If consciousness is binary like you state, we can hypothetically remove parts of it until we reach some arbitrarily small part after the removal of which the remainder is no longer conscious. This seems like a very weak argument to me, implying the opposite conclusion that consciousness must be on a sliding scale.
(measuring the level of consciousness is left as an exercise to the reader)
Yes, it's fuzzy just because there doesn't seem to be a general widespread agreement on terminology, even among "experts", so that someone uses the word consciousness meaning something completely different than someone else. It seems that each time one wants to embark in a consciousness discussion, there should be a glossary preamble to specify definitions.
Regardless of the breadth of the spectrum of definitions, at the very bottom you find phenomenal consciousness. The given, undeniable fact that "it feels like something". We don't have a plausible avenue, not even in principle, to even start addressing this fact of existence, to the point that the most rational stance is to assume that it is fundamental in nature.
I think it means that consciousness isn't anything terrifically special and that human level consciousness is just something along the same spectrum with a more complicated model.
It may be that the tools we have come to rely on so much to define such terms are, almost by definition, inadequate to to define consciousness. The scientific method and rational discourse are used to describe objective reality; I don't know that they can fully answer the "hard" problem of consciousness because it is largely concerned with subjective reality.
We don't need to really nail it down. See my above comment. We have a good working understanding of what consciousness is in terms of practical behavior and in terms of the associated neural activity. That is definitely a reasonable basis for further study.
That'd be a hell of a trick, given that we basically define consciousness as the experience of being what we are, and therefore tautologically whatever it is, we have it.
came to the comments to say something like this. What the author completely glossed over was the definition of consciousness, which I think puts most of the rest of the post on shaky footing.
If we define consciousness broadly enough to be a relevant term in all those scenarios, it would have to be something like "that thing that does thinking and self reflection that the reader has and observes evidence of in others". Like you say, attempting to define it makes it get all kinds of slippery. What do you include? memories? experiences? social connections? what is "thinking"? - if it's "information processing with some reflection" then isn't there a kind of consciousness in a society? a computer network? a star system?
I really like the ship of Theseus for this one. it's a great way to examine where the concept begins to get really leaky.
All we know is that we have it because its not about what the word means. It's about how we apply the category of "conscious" to things. It's a way of either distancing or bringing ourselves closer to things.
We might as well just ask "Is the universe like us?"
Unfortunately, the hype about LLMs has generated breathless ruminations on AGI and consciousness. Dig a little deeper and there doesn't seem to be much there, as one may find that these terms are not adequately defined.
Here we see this attempt:
> First, a disclaimer. Consciousness is a notoriously slippery term, if nonetheless possessed of a certain common-sense quality. In some ways, being conscious just means being aware — aware of ourselves, of others, of the world beyond — in a manner that creates a subject apart, a self or “I,” that can observe.
Which is followed by paragraphs correctly calling out the inadequacy of the above definition. Nowhere though does the reader get a satisfactory answer: what really is consciousness?
One might say who cares if they don't define it? Well, if you don't define it, there's no point in discussing whether it exists, how it came to be, or what it comprises.
You might as well be asking the question: how close are we to quidlesmoopy?
Think about what things "cannot be doubted", with all the brain-in-a-vat types of caveats. It's not trying to be a scientific definition. It operates earlier on the epistemological ladder than science can be meaningfully applied, and that might well be the only reasonable place to define consciousness. (I still can't call it a great definition, even if it did perfectly correspond with the concept. Too indirect.)
I think you are saying we have a rough idea what it means, but then it's a sliding scale as far as ability to get closer to it.
reply