[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Interestingly, none of the dictionary definitions has anything to do with intelligence or selfawareness. It's all about responding to, or being capable of responding to, a stimulus. Which is the characteristic of all living things.

A shark can respond to a drop of blood in a swimming pool, which makes it billions of times more conscious than you or me.

As I said, consciousness is a multidimensional parameter. Perhaps some species of sharks have higher sensitivity to certain chemicals in water compared to human. But they are not conscious about what happens on land, nor they are aware of killing asteroids coming toward the earth.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

The concept of consciousness is useful to setup moral rules. Many people use it to justify rights or priviledges of beings, where beings with higher level of consciousness get more rights or priviledges. Unsurprisingly, the ones who setup those moral rules tend to overestimate their own level of consciousness while underestimating others.
While I agree that concept of consciousness is important in setting up moral rules, I prefer to approach the problem from the other direction. In this thread I have argued that moral rules are shortcuts or tools to help achieving some ultimate goals. Hence proper moral rules are those which effectively and efficiently direct available resources to get closer to that goals.
Making correct decisions in long term affairs requires immense amount of information and data processing capability, which are not available for many conscious agents. Thus short cut moral rules are needed to overcome the limitations. Of course those short cut rules don't always produce the best outcome, but we can rely on Pareto rules and hope that it will work most of the time.
IMO, the conscious level of an agent is useful to select apropriate moral rules for them. For a house cat or dog, not peeing or shitting all over the place might be enough. For little kids we can apply simple rules such as not to lie. Interestingly, white lie stories such as Santa Claus or tooth fairy might be helpful. Religions are sometimes adequate for ancient people. But as we get closer to technological singularity, we need more powerful moral rules to prevent large scale conflicts which can be devastating.

[alancalverd]

And you have no idea of what interests sharks, and very little notion of what lies at the bottom of the sea. The dictionary definition of consciousness is about the ability to respond to a stimulus, not about the range or nature of stimuli that might trigger a response. It isn't defined as multidimensional but anydimensional. A thing is either conscious or not. Most humans have no idea that asteroids even exist. There are very few blind astronomers or deaf musicians, and some people do not feel pain, but live humans all possess consciousness.

I detect a fellow skeptic in the area of rights and privileges!

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

If most people express objection to my usage of the term consciousness, I don't mind to invent some new terms to better represent what I mean here.
Even in the common usage, consciousness have some levels.


https://www.researchgate.net/publication/11215540_Using_the_Glasgow_Coma_Scale_analysis_and_limitations/figures?lo=1
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altered_level_of_consciousness

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

I detect a fellow skeptic in the area of rights and privileges!

If that's the case, I think you'll enjoy this performance of George Carlin describing rights and priviledges.

[alancalverd]

Even in the common usage, consciousness have some levels.

All of which are easily observed in all animals and even have analogs in the plant world. They do not distinguish between species.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Consciousness level in the meaning that's relevant to morality extends from zero to infinity. Comparing it to the list above is like comparing whole electromagnetic spectrum to colors of rainbow.

The list above only cover small portion of extended conscousness, which is relevant for medical treatment. Can we really say that an illiterate patient have the same level of self awareness as a medical doctor?

[alancalverd]

Very much so. You don't have to be literate to be a narcissist (Donald Trump struggles with words in lower case and has the style and vocabulary of a 6-year-old) or anorexic - two extremes of selfawareness. After 70 hours without sleep, few junior doctors are aware of anything, never mind themselves.

As for consciousness, you seem now to be defining it as "something bigger than its definition". An amusing take on Russell's Paradox but not very helpful.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Very much so. You don't have to be literate to be a narcissist (Donald Trump struggles with words in lower case and has the style and vocabulary of a 6-year-old) or anorexic - two extremes of selfawareness. After 70 hours without sleep, few junior doctors are aware of anything, never mind themselves.

As for consciousness, you seem now to be defining it as "something bigger than its definition". An amusing take on Russell's Paradox but not very helpful.

Having inaccurate model of reality reduce the agent's consciousness level, since it would render their plan's execution less effective. Illiterate patients may not be aware that they have Lymphatic system in their body (or cerebellum, duodenum, or other internal organs).

If you want to stay with strict definitions already written in current dictionaries, you're welcome. But even now, extending the meaning of the word "consciousness" is not new.

Consciousness is the state or quality of awareness.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness_(disambiguation)

If we follow the pattern from the list of consiousness level above, we can conclude that higher level of consiousness reflects higher accuracy of an agent's internal model representing objective reality. Irresponsive agent makes its internal model doesn't follow the change of its surrounding, which makes it less accurate. We can call a state of consciousness above and below those on the list as super-consciousness and sub-consciousness, respectively, but they are level of consciousness nonetheless.

[alancalverd]

Having inaccurate model of reality reduce the agent's consciousness level, since it would render their plan's execution less effective.

Though barely literate and with no concept of reality, Trump is extremely effective in executing his plan to build a big wall and get re-elected. Who cares about reality when you can shout into a microphone?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Having inaccurate model of reality reduce the agent's consciousness level, since it would render their plan's execution less effective.

Though barely literate and with no concept of reality, Trump is extremely effective in executing his plan to build a big wall and get re-elected. Who cares about reality when you can shout into a microphone?

