Sam Harris On Defining Consciousness

[bennyboy]

It's still more specific.  I think we're going down the rabbit hole because you're intent on leading us there, not because we have to.

I don't know why you are equating "I don't know and I refuse to pretend to" with woo. Consciousness IS mysterious. We don't really know what it is or why it's there. We have no method of detecting it, and not even the beginning of a plausible explanation of why it exists. That's not woo. In fact, I'd say the position of acknowledging a lack of understanding is more scientific than forcibly redefining terms in order to get results that conform to a world view that's jealous of anything it can't measure.

Not a problem for me, though.  You can ride the semantic merry go round with qualia all you like..but I don't require it, since I'm looking to explain consciousnous, not qualia - and we obviously aren't talking about the same thing.  If you feel that "whatever it is" is a sufficient description of qualia - that's your business.

I've specifically said I don't think it's a description (read: definition). But the fact is that when I, and most people, talk about consciousness, we are talking about the experience of awareness, not simply the ability of a physical structure to interact with its environment. That mysterious process, whatever it is, is associated with that particular word, and if you want to talk about something else, then you must acknowledge that you are using a unique definition-- a redefinition which I think has the function of avoiding the real philosophical issues of consciousness through question-begging.

I'm sufficiently convinced of the reality of my own consciousness, by which I mean my ability to experience qualia, that I'm willing to take that chance.  The label means something, and it may not be applicable to robots.

Why, because you believe that you've observed it..or that this observation of what you percieve to be your own qualia is somehow different from any other observation...somehow more direct or trustworthy?

These observations aren't peers. There is the content of experience, and the capacity to experience, which is consciousness.

Perhaps robots don't have qualia...but are they conscious?  I'd say that any robot which satisfies the metrics we use to determine consciousness in ourselves or some other x is conscious, regardless of it's status on the "whatever it is" front that concerns you.  I don't think that plants experience qualia either....and yet I consider them conscious - because they fit the metrics I use for "conscious", even though they don't fit the metrics I'd use for "qualia".  -reasons-, or no reasons at all.  

What you are talking about is fine. It's even fine to use the word consciousness to talk about robots, as in "This robot exhibits a high level of consciousness of its environment, and this one is just a vacuum cleaner." But that's why my label matters. However you physicalize your version of the word, there is still that mysterious "whatever it is" that any interested person would want to try to understand-- and that search for understanding, so far, is little benefited by changing the definition of the word. It doesn't explain why I wake up in the morning and see the apple on my desk as red.