I've been watching some lectures by a well known American philosopher named John Searle. He talks about the science of consciousness, saying that he believes it's the most important emerging field of scientific study. There is certainly a lot of scientific value in studying the biology and chemistry of how the brain works in terms of how it may relate to consciousness. But consciousness also suggests pseudo-scientific connotations, crossing over into philosophical, religious and spiritual subject matter. And maybe that's why it's such an interesting subject to think about, it's so multifaceted. Searle's talks are engaging. He's a pretty plainspoken guy so the use of philosophical jargon is kept to a minimum. He does talk a little about epistemological and ontological objective and subjective reality. But the subject of consciousness is eminently understandable from a layman's perspective I believe. And the questions are interesting: How to define consciousness. Whether a machine can be conscious (the so-called Turing test). At what point does pure computation become consciousness. Is consciousness simply an advanced level of algorithmic computation, in which case will super-powerful computers eventually develop consciousness (AI)? What about animals? Are they conscious, and if they are, what does that imply morally in terms of how we need to treat them.
The simple definition of consciousness is the state of being awake ie. as opposed to being unconscious, which is being asleep. These are the two opposite general cognitive states and I think the basis of any understanding and discussion. It needn't be much more complicated than that. We know that we cognitively process data in both states, awake and asleep. We talk in our our sleep, even walk in our sleep. And most importantly we dream. So we may conclude that being awake and asleep, conscious and unconscious, is nothing like turning a computer on and off. If we hear an alarm in the morning to wake up it is a clear indication that we experience external stimuli even when we are unconscious. So the experience of stimuli can't be the difference between being conscious and unconscious. When we are asleep there is no doubt that we cognitively process information (images, sounds, feelings etc.) stored in our minds. Some of that unconscious processing of information is remembered when we wake up, we call this a dream. But it's only when we wake up that we ask ourselves what our dreams mean. That expresses the essential difference between unconsciousness and consciousness.
The essential difference between a conscious and an unconscious state is that only in a conscious state do we derive meaning from stimuli. Sentient beings derive a multiplicity of meanings when they are conscious, and those meanings are idiosyncratic in nature. Some may be standard and generalized, in the sense that they are shared within a community, and others may be strictly personal. So for example, if I see a certain type of chair, I may think of the word 'chair' (a taught conceptual meaning) and think of sitting on it (a meaning taken from experience), but if that type of chair was where my parents used to punish me with a 'time-out' I may also have negative feelings, such as fear, associated with it (a personal meaning that others don't share.) In this way meaning, can be divided into at least two categories, conceptual and experienced, and two subcategories, shared and personal.
If we agree that the essence of consciousness is that we generate meanings from the stimuli/data, how precisely that works remains a mystery. There are many levels of scientific study to parse that out, from the chemical and neural-biological to the psycho-social. We know that consciousness comprises a complex form of neural computation of information. But if the crux of consciousness is deriving meaning from this process, it's clear that no amount of computing power will ever constitute consciousness. Machine algorithms, no matter how complex, will never be able to generate meaning.
No comments:
Post a Comment