Sam Harris On Defining Consciousness

[The Grand Nudger]

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.

Here again (as we get to below), the mystery is not in consciousness, at least not for me.  We see an effect, we see how that effect is achieved.  We understand it well enough -to manipulate that effect-.  We have more than just a plausible explanation of why consciousness, as I'm using the word, exists.  We have a robust understanding of -various- mechanisms for it..... and how they work, how they developed, why they work the way they do, and why they developed the way they did.  This isn't to say we know it all, or enough, or even as much as we'd like..or that understanding how a structure can achieve awareness explains some -other- thing you might be wondering about.

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 using a fairly standard definition....in fact...I'm tempted to hit you with a lmgtfy link.   Conscious and qualia are not, as we understand it........interchangeable terms.  You don't think that the awareness of a structure and the experience of that awareness, qualia, are interchangeable any more than I do, do you?   You don't think that because we can demonstrate that a structure is aware of it's surroundings, is conscious...this demonstrates qualia....do you?  Because if you do, tell me now so I can declare qualia thoroughly demonstrated amigo, lol.  

Seems to me that you both understand and leverage the very distinction you're objecting to.......

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.

Again, I'm not redefining anything, nor is there any reason for me to acknowledge some unique definition - because I'm not using one.  What you're calling "consciousness" seems, to me, to be more like consciousness and self consciousness and sentience and sapience and qualia all lumped together.....in short, the human experience.  Since when did something have to share the human experience in-toto in order to be deemed conscious?

That I don't see the mystery in qualia that you do might be tied up in what I -don't- demand of that "whatever it is".  If you'll recall our previous conversations, I don't require it to be anything more than the operation of a machine, which we can demonstrate.  I don't demand that it be anything other than processing, which we do have an explanation for.  This isn't to say that I consider it explained, I simply consider the mystery you see to be manufactured by your disatisfaction with what means we -do- have to explain it.