see consciousness as a continuum. But I only expect to find it in multicellular animals. A jellyfish or a daisy might have something that also falls on the continuum but the trail grows colder in that direction. A fascinating question is how did it ever come to pass that a colony style multicellular creature such as a jellyfish ever evolved a central nervous system. Naturally I assume it happened without a designer, but being soft celled creatures we're highly unlikely to find any transitional forms unless, like jellyfish themselves, they are still alive and well somewhere.

Looks like the devil may indeed be in the details. In my discussion with Rhythm I was only thinking of consciousness as we experience it as humans. If we're going to split that up into our sentience, self-awareness, sapience and bare-bones consciousness then .. never mind.

However I don't withdraw the idiocy remark. The one thing of which I am certain is that anyone who calls me an idiot is mistaken in the way only a true idiot can be mistaken. As an atheist I don't turn any cheeks.

[The Grand Nudger]

LOL, lost my post to a 502, oh well.  It is interesting to wonder how a CNA might evolve, though it may not actually be all that difficult for one to arise.  You can end up with a computer out of toilet paper rolls, so it doesn't take anything exotic for a machine to do logic.  I suspect that it's not significantly more difficult to arrive at an organism capable of doing logic.  In the case of Jellys, they have a ring cna (but also a much more extensive net architecture), fundamentally different than our own...so it must be simple enough that it happened not once, but at least twice. Or, taking the longer view, that both widely dissimilar structures are built atop a simpler shared unit.