John Searle: Our shared condition -- consciousness

Summary

The speaker addresses the often-neglected topic of consciousness, emphasizing its importance as a fundamental aspect of human experience. They critique the slow progress in understanding consciousness and the reluctance within scientific and philosophical communities to engage with it. The speaker refutes the notion that consciousness is an illusion or merely a computer program in the brain, arguing instead that it is a biological phenomenon akin to digestion or photosynthesis. They provide a common-sense definition of consciousness as states of feeling, sentience, or awareness, and discuss its real, irreducible nature. The talk also tackles the mind-body problem, suggesting that conscious states are caused by and realized in the brain through neurobiological processes. The speaker asserts that consciousness has a causal role in behavior and is a unified field, creating an observer-independent reality. They conclude by advocating for the acceptance of consciousness as a legitimate subject for scientific inquiry.

Takeaways

• 🤔 Consciousness is often neglected in scientific and philosophical discussions despite being a fundamental aspect of our lives.
• 🧐 The progress in understanding consciousness has been slow, partly due to the reluctance and hostility within the scientific community.
• 📚 Two opposing traditions have shaped our view of consciousness: religious dualism, which sees it as non-physical, and scientific materialism, which questions its existence or relegates it to a computational process.
• 🧠 Consciousness should be considered a biological phenomenon, akin to photosynthesis or digestion, which can help dissolve many of the perceived issues related to it.
• 🚫 The claim that consciousness is an illusion or purely computational is incorrect, as it overlooks the semantic and observer-relative aspects of consciousness.
• 🫀 Conscious states are caused by and realized in the brain through neurobiological processes, similar to how liquidity is a property of water based on the behavior of H2O molecules.
• 🌈 Qualitative feelings are an inherent part of consciousness, providing a subjective experience that is different for various states and activities.
• 🧬 The mind-body problem is not as mysterious as it seems; our conscious states are both neurobiological and mental, representing a single event with multiple descriptions.
• 🔍 The unified conscious field, which integrates different sensory inputs into a single experience, is a key feature of consciousness that current robotics has not been able to replicate.
• ⚙️ Consciousness functions causally in our behavior through a sequence of neurobiological events, such as the secretion of acetylcholine at the axon end-plates of motor neurons.
• 🌟 Accepting consciousness as a biological phenomenon is crucial for scientific progress, allowing for a more objective and comprehensive study of this complex subject.

Q & A

Why does the speaker consider consciousness a neglected subject in both scientific and philosophical culture?

The speaker believes consciousness is neglected because it is the most important aspect of our lives, as it is a necessary condition for anything to be important to us, yet it often receives little attention in scientific and philosophical discussions.

What does the speaker initially think about the study of consciousness?

The speaker initially thought consciousness was a straightforward problem in biology that could be solved by neurobiologists once they focused their efforts on it.

What advice did a famous neurobiologist give to the speaker regarding the study of consciousness?

The famous neurobiologist advised the speaker to get tenure first before focusing on consciousness, implying that it was not a career-advancing field of study at the time.

According to the speaker, what are the two features of our intellectual culture that contribute to the reluctance and hostility towards consciousness?

The two features are religious dualism, which separates consciousness from the physical world, and scientific materialism, which also excludes consciousness from the physical world, either dismissing it as non-existent or as something non-physical like a computer program.

How does the speaker define consciousness?

The speaker defines consciousness as consisting of all states of feeling, sentience, or awareness, from the moment we wake up from a dreamless sleep to when we fall asleep, die, or become unconscious. Dreams are also considered a form of consciousness in this definition.

What does the speaker argue is the simple solution to the mind-body problem?

The speaker argues that all conscious states are caused by neurobiological processes in the brain and are realized as higher-level or system features of the brain, similar to how the liquidity of water is a condition of the system rather than an additional substance.

What is the first feature of consciousness that the speaker identifies?

The first feature is that consciousness is real and irreducible. It cannot be eliminated by arguing that it is an illusion, as the very existence of consciousness is tied to the subjective experience of being conscious.

What is the second feature of consciousness that causes so much trouble, according to the speaker?