It only happens with the help of Trump enablers who seek for personal gains. But it won't last long if things continue that way.  Objective reality has limited tolerance. When long term damages become more apparent, more people will start to realize it and try to make a change.
Though many people have expressed concern that a great political power is lead by a toddler inside an old man body, history tells us that some real toddlers had been in that position.
https://www.goodorient.com/blog/child-emperors-in-china-history/

[alancalverd]

But what we have here is an evil man pretending to be naïve.  The damage done by his heroes lasted for decades.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Scientists have continuously improved their understanding about consciousness. Here is one of newest results.

In a wild new experiment conducted on monkeys, scientists discovered that a tiny, but powerful area of the brain may enable consciousness: the central lateral thalamus. Activation of the central lateral thalamus and deep layers of the cerebral cortex drives pathways in the brain that carry information between the parietal and frontal lobe in the brain, the study suggests.
This brain circuit works as a sort-of “engine for consciousness,” the researchers say, enabling conscious thought and feeling in primates.

To zero in on this brain circuit, a scientific team put macaque monkeys under anesthesia, then stimulated different parts of their brain with electrodes at a frequency of 50 Hertz. Essentially, they zapped different areas of the brain and observed how the monkeys responded. When the central lateral thalamus was stimulated, the monkeys woke up and their brain function resumed — even though they were STILL UNDER ANESTHESIA. Seconds after the scientists switched off the stimulation, the monkeys went right back to sleep.

This research was published Wednesday in the journal Neuron.

“Science doesn’t often leave opportunity for exhilaration, but that’s what that moment was like for those of us who were in the room,” co-author Michelle Redinbaugh, a researcher at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, tells Inverse.

https://www.inverse.com/mind-body/3d-brain-models-crucial-stage-of-human-development
https://www.cell.com/neuron/fulltext/S0896-6273(20)30005-2

Most people agree that consciousness plays a central role in morality. Hence understanding consciousness is necessary to discuss about morality productively. IMO anyone who claims that consciousness cannot be understood scientifically has commited some kind of arrogance, namely "if I can't understand something, noone else can."

[alancalverd]

It would be a lot easier to understand something if you could define it. So far you have rejected the clinical, dictionary definition and asserted that the word means some abstract characteristic of living things that cannot be defined or measured, but can be used to rank the things that possess it.  Not a fruitful starting point.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

But what we have here is an evil man pretending to be naïve.  The damage done by his heroes lasted for decades.

It takes a closer look to determine if he is indeed an inherently evil man. It's possible that he suffers some mental illness which makes him believes his own lies.
Whatever the cause is, it's a moral responsibility of the society in general to mitigate the damages had done.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

It would be a lot easier to understand something if you could define it. So far you have rejected the clinical, dictionary definition and asserted that the word means some abstract characteristic of living things that cannot be defined or measured, but can be used to rank the things that possess it.  Not a fruitful starting point.

If you carefully read my posts in this thread, I have tried to provide a useful definition of consciousness to discuss about morality several times already. I also showed that it is an extended version of clinical definition manifested in glasgow list. If the levels in the list is likened to a handful colors of the rainbow, then a concept of consciousness required to be useful in building moral rules is like the whole spectrum of electromagnetic wave.

It isn't defined as multidimensional but anydimensional. A thing is either conscious or not

Your definition above makes consciousness less relevant to building moral rules.

[alancalverd]

Quite so. There's no point in building anything on an undefined and indefinable foundation.

Any rule must have a purpose, to enhance or prevent something. If you construct moral rules to enhance cooperation and happiness, and prevent  conflict and unhappiness, you have the means to test their effectiveness and permit evolution of the system in the light of your findings.

It is also worth remembering that we do not live in a static, perfect world. There will always be hard cases and exceptions, which need to be dealt with as such and not necessarily to impact the general framework. Simple case: you should pay your taxes. But if your house has just burnt down, your overriding imperative is to shelter your family, not to give the government money to squander on railway consultants. Simpler still: you shouldn't kill civilians, but there's no point in coming second in a fight.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

What I mean with multidimensionality of consciousness is analogous to multidensionality of intelligence, which can be broken down to several parameters, such as verbal, numerical, spatial, and memory strength. Some people with  similar intelligence level may have different strength and weakness in those parameters. The final assessment thus depends on the formula or algorithm used to combine those parameters into a single value useful to compare intelligence, at least in relative scale.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

I think we can all agree that a good moral rule is a useful one. But follow up question naturally comes up: useful according to who?
Only conscious agents can have something useful. That's why the concept of consciousness is important here. One tool can be useful to analyze the problem is anthropic principle.

A good universal moral rule must be useful for any conscious agent universally.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

It is also worth remembering that we do not live in a static, perfect world. There will always be hard cases and exceptions, which need to be dealt with as such and not necessarily to impact the general framework. Simple case: you should pay your taxes. But if your house has just burnt down, your overriding imperative is to shelter your family, not to give the government money to squander on railway consultants. Simpler still: you shouldn't kill civilians, but there's no point in coming second in a fight.

A legitimate exception means that we acknowledge a higher priority moral rule than the one we are going to break. A mature society should provide the list of highest priority moral rules in hierarchical structure to help their members make a quick decisions when facing hard cases. Autonomous vehicles and other AI with significant impacts to society must also have that hierarchy incorporated into their algorithm.