What I imagine to be the “true” answer to the question is that “consciousness” isn’t really real, but if it’s thought of as a result of physical/chemical properties, then there’s no dividing line between what reactions count as consciousness (ie, a waterfall or tectonic plate could also be conscious).
You can’t prove that you experience that sort of intangible experience and it can’t be measured or well-defined, so I’m personally inclined to not really believe in it at all.
OR if we do accept that it’s a result of chemical reactions and we want to define it in terms of those, then there’s not a strong reason to differentiate a human experience from rocks or computers or waterfalls.
I think people are inclined to think that such a thing exists because we have the abilities of memory and communication, but the concept itself I think is not very useful. Which is why I suspect that a magically True answer would say that the physicality of the brain itself is as close as you can get to that idea.
Well, there’s zero doubt whether I’m conscious myself. It’s the only thing in the entire universe that I’m absolutely sure cannot be an illusion, because the fact that it is like something to be me (whatever “me” is) is undeniable from my subjective perspective.
But you’re right that I can’t make absolute statements about the conscious states of other people, animals, or even inanimate objects like rocks. I’m fairly certain that other humans are conscious too. This applies to animals as well, and it’s probably like something to be an insect. A rock, however? I’m not going to claim with absolute certainty that it’s not like anything to be a rock, but the thought of that is so incomprehensible that I don’t really waste much time even thinking about it.
What I imagine to be the “true” answer to the question is that “consciousness” isn’t really real, but if it’s thought of as a result of physical/chemical properties, then there’s no dividing line between what reactions count as consciousness (ie, a waterfall or tectonic plate could also be conscious).
You can’t prove that you experience that sort of intangible experience and it can’t be measured or well-defined, so I’m personally inclined to not really believe in it at all.
OR if we do accept that it’s a result of chemical reactions and we want to define it in terms of those, then there’s not a strong reason to differentiate a human experience from rocks or computers or waterfalls.
I think people are inclined to think that such a thing exists because we have the abilities of memory and communication, but the concept itself I think is not very useful. Which is why I suspect that a magically True answer would say that the physicality of the brain itself is as close as you can get to that idea.
Well, there’s zero doubt whether I’m conscious myself. It’s the only thing in the entire universe that I’m absolutely sure cannot be an illusion, because the fact that it is like something to be me (whatever “me” is) is undeniable from my subjective perspective.
But you’re right that I can’t make absolute statements about the conscious states of other people, animals, or even inanimate objects like rocks. I’m fairly certain that other humans are conscious too. This applies to animals as well, and it’s probably like something to be an insect. A rock, however? I’m not going to claim with absolute certainty that it’s not like anything to be a rock, but the thought of that is so incomprehensible that I don’t really waste much time even thinking about it.