The Hard Problem of Consciousness

[William]

SkyChief: We seem to have different ideas about what consciousness really is. I use the definition in the dictionary which is simply "the state of being awake and aware of one's surroundings."
I appreciate that you quoted Planck. I had much respect for him before I knew of this idea (that all matter has consciousness).

Clearly, the consciousness that you (and Planck) describe is very different than the consciousness in the dictionary, which requires at least some fundamental ability to react to stimuli.

The Cambridge Dictionary refines the term further:

"the state of being awake, aware of what is around you, and able to think"

This definition requires a brain.

So again, we're using the same word (consciousness), but we're describing very different things.


DrNoGods: Important point ... he's clearly using a different definition of the word than most dictionaries (ie. the common interpretation of the word). Given the usual definition, it is impossible for a rock to be conscious, or anything else that does not possess a brain.

So maybe Razorsedge can provide the alternate definition of consciousness being used, or (better) another more suitable word or phrase that better represents what is being referred to.

Razorsedge: Given that consciousness can exist or function in a simple form, then what proof is there to show that consciousness is limited to mammals? Why not fish, plants, computers, and other inanimate matter? Perhaps you don't know?

William: Given that The Hard Problem of Consciousness still exists...has not as yet being solved... it is premature to be creating and using dictionary definitions which heavily imply that no such problem exists.
Case in point, the dictionary definition used above;

"the state of being awake, aware of what is around you, and able to think"...

This 'refining' of the term, enables those who's beliefs require that the Hard Problem of Consciousness has been solved.
They will naturally create such definitions and sustain an implication through supporting such definitions, as if somehow - because something is in the dictionary, - it must therefore be right...an idea as absurd as any similar claim about any other book.



Q: [font=Georgia]Are such refined definitions of consciousness acceptable to create and use as argument in bolstering ones position when The Hard Problem of Consciousness has yet to be solved?[/font]

Q: [font=Georgia]Because a dictionary defines meanings of words, should we assume therefore, that those definitions must always be correct and not open to debate?[/font]


The Hard Problem of Consciousness

[Divine Insight]

I'm not convinced that the problem of consciousness hasn't already been solved. Marvin Minsky offers a solution to the problem in his book "Society of Mind". Perhaps his solution is indeed correct. In which case the problem has already been solved and just hasn't yet been widely recognized as having been solved.

There are many other people who have offered explanations for consciousness that aren't all that much different from Minsky's idea. Yet they arrived at their conclusions via totally independent paths. Therefore we have the additional evidence that those who think about this problem tend to all point in the same direction for their answers. This suggests that they may all be onto something since they are all pointing in the same direction.

For me the problem of consciousness is not such a great mystery. Especially as you point out in terms of semantics. We don't even have a single accepted definition of what we even mean by the term "Consciousness".

Apparently complex biological machines (and even man-made robots) are capable of sensing and reacting to their environment. In other words, they can be "aware" of the state of their environment and the objects that are around them.

Neuroscientist have studied the nervous system of nematodes. Why nematodes? Because nematodes have a very simple nervous system or "brain" consisting of only about 300 neurons. This is a number that is fairly easy to keep track of and study. Although even a mere 300 neurons can be connected to each other in an extreme number of ways. So the ultimate possibilities associated with a mere 300 neurons is itself an astronomical number.

None the less, scientists have discovered neural patterns that they have associated with the nematode being able to differentiate between touching itself, and some external object touching it. That is already an ability to differentiate between "Self" and "Other". Moreover, in this case the "Self" consists of the entire body of the nematode. So the "self" is the Body. It also include the entire neural network system of the nematode as simple as that may be.

So I personally believe they are making great progress in answering this question. In fact, many scientists are satisfied that they have answered the problem already. So those who claim that the problem has yet to be solved are only those who disagree with those observations and conclusions. So this brings the whole topic into the realm of opinion and what any specific individual might accept or not accept as a valid answer and explanation.

So the argument that the problem has yet to be solved, is an ill-defined argument. Whether or not the problem has been solved can depend on who you ask.

Marvin Minsky is happy with his explanation. So for him the problem has been solved.

There are also quite many scientists working in the field of A.I. who also believe the problem has been solved, and some of them even claim that their A.I. Robot demonstrate that the problem has indeed been solved. For them it's only a matter of time before the robots will evolved to a higher level of sentience than humans. Moreover many of them expect that this threshold will be surpassed in the very near future.

So robots may become more sentient than humans before most humans even understand that the problem has indeed been solved.

[Swami]

William: Given that The Hard Problem of Consciousness still exists...has not as yet being solved... it is premature to be creating and using dictionary definitions which heavily imply that no such problem exists.
Case in point, the dictionary definition used above;

"the state of being awake, aware of what is around you, and able to think"...

This 'refining' of the term, enables those who's beliefs require that the Hard Problem of Consciousness has been solved.
They will naturally create such definitions and sustain an implication through supporting such definitions, as if somehow - because something is in the dictionary, - it must therefore be right...an idea as absurd as any similar claim about any other book.



Q: [font=Georgia]Are such refined definitions of consciousness acceptable to create and use as argument in bolstering ones position when The Hard Problem of Consciousness has yet to be solved?[/font]

They are not acceptable not only because of the 'hard problem' but there's also the limited data set of Western science. If all there was to learn about consciousness was just that which can be observed and explained from the third-person view, then I'd agree with the Western approach. But when you have a totally different approach in the East that yields rich experiences in consciousness then I have to question if Western science will ever get a full picture of consciousness.

In short, the Eastern approach has revealed that consciousness is not simply about the brain but goes beyond that. As such, in the East, consciousness is defined as the substrate of reality as opposed to just being something stuck in a brain.

Q: [font=Georgia]Because a dictionary defines meanings of words, should we assume therefore, that those definitions must always be correct and not open to debate?[/font]

Definitions play a big role in setting out what to prove or test for. Based on this fact, it is important that we settle on a definition from the start. I've read a few articles where engineers claims to have made a conscious AI machine just to find out that it just meant a machine that learned and adapted to its environment on its own which is not what I would define as consciousness. Their understanding of consciousness was selective, at best.