Sam Harris On Defining Consciousness

[Whateverist]

.. in order to come up with a simple and well fitting definition for consciousness, particularly in that this definition does not require self, sapience, sentience, or agency - it seeks to describe a broader range of "x", leaving all the rest, that concerns you, for other terms (some of them just employed)...facilitating greater specificity.

I think I'll just move on to the discussion regarding the more interesting stuff. I might just have to start a campaign to keep the interesting stuff in consciousness. Maybe I should fund raise?

[The Grand Nudger]

I suppose consciousness considered so reductively -could be- pretty damned boring.  It takes a special kind of weirdo to stare at tumblers in a lock for hours on end and be fascinated, eh?  Obviously, I'm one of those weirdos. OTOH, there might be plenty of interesting stuff to be had determining whether or not any example of a behavior or experience actually belongs to any of that other stuff, self sapience, etc...rather than "simple" awareness, reductive consciousness. That's where the human dignity bit comes in again, I guess. It might be that something cherished as self or sapience actually -isn't-.....it's just call and response.

It might -all- be call and response...with no one at the wheel, cherished fiction...and that's pretty damned interesting, no?

Do "I" "love" my wife, or is this just the expression of a necessary function? Are they referrent, and if they are, would knowing what they were referrent -to- change how we considered this experience of ours? The old, "Love is a chemical cocktail consisting of -x-" chestnut.

[Rhondazvous]

That was one of my stupid deadpan jokes that obviously missed the mark I was just being silly regarding solipsism.

It happens to the best of us.

I don't have anything again Harris, I think he's amazing in fact.

It seems we will always come up against the barrier of knowing how consciousness, or other similar phenomena, "feels" to the thing experiencing it. I "feel" certain ways, but I can never ever be sure that anyone or anything else actually "feels" anything.

The point I'm trying to make is that we can only "measure" consciousness indirectly by observing the kind of things consciousness causes. We can't measure the actual experience itself, not yet anyway. Maybe one day there will be some weird technology that actually allows us to "experience" another life form's version of consciousness.

Of course, I'm expecting too much of science because we can only ever measure anything indirectly anyway.

It wasn't that long ago when someone in the field declared that the cranium and abdomen are forever closed to medical science. The true scientist avoids words like "forever" and "never."

[Whateverist]

The true scientist avoids words like "forever" and "never."

Never.

[Rhondazvous]

It would be nice to have a general field theory of consciousness but we have so little nailed down even about the kind we know from the inside.  It only seems reasonable to establish a beach head at human consciousness and then see what progress might be made toward a more general theory from there.

caveat lector.

I’ve been toying with what might be a step toward a general theory, but it is one that someone like Harris would dismiss out of hand because it involves what he would call dualism (separation of mind and body). Maybe I’m not studied enough to realize that dualism must of a necessity be inimical to science. Yet, as I read his book I wonder if trying to understand consciousness apart from dualism might not be like trying to understand water part from wet.

In his book, Harris asserts that the constant stream of thoughts that run through our minds is what keeps us unhappy and he explores different forms of meditation that promise to halt thinking and make us aware that the “self” or “I” is only an illusion. Once we realize that there really is no “I.” we will find peace and joy. I can’t help but see the paradox inherent in this. When “I” realize that “I” am an illusion then said realization is also an illusion. How can an illusion realize an illusion? Otherwise it is not “I” but something else making the realization. Without realizing it, he has created god or at least made god necessary for his theory to make any sense.

My theory is that the energy flowing through our brains and creating our thoughts and consciousness is sentient energy and its relationship to our physical brain is the same as that of electricity flowing through a light bulb. When we sleep it is the same as turning off the light. When a light bulb blows, the energy still exists, but it will never flow through that particular bulb again. We can’t grab hold of or measure the energy that used to flow through a bulb any more than we can grab hold of the energy that used to flow through a brain once it is dead. Yet we don’t feel the necessity of insisting that the energy is just an illusion.

