Sam Harris On Defining Consciousness

[Angrboda]

I don't think it's necessarily the case that being aware implies being conscious.  Consciousness is, if nothing else, a bundle of functions that creates a construct which in humans we call the conscious mind.   This is to deny that our perceptions just pipe themselves to an aware center; that center is an illusion created by the construct.  What ties it all together then?  We don't currently know, but I think it would be a mistake to conclude that animals that behave as though they are aware are necessarily conscious.  I suspect that consciousness is a specific set of behaviors that arose after the ability to be aware of one's environment and respond to it.

I think that it does, though, obviously I don't think that response implies self awareness or anything even remotely close to human consciousness.  I think that if we explored the idea that response does not imply awareness, for example, you'd have to make staggering number of special considerations - similarly, that awareness does not imply consciousness.  Perhaps you're right, it would be unfortunate for knowledge if you were, though, imo...lol.  I think that maybe you have greater requirements for consciousness that we don't share (and whatever it is you call the bar for consciousness I probably have a different term in mind for, but a similar idea).  I'm willing to accept that awareness is the bare minimum.  If something is aware, if it presents an effect which we attribute to awareness, I'll call it conscious - though that doesn't really move the chains very far for me.

In the phenomena of blind-sight, people can be aware of stimulus in their visual field without being conscious of seeing something. I think this is a strong indication that there is a disconnect between consciousness and simply being aware. Another example where there appears to be awareness without consciousness is the alien hand syndrome in which one's off hand acts as if it had a mind of its own. And perhaps it does. What there is little evidence of as yet however is the idea that it has a consciousness of its own. It appears entirely possible to be aware without being conscious. Other examples include sleep walking and split brain subjects. I think there is sufficient evidence to posit that consciousness is something other than simple awareness. Humans are aware, but only when consciousness directs its attention towards something. Aside from that, we are aware without being conscious of what we are aware of. A phenomenon amply demonstrated by change blindness.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VkrrVozZR2c

[The Grand Nudger]

I think you're using the term consciousness or awareness where I would use the term self consciousness or self awareness, Jorg (but also in cases that I would use other terms like sapience - consciousness seems to mean -much- more to you than it does to me). As in a hand "with a mind of it's own", that's an explicit statement of identity. That a structure like a hand could present the effect we might attribute to awareness shouldn't be surprising, organisms simpler than our hands seem to be conscious, aware - even those we don't presume them to be self conscious, or self aware. That;s why I find the distinction useful. Response, imo, implies awareness of environment, but not, necessarrily, awareness of self, and certainly nothing as concentrated or singular as an individual mind, whether it's own or some other "x".

[Rhondazvous]

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.

We might answer that question in terms of natural selection. Organisms with a central nervous system are better able to detect and avoid dangers within their immediate vicinity.

You are looking at two different kinds (or levels if you prefer) of consciousness, or as you said, consciousness on a continuum. 1. the ability to respond to external or internal stimuli. 2. the cognition of one's own existence. The first is demonstrable under laboratory conditions But is there a difference between a human who says "I know that I exist" and a computer that's programmed to say the same thing?

If we agree to use one or the other of these two, that will go a long way in keeping the discussion focused and helping us know we are on the same page in the way we are using the word. I think wheteverist is using the second one and so am I.

[robvalue]

Why does Sam Harris get to define consciousness? He's just another figment of my delusion seeking attention.

I'm still unsure about whether plants have consciousness. I'm sure they have something; whether it is classed as the same thing as consciousness produced by a brain, I don't know.

[The Grand Nudger]

Well, there's another option, that it -is- classified as consciousness but is -also- very different from what is provided/produced/facilitated/manifested by a human brain. In the same way that both birds and bugs fly, despite obvious differences in the mechanisms between two representatives.

[Rhondazvous]

True, an organism with a brain will be higher up on the evolutionary scale than an organism that merely has a central nervous system. Just like when my father was in the hospital, the doctors said he was brain dead, but I felt him squeeze my hand and he moved his arm. The body was still capable of responding to stimulation but the stimulation was not sent to the brain and processed. There was no thought behind the movement.

