If we can't quantify "internal experience" then what leads philosophers to believe it exists? What evidence is there that conciousness is distinguished by something other than raw complexity?
So we'd be dealing with a situation where we have something that is behaving in a human like manner using mechanisms that are (to a first approximation) how humans do it.
Claiming that that program isn't conscious is close to defending the idea that the sun orbits the earth - the argument is 'even though we have accurate measurement everything and a well verified model, the implications are discomforting; hence the model must be wrong'.
There are people who won't handle the idea that consciousness is rooted in physical processes that we already have a handle on.
Our ability to talk about consciousness doesn’t prove much either, because it turns out we can’t explain the idea in words. Trying to explain consciousness comes down to statements like: it’s the difference between seeing and !!!seeing!!! We can only communicate its true nature by way of alluding to the other’s experience of the same, not by direct explanation.
I don’t think it’s helpful to being morality into it. Depending on your moral views, there might be good reason to treat things that we think are conscious as if they are conscious. That’s arguably what we do with other people. It doesn’t speak to the underlying questions though.
While I’m suggesting above that conscious experience itself is probably irreducible and uncommunicable, that doesn’t mean that we can’t understand its causes and effects. It seems highly plausible that consciousness plays some functional role in the human brain, the understanding of which could be useful for medicine and AI.
Finally, I find plenty of utility in the joy and wonder of trying to understand this universe. The existence of consciousness as one kind of phenomenon or another has profound implications for our understanding of it, disproving some hypotheses and suggesting new ones.
Is illusion real because we experience it?
It seems highly plausible that consciousness plays some functional role in the human brain, the understanding of which could be useful for medicine and AI.
Evolution produces things which aren't "useful" all the time. Examples: That dimple above your upper lip. The blind spot. The human coccyx...
The existence of consciousness as one kind of phenomenon or another has profound implications for our understanding of it, disproving some hypotheses and suggesting new ones.
[citation needed]
Consciousness is the experiencing.
If one deeply introspects about the nature of one's experience of experience, one may come to realize there's a certain fragmentary nature to consciousness.
Have you ever had episodes of behavior, for which you have no memory? "Blackouts?" I have. What if consciousness is simply an interesting epiphenomenon, unnecessary for thought and decision making? If all we have are people's reports of it, why should we accord any more epistemological significance to it than we do to religious experiences?
As for the illusion question, it’s missing the point.
It doesn’t make sense to call it an illusion. Your conscious experience may accurately reflect reality, but that doesn’t change the fact that you are experiencing the phenomenon of consciousness. That our consciousness is more fragmented than we at first think is similarly irrelevant to the hard problem; fragmented or not, the subjective experience lacks explanation.
It’s very well possible that consciousness is unnecessary for thought. I strongly doubt that it is totally useless altogether, but that’s certainly possible too.
Even if you believe it is probably useless, we investigate things of dubious utility all the time, often discovering unforeseen uses along the way.
So the question remains: why are you so eager to dismiss the defining feature of the human experience?
Am I? If consciousness were a phenomenon no one had a memory of, would we even know it to exist? We certainly wouldn't be having this discussion. I can imagine a consciousness without memory, but I can also imagine a fantasy unicorn in real life. This doesn't mean either exists.
As for the illusion question, it’s missing the point. P
I don't think so. I think it's very significant that there's little difference between the consciousness of real sensory information and consciousness of illusion.
Even if you believe it is probably useless, we investigate things of dubious utility all the time, often discovering unforeseen uses along the way.
So you have no proof for your assertion. Only a suspicion. Perhaps a well founded one, I could even grant that.
Absolutely. We have awareness in the current moment. Memory is not required. In fact, if you think about what memory is, it's a current, internal experience that we associate with a concept called the past. All memories are actually experienced in the present, making awareness more fundamental than memory.
Without memory, the contents of awareness would be very different, sure, but it's not a prerequisite for awareness itself.
Since when? (Not just a joke. Also a serious question.)
In fact, if you think about what memory is, it's a current, internal experience that we associate with a concept called the past.
Uh, no. I can remember what I had for dinner last night without having a flashback where I re-experience last night as in some kind of dream.
Without memory, the contents of awareness would be very different, sure, but it's not a prerequisite for awareness itself.
How do you know? There are people who can't move short term memories into long term storage, but they can remember enough to be able to play Tic-Tac-Toe, for example.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anterograde_amnesia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_memory
Do we have any verifiable examples of consciousness where there is absolutely no memory? I very much doubt it.
Just because a memory is not as vivid as sight or a dream, doesn't mean it's not currently in consciousness. Think about it, when you're remembering, you're aware of something: the memory. It could be a fact you're aware of, or a diminished sensory experience playing in the mind's eye, but you're still aware of it.
> How do you know? There are people who can't move short term memories into long term storage, but they can remember enough to be able to play Tic-Tac-Toe, for example.
That example is about memory and behavior, not awareness. A complete anterograde and retrograde amnesic would still have an experience of seeing (some odd shapes) and emotion (being confused, stressed, etc). And in fact, this is what we think the consciousness of pre-long-term-memory infants is. To quote William James: "blooming, buzzing confusion".
> Do we have any verifiable examples of consciousness where there is absolutely no memory? I very much doubt it.
That's true only because 99.99999999999999% of humans have no memory deficits. It's correlated but there's no causal relationship needed. The only thing an amnesic can't be aware of is a memory they can't access or that was never formed.
But what you're really asking is, would we experience mirth or humor if stimulated. And we know that's true, at least for memories. Certain hippocampal stimulations elicit associated memories.
The problem is not whether biology is related to consciousness (it is), but how?