I may be totally wrong, but there may be something to it as well.

[The Grand Nudger]

Not a theory so much as wild eyed conjecture.  Unless you can present some "sentient energy" in any sense other than the poetic. Would an atomic bomb release sentient energy, how about the light bulb in your example, would that also be sentient? If not, why not? Don;t get me wrong, you might be right, give me some way to determine that, and some way to tell which energy is sentient and which isn't (supposing it's not all sentient)? What are the pass and fail conditions for this theory, specific emphasis on the failure conditions?

Otherwise I might end up sounding like a loon, talking about sentient campfires and sentient radiation when that's not -at all- what you mean..lol.

[Whateverist]

I guess the first question that comes to mind would be how does the consciousness energy flowing through the filament of my brain result in the feeling of consciousness? What I mean is some might say that calling it energy is switching names but not really enlightening.

[Rhondazvous]

Not a theory so much as wild eyed conjecture.  Unless you can present some "sentient energy" in any sense other than the poetic.  Would an atomic bomb release sentient energy, how about the light bulb in your example, would that also be sentient?  If not, why not?  Don;t get me wrong, you might be right, give me some way to determine that, and some way to tell which energy is sentient and which isn't (supposing it's not all sentient)?  What are the pass and fail conditions for this theory, specific emphasis on the failure conditions?

Otherwise I might end up sounding like a loon, talking about sentient campfires and sentient radiation when that's not -at all- what you mean..lol.

Okay. I like this kind of challenge. Not calling me an idiot or telling me to blow off but challenging me to prove my case.

The following may or may not stand as proof, but it’s something to think about.

We will start with certain givens. If we can’t agree about these givens then all bets are off. And we can go back to wondering we can get a refund on those new designer jeans we just bought after we’ve turned into an earthworm.

Givens
1. Brain activity is composed of electrical impulses
2. Electricity is a form of energy
3. Sentience is awareness of stimuli

Harris and other scientists that I’ve read assert that different parts of the brain show activity based on different stimuli. Would you agree that a picture of the president, a picture of strangers and a picture of someone you love will affect us indifferent way, thus evoking brain activity. This activity is not just a response because there is no direct contact. This activity is responding to the pictures in a way that requires interpretation. I would go so far as to say it requires awareness and thus indicates sentience.

A lightbulb or campfire does not interpret or even respond to stimuli. It can be affected by it, say when wind blows a fire, but that’s not a response.

Even if you’re not ready to preach the gospel of sentient energy to the world, are you at least ready to think about where I’m going and consider taking it further?

[The Grand Nudger]

Heheh, I settle for something far less than proof, which is why I didn't ask for proof, just pass and fail conditions.  So don't sweat it.  I agree on 1 and 2 (somewhat), the third not so much, but for purposes of discussion, consider them all in.    

A lightbulb or campfire does not interpret or even respond to stimuli. It can be affected by it, say when wind blows a fire, but that’s not a response.

We're already in trouble......as these failure conditions are for campfires, not your conjecture....ignoring that, you didn't reference them in 1, 2, or 3........perhaps you'll need to add a 4th? Otherwise, campfires and lightbulbs are still in.

Something like - 4: Awareness is interpretation or response to stimuli
(you can probably already see where I'm going to go......you ready to accept the sentience of everything I might care to dredge up? I'm very creative, in that regard...lol)

[Rhondazvous]

I guess the first question that comes to mind would be how does the consciousness energy flowing through the filament of my brain result in the feeling of consciousness?  What I mean is some might say that calling it energy is switching names but not really enlightening.

What would we call an electrical impulse if not energy? Perhaps these impulses are not sending us feelings. Perhaps the energy itself being sentient is what is feeling love, pain, joy, compassion, fear or whatever. We can't find any part of the brain outside the electric impulses that's feeling things we could interpret as consciousness so why not look at the impulses themselves as what constitutes "I?"