Sam Harris On Defining Consciousness

[Mudhammam]

Between a brick and a human brain, I think we might find ourselves in a sorites argument: Does one grain make a heap? Does 10? 20? 30? Etc.

[vorlon13]

My definition:

possessing the will to annoy

[abaris]

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

What do you think it does? It's aware on some level, otherwise it wouldn't survive. And that's what consciousness ultimately is. Awarness, that helps any species to navigate it's environment and to survive in that environment. Why Harris should feel the need to embelish that simple fact with some kind of spirituality is beyond me. But I've long given up on the question why Harris feels the need to make any of his claims other than for the greater glory of Harris.

[brewer]

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?

You changed defining to understanding. I've got no issue with understanding. I agree that increasing our knowledge of the conscious mind can and does provide practical benefits. .

From the posts I assumed that this was a discussion of defining when an organism is thought to have consciousness. Or we get to a definition and then we are able to say that one conscious, that one not. I'm still not sure what defining gets you outside that point.

You used gravity. Here is the first definition that came up on google search: "the force that attracts a body toward the center of the earth, or toward any other physical body having mass". So what did that get me, not much. I can say what has gravity and what does not. But the study/understanding of the effects of gravity, Newtons Laws, that gave us much.

So traffic management, law enforcement, education, mental health, cognitive impairment, how does a definition impact these areas? Now, how does understanding impact these areas?

[Rhondazvous]

I think what scientists want to be able to do is say a + b + c = consciousness. Isn't that what science does, reduce the phenomenal world into an algebraic equation so that it can be demonstrated, repeated and duplicated by anyone who can manipulate the elements on the left of the equal sign?

[The Grand Nudger]

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?

You changed defining to understanding. I've got no issue with understanding. I agree that increasing our knowledge of the conscious mind can and does provide practical benefits. .

From the posts I assumed that this was a discussion of defining when an organism is thought to have consciousness. Or we get to a definition and then we are able to say that one conscious, that one not. I'm still not sure what defining gets you outside that point.

You used gravity. Here is the first definition that came up on google search: "the force that attracts a body toward the center of the earth, or toward any other physical body having mass". So what did that get me, not much. I can say what has gravity and what does not. But the study/understanding of the effects of gravity, Newtons Laws, that gave us much.

So traffic management, law enforcement, education, mental health, cognitive impairment, how does a definition impact these areas? Now, how does understanding impact these areas?

We already went over this, without a definition no logical operation can be performed.  No operation, no knowledge.  No knowledge, no understanding. Simply by learning how to define consciousness we will have to investigate, we will have to learn more. Even the definition brings knowledge. Even that definition of gravity is filled with knowledge. It tells you what the force does, and a rudimentary explanation of the how. Understanding -only that- you can make gravity do work (just as we've made our consciousness do work, and done work -to- our consciousness with our own rudimentary understanding of it).

-At the very least, a definition would grant the knowledge of just wtf we're all talking about when we use the term in conversation - even if the definition is, itself, non-factual, we'll at least understand what the other is trying to say.......which might be important, lol.

@Rhonda- Science is more the explaining arm, engineering is the manipulating arm. I'd say what science does is offer an explanation. What use that explanation is, what manipulation can be achieved, is generally left to other pursuits - and science moves on to the next thing that needs an explanation (or to re-assessing it's current explanations).

[brewer]

So, without a working definition we can't study consciousness, OK. I'm out.

[The Grand Nudger]

We can't even know what we're talking about between us, without -some- definition.  If we were both using the term "tuna" to describe two entirely different things, how productive do you think our conversations would be?

-What if this sentence didn't actually mean as it reads?

In any case, there is a working definition of consciousness. The state of being aware, either of ones environment or ones self. We test examples against that definition by response. If we observe a response to enviromental stimuli we posit that the example is aware, that it is conscious, but we have greater requirements for -self- awareness. Even greater still for sentience.

A worm is aware, a magpie is self aware, human beings are self aware and sentient. This is by no means all inclusive or set in stone, simply a description of the field as we currently see it.

[Little lunch]

The only way you can tell whether something is worth evaluating or not is to evaluate it.
Once we understand consciousness, then we can determine whether the whole endeavour was a waste of time or not.

I wonder how linked consciousness and free will are.
I'm thinking that if free will is an illusion then so is consciousness.

[Little lunch]

So when I think, 'I am conscious', I am really just reacting to a complex set of stimuli, the same as a plant turning to face the sun...maybe. :-)