[The Grand Nudger]

I'd caution against conceptualizing it as "higher" up some evolutionary ladder.  You'd make for a positively retarded sunflower (as would I...not singling you out..lol). Your brain just isn't capable of recieveing, let alone handling the data or stimuli or processes they handle as a matter of course in a meaningful way, from that organisms pet perspective.

Perhaps, rather than thinking of it as x is "more" conscious than y, we simply accept that there can be differences in consciousness between two individual representatives. Not more, just different. More than one way to skin the conscious cat. The sunflower doesn't -need- a brain to provide that effect, and because they aren't mobile, an organ like that would be detrimental, not beneficial. The simplest plant represents a mastery of organic chemistry that is effectively -magic- to us, brains be damned, they're as good at what they do, or better, as we are at what we do.

[The Grand Nudger]

I forgot to add, the nagging suspsicion, based upon repeated observations, that they are capable of doing at least -some- of the things we think are our domain.....might skew the scales in their favor, on that evolutionary ladder, if we choose to conceptualize it that way. They might be "higher up" than we are.....but they did have a head start on us, and we're at least comin up from behind with a full head of steam. Or not, idk.

[Whateverist]

We might answer that question in terms of natural selection. Organisms with a central nervous system are better able to detect and avoid dangers within their immediate vicinity.

Seemingly so since there are so many multicellular critters about and inhabiting the top of every food chain. I may be showing a bias toward my kind, but I am certainly impressed with the capacities multicellular critters have evolved. Of course, from the point of view of single celled critter we probably look like some kind of malevolent BORG collective.

But as wonderful as our multicellular kind may be, I'm not sure we'd win a weigh off for biomass on the planet. (My hunch is we lose since the bottom of any food chain must be vast to support the top.) Likewise with diversity, there may be more species of single cell critters than there are of us. (Not at all sure of that, but when did that ever stop me? I'm spewing here - stand back.)

You are looking at two different kinds (or levels if you prefer) of consciousness, or as you said, consciousness on a continuum. 1. the ability to respond to external or internal stimuli. 2. the cognition of one's own existence. The first is demonstrable under laboratory conditions But is there a difference between a human who says "I know that I exist" and a computer that's programmed to say the same thing?

If we agree to use one or the other of these two, that will go a long way in keeping the discussion focused and helping us know we are on the same page in the way we are using the word. I think wheteverist is using the second one and so am I.

Truly the only sort of consciousness we know from the inside or very well at all is our own. So I'm inclined to go along with the suggestion that we focus on what we know (type 2) - even if that knowledge has not been formalized. Shall we specifically concede that consciousness may exist to a degree even in a turnip?

Sorry but I'm an inorganic bigot - rocks are not conscious and computers that say "I know that I exist" don't make the cut either. Though I know some (hi Rhythm) would love to argue against that. I've got nothing to add beyond my gut intuition that you are mistaken.

[The Grand Nudger]

I would, but only because we can see computers presenting the effects we might call consciousness in a critter, perhaps using a different mechanism to achieve it (though perhaps not).  When I get into that though, I sometimes think that people might wonder whether or not I think there's a computer somewhere reciting hamlet to itself in a ponderous fashion....I don't think that at all.  I think that whatever's going on inside the computer is very similar to whats going on inside a sunflower, and less similar - but still within proximity- to whats going on in in a "simple" multicellular organism, and then less similar still...but not entirely divorced...from what we have going on in our own heads. It's process and principle and mechanism leveraged that I speculate upon, not any internal experience....though I can't entirely rule that out, at least not in any way that doesn't -also- rule out whatever internal experience you're having, which I accept wholeheartedly as both evident and very, very visible.

From my pov, explaining why I don't accept that a rock is conscious is fairly easy to explain...and has nothing to do with their being inorganic, but assumptions are necessarily made. I keep returning to this one, but a wing of steel and a wing made of skin and bone, to me, are both flying - organic, inorganic, it hardly matters. A rose by any other name, and all that..lol.