The second feature is that all conscious states have a qualitative character to them, meaning there is a specific feel or experience associated with each state, such as the feeling of drinking beer versus doing income tax.

How does the speaker respond to the claim that consciousness is similar to a digital computer program running in the brain?

The speaker refutes this claim by stating that consciousness involves more than just symbol manipulation, it also has content and semantics. Furthermore, computation is observer-relative and does not exist independently of conscious agents.

What is the main message the speaker wants to convey in the lecture?

The main message is that consciousness should be recognized as a biological phenomenon, just like photosynthesis or digestion, and that it is subject to scientific analysis like any other biological phenomenon.

How does the speaker address the concern that consciousness cannot be studied scientifically because it is subjective?

The speaker argues that it is possible to have an objective science of consciousness. One can make objective claims about a domain that exists subjectively in the human brain, consisting of states of sentience, feeling, or awareness.

Why does the speaker consider behaviorism to be an embarrassment to intellectual culture?

The speaker views behaviorism as an embarrassment because it is refuted by the simple distinction between feeling a pain and engaging in pain behavior. The mistake of behaviorism, according to the speaker, is the assumption that accepting the existence of consciousness means giving up on science.

Outlines

00:00

🤔 The Neglect and Importance of Consciousness

The speaker begins by addressing the curious neglect of consciousness in both scientific and philosophical circles, despite it being a fundamental aspect of human experience. They argue that consciousness is essential for anything to matter in our lives and criticize the slow progress in understanding it. The speaker recounts their initial optimism about the ease with which neurobiology could unravel the mysteries of consciousness and expresses surprise at the reluctance and even hostility encountered within the scientific community towards studying consciousness. They identify two main opposing yet intertwined traditions that hinder progress: religious dualism, which relegates consciousness to the spiritual rather than physical world, and scientific materialism, which either dismisses consciousness as non-existent or relegates it to a mere byproduct of physical processes. The speaker concludes this paragraph by asserting that consciousness is a biological phenomenon akin to other processes like photosynthesis and digestion, and that accepting this can dissolve many of the perceived difficulties in understanding it.

05:03

🧠 The Mind-Body Problem and the Nature of Consciousness

The speaker tackles the mind-body problem by proposing a simple solution: all conscious states are caused by and realized in the brain through neurobiological processes. They liken the mystery of consciousness to the liquidity of water, a property that arises from the collective behavior of its molecules. The speaker outlines the features of consciousness, emphasizing its reality and irreducibility, its qualitative character, its subjectivity, and the unified conscious field that encompasses various sensory experiences. They also touch on the causal role of consciousness in behavior, suggesting that a sequence of neural events leads to physical actions, such as raising one's arm. The speaker criticizes the outdated vocabulary used to discuss consciousness and calls for an updated understanding that acknowledges the dual nature of events as both mental and neurobiological.

10:04

🧐 Objections to the Reality of Consciousness and the Path Forward

The speaker refutes several objections to the reality of consciousness. They dismiss the notion that consciousness is an illusion, arguing that the subjective experience of consciousness is undeniable. They also counter the idea that consciousness is akin to a computer program running in the brain, emphasizing the semantic content of consciousness that goes beyond mere symbol manipulation. The speaker further argues that consciousness creates an observer-independent reality, giving rise to concepts like money, property, and government. They clarify the distinction between objectivity and subjectivity as features of reality versus features of claims, asserting that one can make objective claims about a domain that exists subjectively within the human brain. The speaker concludes by advocating for the acceptance of consciousness as a legitimate biological and scientific phenomenon, encouraging a scientific approach to understanding it.

Keywords

💡Consciousness

Consciousness refers to the state of being aware of and able to think and perceive one's surroundings, emotions, and thoughts. In the video, it is the central theme, with the speaker arguing that it is a biological phenomenon and a necessary condition for anything to be important in our lives. The script mentions that consciousness is often neglected in scientific and philosophical discussions despite its fundamental role in human experience.

