I think that you're essentially asking what practical benefit knowledge brings MH.  You could ask that about anything, it needn't be consciousness. You could probably answer that question yourself, of course. Ultimately, an agreement as to defininition facilitates communication (in fact it's just about required...that's how language works) - and here again, you could answer the question of practical benefit, of "the next step" without any input from anyone else.

(August 24, 2015 at 4:36 pm)Rhythm Wrote: 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.

That's news to me. I'd love to see someone demonstrate that an earthworm is conscious.

Go dig one up and see what it does. Just as you don't actually have to understand -how- a telephone works in order to determine that it -does- work, you don't have to understand -how- a worms (or any) consciousness works to see that it -does- work.

Part of the difficulty in understanding consciousness is that it must take itself for granted. Everything we think we know about the world is perceived and abstracted through our own individual human consciousness, so getting a full grasp on the thing itself - which is the ground for all else as far as knowledge goes - is seemingly impossible. It makes sense to imagine that the world of sense filtered by our subjective experiences in some fashion reflects an objective reality, and thus far science is the best method for constructing an understanding of that reality. But how does one construct an objective framework of a phenomenon that is by its very nature necessarily subjective? It is the thing itself that permits and guides discovery of the thing, so how can we know when it is that we've understood it as itself?

In this discussion on this topic and at this point I see no practical benefit.

Quote:It is the thing itself that permits and guides discovery of the thing, so how can we know when it is that we've understood it as itself?

No more (or less) a problem for consciousness than it is for gravity, or even the thoughts you just expressed.

The greeks saw little benefit in steam engines, they used them as toys Brewer. The chinese failed to recognize the full utility of gunpowder...use your imagination, what might you be able to do if you had a better understanding of consciousness? Perhaps you could manage the flow of traffic - prevent crime, hell, design a better mousetrap....?  

(August 24, 2015 at 5:09 pm)Rhythm Wrote:

Quote:It is the thing itself that permits and guides discovery of the thing, so how can we know when it is that we've understood it as itself?

No more (or less) a problem for consciousness than it is for gravity, or even the thoughts you just expressed.

The greeks saw little benefit in steam engines, they used them as toys Brewer.  The chinese failed to recognize the full utility of gunpowder... 

OK, you gave me two physical examples and I agree, these small beginnings evolved into practical end points. This is not a physical example (or it doesn't appear so to me). So, educate me. What do you see/imagine an agreed definition evolving into? Or is it until we come to the definition we'll never know and therefore the debate is justified?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not dissing the debate. Because I didn't understand I wasn't sure I wanted to partake.

Late edit but I gave a couple of my favorites.  Understanding consciousness would allow us to better manage a wide range of situations.  Consciousness is a matter of awareness and response.  Traffic management, law enforcement, education, mental health, cognitive impairment........or just more amusing toys, more comforting blankets......use your imagination (also, presumably, an issue touched upon by consciousness...lol).

Everything we can observe about consciousness strongly suggests that it -is- a "physical example", btw, and so too would be anything designed to interface with it. That something is doing something to something...and the effect presented is called, by us, "consciousness". That we might be able to mix a cocktail of chemical substances, for example, to modify or repair it (or enhance it), as we already do. Better pills, who wouldn't like some better pills, eh?

(August 24, 2015 at 5:02 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Go dig one up and see what it does.  Just as you don't actually have to understand -how- a telephone works in order to determine that it -does- work, you don't have to understand -how- a worms (or any) consciousness works to see that it -does- work.

Now I see why Harris wants to define consciousness. Rhythm obviously doesn't define it the way I do.

An earthworm is autonomous. It responds to stimuli. But does it have an awareness that it even exists? I have a hard time seeing how given that its brain is extremely simple as brains go. Scientists have mapped the entire thing. It's considerably less complex than my computer's CPU.

Self awareness and consciousness are not interchangeable.  An organism can be conscious, but not -self- aware.  Though all organisms which are self aware are, by default, conscious.  Of course, thats ignoring the elphant you just snuck in the door.....are you -not- autonomous.....? Either way you would go...what would that have to do with awareness or self awareness? Is there something about being autonomous that prevents awareness, or even self awareness? What might that be? Autonomy is an issue of determination, not awareness.



I'm willing to call an earthworm less complex, or even less conscious than your computer (at least for the purpose of this discussion). It's still, however, conscious....so what does that make your computer? That, imo, is why theres a push to define (or more appropriately, redefine) consciousness, we've reached a boundary condition we're uncomfortable with. Whereby we consider one thing to be conscious, and another not so...despite it satisfying the same conditions - or an even greater set of conditions, as the example of your comps cpu and an earth worm shows us.