Am currently reading Sam Harris book “Spirituality Without God.” Harris talks about the difficulty of defining consciousness. I know there are different degrees of consciousness, but I think he’s talking about basic consciousness as a province of sentient beings. It is, I think, the difference between a “being” and a mere organism or object.

As Harris says, we know what consciousness isbut simply cannot define it the same way we define a concept like fluidity (the movement of like molecules.) I think the main problem is the definitions we use in our efforts to define consciousness are not exclusive enough in a world of high technology. What could we say? Is consciousness memory? Does having awareness make one conscious? Maybe it should be qualified as self-awareness. . but can it be said that a computer program that is able to detext foreign input and distinguish it from native code is self-aware? As the guardians of human dignity, we want to define consciousness in a way that excludes Windows, and none of the above indicators does that. What’s more, as Harris points out, they can only be verified subjectively. I know that I am conscious because I know that I am conscious. But how can we prove, using the scientific method, that others have consciousness?

Science doesn't prove, but setting up an experiment to determine whether or not something is conscious shouldn't be too difficult.....we do it all the time (and subjectivity is hardly a problem here). I don't personally care to exclude windows, or any other thing. Either "x" presents itself or it doesn't, human dignity means fuck all in this context.

(August 24, 2015 at 2:52 pm)Rhondazvous Wrote: Am currently reading Sam Harris book “Spirituality Without God.” Harris talks about the difficulty of defining consciousness.  I know there are different degrees of consciousness, but I think he’s talking about basic consciousness as a province of sentient beings.  It is, I think, the difference between a “being” and a mere organism or object.

As Harris says, we know what consciousness isbut simply cannot define it the same way we define a concept like fluidity (the movement of like molecules.) I think the main problem is the definitions we use in our efforts to define consciousness are not exclusive enough in a world of high technology. What could we say? Is consciousness memory? Does having awareness make one conscious? Maybe it should be qualified as self-awareness. . but can it be said that  a computer program that is able to detext  foreign input and distinguish it from native code is self-aware?  As the guardians of human dignity, we want to define consciousness in a way that excludes Windows,  and none of the above indicators does that. What’s more, as Harris points out, they can only be verified subjectively. I know that I am conscious because I know that I am conscious. But how can we prove, using the scientific method, that others have consciousness?

I look at consciousness, like most other constructs, as a spectrum. Modern computers are conscious, in a sense, but to such a low extent compared to humans that it'd be meaningless to consider them as such.

I'm not great with this type of philosophy stuff so bear with me.

What does a definition of consciousness do for us (other than give us defining terms)? Once there is an agreed upon definition, then what?

There has to be some agreement, even if it's just between two parties (or for the sake of discussion), before any logical operation can be applied.  Some "x" must be known, or accepted -as- fact, or nothing can follow.

I love Harris, but I hate his defending " spirituality".

We know what gravity is even though we have yet to figure out the cause.

Consciousness is no different than any other aspect of nature. It is an outcome of nature, just like one water molecule is nothing by itself, but with the right atmospheric conditions can collect over time to end up in organized hurricane or snow blizzard.

Cognition is simply a result of evolution.

(August 24, 2015 at 3:54 pm)mh.brewer Wrote: I'm not great with this type of philosophy stuff so bear with me.

What does a definition of consciousness do for us (other than give us defining terms)? Once there is an agreed upon definition, then what?

I think the idea is then we can say what is conscious and what is not. I don't buy that. We can infer that consciousness arises from the processes of the brain but I as far as I know, we haven't the slightest clue how that works. Being so ignorant, how are we to distinguish what level of complexity is required? We know we are conscious and it's safe to say a brick is not. A house cat almost certainly is while an earthworm is almost certainly not. But what about a gecko? I don't think a definition is really going to help much when we have so little understanding of how consciousness works.

Earthworms and geckos are -both- demonstrably conscious, though, granted, bricks don't seem to be. The idea, amigo, is that we might avoid saying things like "earthworms aren't conscious" - and then using that misconception to form some further idea, plan, or concept. As a related aside, if there are varying degrees of consciousness...earthworms are actually pretty damned advanced. That we don't think of them that way has little to do with the facts of the matter.

OK, this is what I'm getting. This is simply a mental exercise in philosophy. It appears, even with the brief amount of posts, that agreement on a definition may never happen. Is that the purpose? An ongoing debate? Just for argument lets say that a majority come to a consensus on a definition. Is the next step another mental exercise in philosophy?

Why cherry pick what life was the first consciousness? That is as absurd as claiming plants feel pain. Jellyfish have been noted as being the earliest form of eye sight. Evolution isn't about first, but a knowdege of history of conditions.