💡Neurobiological processes

Neurobiological processes involve the functioning of the nervous system and the brain, which are responsible for our cognitive abilities and consciousness. The speaker asserts that all conscious states are caused by these lower-level processes and are realized in the brain as higher-level features. This concept is used to explain the biological basis of consciousness and to counter the idea that consciousness is non-physical or an illusion.

💡Subjectivity

Subjectivity pertains to the individual, personal perspective or experience that is unique to each conscious being. The video emphasizes that conscious states are subjective and only exist as experienced by a human or animal subject. This is contrasted with the objectivity of science, leading to the argument that an objective science of consciousness is possible despite its subjective nature.

💡Materialism

Materialism is the philosophical stance that everything in the universe, including consciousness, can be explained in terms of physical matter and its interactions. The speaker discusses a form of scientific materialism that denies consciousness as part of the physical world, suggesting it is non-existent or reducible to computational processes. This is critiqued in favor of recognizing consciousness as a biological phenomenon.

💡Dualism

Dualism is the philosophical position that separates the mind (or consciousness) from the physical body, often implying that the mind is non-physical. The script mentions religious dualism, which posits that consciousness belongs to the soul, a spiritual entity distinct from the physical world. This view is contrasted with the speaker's argument for a biological understanding of consciousness.

💡Behaviorism

Behaviorism is a psychological theory that suggests mental states can be explained by observable behavior. The speaker criticizes behaviorism as an outdated and refuted view that fails to account for the internal, subjective experiences of consciousness. The script points out the absurdity of equating mental states with behavior, using the example of feeling pain versus exhibiting pain behavior.

💡Qualitative character

Qualitative character refers to the specific, subjective feel or quality of a conscious experience. The speaker discusses how each conscious state, such as the taste of beer or the experience of listening to music, has a unique qualitative feel that contributes to the richness of consciousness. This aspect is central to the argument that consciousness is more than mere symbol manipulation or computation.

💡Unity of consciousness

Unity of consciousness describes the integrated nature of conscious experience, where various sensory inputs and cognitive processes coalesce into a single, unified field of awareness. The speaker highlights this as a key feature of consciousness, contrasting the fragmented approach of current robotics and emphasizing the complexity of replicating this unity in artificial systems.

💡Causality

Causality in this context refers to the ability of consciousness to have a direct effect on the physical world, such as the speaker's example of a conscious decision to raise an arm causing a physical movement. The video argues against the notion that consciousness is epiphenomenal (having no effect on the world), asserting that it has a causal role in behavior through underlying neurobiological processes.

💡Mind-body problem

The mind-body problem is a philosophical issue concerning the relationship between the mind (or consciousness) and the physical body. The speaker offers a solution to this problem by stating that conscious states are caused by and realized in neurobiological processes in the brain. This explanation aims to demystify the interaction between consciousness and the physical world.

💡Illusion

In the context of the video, illusion refers to the mistaken belief that consciousness might not exist or is something other than it appears. The speaker refutes the idea that consciousness is an illusion like a sunset or a rainbow, arguing instead for its real and irreducible nature. The script uses the concept of illusion to address misconceptions about the nature of consciousness.

Highlights

Consciousness is a curiously neglected subject in both scientific and philosophical culture.

Consciousness is crucial because it's a necessary condition for anything to be important in our lives.

Interest in consciousness often leads to misconceptions and slow progress in research.

Initially considered a straightforward biological problem, consciousness research has been met with impatience by neurobiologists.

The reluctance and hostility towards consciousness research stem from a combination of religious dualism and scientific materialism.

Consciousness is a biological phenomenon akin to photosynthesis, digestion, and mitosis.

Common-sense definition of consciousness includes all states of feeling, sentience, or awareness.

Consciousness is real, irreducible, and cannot be dismissed as an illusion.

Conscious states have a qualitative character, subjective to the experience of a human or animal subject.

Consciousness exists as a unified field, integrating different sensory inputs into a single conscious experience.

Consciousness functions causally in our behavior, demonstrated by the ability to consciously move one's arm.

The mind-body problem is simplified by understanding that conscious states are caused by and realized in the brain's neurobiological processes.

The traditional dualistic view that separates objective science from subjective consciousness is flawed.

