Sam Harris On Defining Consciousness

[The Grand Nudger]

It's less than vague. . . it is a placeholder for "whatever it is."  But even saying that, it's non-trivial, because while I may not know what consciousness is, I can compare any definition to my own experience, and say what it is not, or what is insufficient.

Comparing your experience of consciousness to the simplest and broadest definition offered, the state of being aware, is there some conflict, does this -not- describe your experience, are you not aware?  I'm sure you're many other things, which we use many additional words to describe as well, of course, but I'm not sure what the problem with that definition is, or why we would prefer your previously offered definition over it.  At least "the state of being aware" differentiates between my taking a shit and "whatever it is".....eh?  Is awareness not the cornerstone of consciousness, in your experience?  If you were not aware, would it make any sense to call you conscious?

 
If you are attempting to define consciousness in a greater context (in your case, a physicalist world view), but founding your arguments on consciousness itself, then you have that circle.  Other definitions or types of knowledge are different, because the mind itself gives them context.  For example, a bridge is a bridge because I have an awareness of gravity, of difficulties navigating a river, of the solidity of structures, etc.  Those experiences are sufficient context to know about bridges, and no attempt is being made to establish what reality underlies them.

-as no attempt is being made to establish what underlies (if anything underlies) consciousness by defining it simply as the state of being aware.  

This "using" word is problematic, because it implies an agent which is using something outside its agency for a goal generated within that agency; in other words, you are now talking about the nature of self, not just the awareness of self.

I'll repeat, thoughts about consciousness are no more or less circular than thoughts about logic, reason, keyboards, or bridges. If thoughts about consciousness have a problem with circularity, so to do thoughts about logic..at which point circularity is a problem because....why?

-and I'm not sure why the word using implies any of that....btw. If you'd prefer that I expressed that same concern another way, I can, but as a mentioned before, I hardly see the need, because -everything- has been burnt to the ground by this concern of yours, regarding consciousness and circularity. However I choose to express -anything- it will all, ultimately, boil back down to the fact that it's construct heaped on construct judged against construct by that very same construct. If you're okay with the construct of logic -and you must be, as it's the leverage you're "using", then make your peace and show a little consistency. In your example above, you are assessing a bridge, which is a construct of consciousness -even if it's more (and regardless of whether or not it isn't), so perhaps you should be a little more concerned about the circularity of that bridge business the next time you drive over one.....or less about the circularity of thoughts regarding consciousness?

In either your view or my view, we'd have to decide whether the desire to define is part of one's agency.  Unless you make a conscious choice to spawn that desire, how could it be?  In fact, the same goes for thinking, for feeling, etc.

In other words, I wouldn't say that consciousness can be used, under any view or definition, or that it has the capacity for using.  On this, I think, we can agree, no?

I'm not sure why we'd have to decide that 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 wouldn't say we agreed on that, but I don't think our disagreement matters much in context.

I do think that consciousness can be, and is used, regardless of whether or not it's being used by some individual personal agency, or the "owner" of said consciousness, if there is an owner to begin with, but that's probably tied up in the fact that I define consciousness as the state of being aware - which simply doesn't require all those other, more specific attributes, for which we conveniently have other, more specific terms. A simple organism is using consciousness in order to move towards or away from light by means of photo-sensitive cells directly attached to it's means of locomotion. That organism, that system, -requires- an awareness of light in order to use it, which -is- provided by the eyespot and -is- used, in order to achieve effect. This is demonstrable, that's how it works, and it's non-negotiable to me because of that. The rest is a non-issue, notice no choice was required, notice no feelings where required, notice no self is required, nor is any awareness of self, or awareness of the process used, only an awareness of the environment. When I talk about consciousness, I'm discussing it separately from all of those things which are obviously very relevant in our case, but not necessarily relevant in the cases of all conscious things.

I'd rather tackle the bricks before I take on the buildings.