Consciousness creates an observer-independent reality, such as money, property, and social constructs.

Computation is observer-relative and does not exist without consciousness interpreting it.

Behaviorism is refuted by the distinction between mental states and behavior, and is considered an embarrassment to intellectual culture.

Consciousness must be accepted as a genuine biological phenomenon subject to scientific analysis.

Transcripts

I'm going to talk about consciousness.

Why consciousness?

Well, it's a curiously neglected subject,

both in our scientific and our philosophical culture.

Now why is that curious?

Well, it is the most important aspect of our lives

for a very simple, logical reason,

namely, it's a necessary condition on anything

being important in our lives that we're conscious.

You care about science, philosophy, music, art, whatever --

it's no good if you're a zombie or in a coma, right?

So consciousness is number one.

The second reason is that when people do

get interested in it, as I think they should,

they tend to say the most appalling things.

And then, even when they're not saying appalling things

and they're really trying to do serious research,

well, it's been slow. Progress has been slow.

When I first got interested in this, I thought, well,

it's a straightforward problem in biology.

Let's get these brain stabbers to get busy and figure out

how it works in the brain.

So I went over to UCSF and I talked to all

the heavy-duty neurobiologists there,

and they showed some impatience,

as scientists often do when you ask them embarrassing questions.

But the thing that struck me is, one guy said in exasperation,

a very famous neurobiologist, he said, "Look,

in my discipline it's okay to be interested in consciousness,

but get tenure first. Get tenure first."

Now I've been working on this for a long time.

I think now you might actually get tenure

by working on consciousness.

If so, that's a real step forward.

Okay, now why then is this curious reluctance

and curious hostility to consciousness?

Well, I think it's a combination of two features

of our intellectual culture

that like to think they're opposing each other

but in fact they share a common set of assumptions.

One feature is the tradition of religious dualism:

Consciousness is not a part of the physical world.

It's a part of the spiritual world.

It belongs to the soul,

and the soul is not a part of the physical world.

That's the tradition of God, the soul and immortality.

There's another tradition that thinks it's opposed to this

but accepts the worst assumption.

That tradition thinks that we are heavy-duty scientific materialists:

Consciousness is not a part of the physical world.

Either it doesn't exist at all, or it's something else,

a computer program or some damn fool thing,

but in any case it's not part of science.

And I used to get in an argument that really gave me a stomachache.

Here's how it went.

Science is objective, consciousness is subjective,

therefore there cannot be a science of consciousness.

Okay, so these twin traditions are paralyzing us.

It's very hard to get out of these twin traditions.

And I have only one real message in this lecture,

and that is, consciousness is a biological phenomenon

like photosynthesis, digestion, mitosis --

you know all the biological phenomena -- and once you accept that,

most, though not all, of the hard problems

about consciousness simply evaporate.

And I'm going to go through some of them.

Okay, now I promised you to tell you some

of the outrageous things said about consciousness.

One: Consciousness does not exist.

It's an illusion, like sunsets.

Science has shown sunsets and rainbows are illusions.

So consciousness is an illusion.

Two: Well, maybe it exists, but it's really something else.

It's a computer program running in the brain.

Three: No, the only thing that exists is really behavior.

It's embarrassing how influential behaviorism was,

but I'll get back to that.

And four: Maybe consciousness exists,

but it can't make any difference to the world.

How could spirituality move anything?

Now, whenever somebody tells me that, I think,

you want to see spirituality move something?

Watch. I decide consciously to raise my arm,

and the damn thing goes up. (Laughter)

Furthermore, notice this:

We do not say, "Well, it's a bit like the weather in Geneva.

Some days it goes up and some days it doesn't go up."

No. It goes up whenever I damn well want it to.

Okay. I'm going to tell you how that's possible.

Now, I haven't yet given you a definition.

You can't do this if you don't give a definition.

People always say consciousness is very hard to define.

I think it's rather easy to define

if you're not trying to give a scientific definition.

We're not ready for a scientific definition,

but here's a common-sense definition.

Consciousness consists of all those states of feeling

or sentience or awareness.

It begins in the morning when you wake up from a dreamless sleep,

and it goes on all day until you fall asleep

or die or otherwise become unconscious.

Dreams are a form of consciousness on this definition.

Now, that's the common-sense definition. That's our target.

If you're not talking about that, you're not talking about consciousness.

But they think, "Well, if that's it, that's an awful problem.

How can such a thing exist as part of the real world?"

And this, if you've ever had a philosophy course,

this is known as the famous mind-body problem.

I think that has a simple solution too. I'm going to give it to you.

And here it is: All of our conscious states, without exception,

are caused by lower-level neurobiological processes in the brain,

and they are realized in the brain

as higher-level or system features.

It's about as mysterious as the liquidity of water.

Right? The liquidity is not an extra juice squirted out

by the H2O molecules.

It's a condition that the system is in.

And just as the jar full of water can go from liquid to solid

depending on the behavior of the molecules,

so your brain can go from a state of being conscious

to a state of being unconscious,

depending on the behavior of the molecules.

The famous mind-body problem is that simple.

All right? But now we get into some harder questions.

Let's specify the exact features of consciousness,

so that we can then answer those four objections

that I made to it.

Well, the first feature is, it's real and irreducible.

You can't get rid of it.

You see, the distinction between reality and illusion

is the distinction between how things

consciously seem to us and how they really are.

It consciously seems like there's --

I like the French "arc-en-ciel" —

it seems like there's an arch in the sky,

or it seems like the sun is setting over the mountains.

It consciously seems to us, but that's not really happening.

But for that distinction between

how things consciously seem and how they really are,

you can't make that distinction for the very existence of consciousness,

because where the very existence of consciousness is concerned,

if it consciously seems to you that you are conscious,

you are conscious.

I mean, if a bunch of experts come to me and say,

"We are heavy-duty neurobiologists and we've done a study

of you, Searle, and we're convinced you are not conscious,

you are a very cleverly constructed robot,"

I don't think, "Well, maybe these guys are right, you know?"

I don't think that for a moment, because, I mean,

Descartes may have made a lot of mistakes, but he was right about this.

You cannot doubt the existence of your own consciousness.

Okay, that's the first feature of consciousness.

It's real and irreducible.

You cannot get rid of it by showing that it's an illusion

in a way that you can with other standard illusions.

Okay, the second feature is this one

that has been such a source of trouble to us,

and that is, all of our conscious states

have this qualitative character to them.

There's something that it feels like to drink beer

which is not what it feels like to do your income tax

or listen to music, and this qualitative feel

automatically generates a third feature,

namely, conscious states are by definition subjective

in the sense that they only exist as experienced

by some human or animal subject,

some self that experiences them.

Maybe we'll be able to build a conscious machine.

Since we don't know how our brains do it,

we're not in a position, so far, to build a conscious machine.

Okay. Another feature of consciousness

is that it comes in unified conscious fields.

So I don't just have the sight of the people in front of me

and the sound of my voice and the weight of my shoes

against the floor, but they occur to me

as part of one single great conscious field

that stretches forward and backward.

That is the key to understanding

the enormous power of consciousness.

And we have not been able to do that in a robot.

The disappointment of robotics derives from the fact

that we don't know how to make a conscious robot,

so we don't have a machine that can do this kind of thing.

Okay, the next feature of consciousness,

after this marvelous unified conscious field,

is that it functions causally in our behavior.

I gave you a scientific demonstration by raising my hand,

but how is that possible?

How can it be that this thought in my brain

can move material objects?

Well, I'll tell you the answer.

I mean, we don't know the detailed answer,

but we know the basic part of the answer, and that is,

there is a sequence of neuron firings,

and they terminate where the acetylcholine

is secreted at the axon end-plates of the motor neurons.

Sorry to use philosophical terminology here,

but when it's secreted at the axon end-plates of the motor neurons,

a whole lot of wonderful things happen in the ion channels

and the damned arm goes up.

Now, think of what I told you.

One and the same event,

my conscious decision to raise my arm

has a level of description where it has all of these

touchy-feely spiritual qualities.

It's a thought in my brain, but at the same time,

it's busy secreting acetylcholine

and doing all sorts of other things

as it makes its way from the motor cortex

down through the nerve fibers in the arm.

Now, what that tells us is that our traditional vocabularies

for discussing these issues are totally obsolete.

One and the same event has a level of description

where it's neurobiological, and another level of description

where it's mental, and that's a single event,

and that's how nature works. That's how it's possible

for consciousness to function causally.

Okay, now with that in mind,

with going through these various features of consciousness,

let's go back and answer some of those early objections.

Well, the first one I said was, consciousness doesn't exist,

it's an illusion. Well, I've already answered that.

I don't think we need to worry about that.

But the second one had an incredible influence,

and may still be around, and that is,

"Well, if consciousness exists, it's really something else.

It's really a digital computer program running in your brain

and that's what we need to do to create consciousness

is get the right program.

Yeah, forget about the hardware. Any hardware will do

provided it's rich enough and stable enough to carry the program."

Now, we know that that's wrong.

I mean, anybody who's thought about computers at all

can see that that's wrong, because computation

is defined as symbol manipulation,

usually thought of as zeros as ones, but any symbols will do.

You get an algorithm that you can program

in a binary code, and that's the defining trait

of the computer program.

But we know that that's purely syntactical. That's symbolic.

We know that actual human consciousness has something more than that.

It's got a content in addition to the syntax.

It's got a semantics.

Now that argument, I made that argument 30 --

oh my God, I don't want to think about it —

more than 30 years ago,

but there's a deeper argument implicit in what I've told you,

and I want to tell you that argument briefly, and that is,

consciousness creates an observer-independent reality.

It creates a reality of money, property, government,

marriage, CERN conferences,

cocktail parties and summer vacations,

and all of those are creations of consciousness.

Their existence is observer-relative.

It's only relative to conscious agents that a piece of paper

is money or that a bunch of buildings is a university.

Now, ask yourself about computation.

Is that absolute, like force and mass and gravitational attraction?

Or is it observer-relative?

Well, some computations are intrinsic.

I add two plus two to get four.

That's going on no matter what anybody thinks.

But when I haul out my pocket calculator

and do the calculation, the only intrinsic phenomenon

is the electronic circuit and its behavior.

That's the only absolute phenomenon.

All the rest is interpreted by us.

Computation only exists relative to consciousness.

Either a conscious agent is carrying out the computation,

or he's got a piece of machinery that admits of a computational interpretation.

Now that doesn't mean computation is arbitrary.

I spent a lot of money on this hardware.

But we have this persistent confusion

between objectivity and subjectivity as features of reality

and objectivity and subjectivity as features of claims.

And the bottom line of this part of my talk is this:

You can have a completely objective science,

a science where you make objectively true claims,

about a domain whose existence is subjective,

whose existence is in the human brain

consisting of subjective states of sentience

or feeling or awareness.

So the objection that you can't have an objective science of consciousness

because it's subjective and science is objective, that's a pun.

That's a bad pun on objectivity and subjectivity.

You can make objective claims

about a domain that is subjective in its mode of existence,

and indeed that's what neurologists do.

I mean, you have patients that actually suffer pains,

and you try to get an objective science of that.

Okay, I promised to refute all these guys,

and I don't have an awful lot of time left,

but let me refute a couple more of them.

I said that behaviorism ought to be

one of the great embarrassments of our intellectual culture,

because it's refuted the moment you think about it.

Your mental states are identical with your behavior?

Well, think about the distinction between feeling a pain

and engaging in pain behavior.

I won't demonstrate pain behavior, but I can tell you

I'm not having any pains right now.

So it's an obvious mistake. Why did they make the mistake?

The mistake was — and you can go back and read

the literature on this, you can see this over and over —

they think if you accept the irreducible existence

of consciousness, you're giving up on science.

You're giving up on 300 years of human progress

and human hope and all the rest of it.

And the message I want to leave you with is,

consciousness has to become accepted

as a genuine biological phenomenon,

as much subject to scientific analysis

as any other phenomenon in biology,

or, for that matter, the rest of science.

Thank you very much.

(Applause)