Now I guess you're going to show us how what we experience as awareness can be observed in rocks. — T Clark

Unfortunately not! If it were that easy the philosophy of mind would be over long ago. But we (perhaps) infer consciousness in other humans from their behaviour. But rocks also exhibit behaviour. It's not clear to me why the behaviour of rocks should not also evidence of consciousness.

Not being a panpsychist, looking for consciousness in inanimate objects is not something I would normally do, but since you brought it up... It seems clear to me the idea of consciousness originated to refer to a human mental process. — T Clark

Maybe, but even that sentence is theory-laden. It's stipulating it's a process. And I'm doubtful that earliest thinkers about consciousness did necessarily restrict it to human beings. If we're going to start somewhere, I suspect it's not processes in human beings - that's a way down the road. The starting point is my awareness. If I wasn't aware I wouldn't even suspect other people of being guilty of it.

I know that it's almost impossible to pin down a definition, but my current one I think is quite simple: The most fundamental unit of consciousness is a reflection of the outside from on the inside, and vice versa. There is an " in here" and an "out there". — Watchmaker

I quite like that. Is it a definition or a theory? if you were a lexicographer, would you consider writing that in your dictionary you are authoring?

Hmm. Is a TV crime drama a useful analogy? These are written and directed to highlight certain things about the suspects and manipulate an audience - false leads, clues and behaviours specifically filmed and constructed to take you in a direction. This is not like ordinary evidence, in is contrived to elicit a response. Maybe true crime would be a better analogy? Or maybe crime is not useful at all. Perhaps what you are saying can be made more simple - what are the key indicators of consciousness? How do we determine if something has consciousness? — Tom Storm

Well yes, I did wonder if my framing was not helpful. I gave it because I was specifically asked for "evidence". So I drew the first analogy that came to mind. Evidence appears in other contexts, but crime is the most obvious one. I shouldn't have framed it in terms of fiction, I should have stuck to real life to avoid your criticism about contrivance. True crime would be better, and that's really what I meant.

Broadly I guess it's a reframing of the problem of other minds, and possibly the problem of one's own mind as well.

I was going to write a different OP titled something like "Is there any theory-neutral evidence for consciousness?" but I thought that would narrow the discussion too much. But perhaps it would have been better. With murder, we have a fairly clear concept of what a murder is. That concept then determines what we admit as evidence. So, a bloody dagger found in a bush near a dead body may very well be the kind of thing that would be evidence of a murder. But an observation of a wobble of a star wouldn't be evidence of murder at all. However the observation of the wobble of a star might well be evidence of a planetary orbit, and the dagger is totally irrelevant. So what we admit as evidence is determined by a whole load of definition and theory. In the case of murder, a statutory definition (or common law depending on jurisdiction). For the wobbly star, there's a whole load of background theory that makes the wobble relevant. For example, we need a concept of gravity, and circular orbits, and mass, and the sky as having depth and not like a 2D firmament, etc etc.

But with consciousness, what do we use to determine what to admit as evidence? Do we look in dictionaries for definitions? Well, I think we should. That will help. But people typically don't do that, and that's really weird. They think definitions are up for grabs. They're not really, not unless we want to invent a technical term. And some definitions, like the Glasgow Coma Scale (thanks to @Banno) make the job really easy. It tells us exactly what to look for. But of course that doesn't capture the sense of 'consciousness' implicated in debates about subjective phenomenal experience. There are dictionary definitions of phenomenal consciousness, e.g.:

"the fact of awareness by the mind of itself and the world"

...there's lots of variations on the theme. And they tend to heavily employ synonyms, which is interestingly uninformative. Such definitions don't really help much when trying to decide what to admit as evidence. So with phenomenal consciousness, do we need to move beyond definition to theory to know what to admit as evidence? I rather think we do. Taking panpsychism for example, my view is that matter does what it does because of how it feels. Regardless of the truth of that, it does provide a criterion for determining what to admit as evidence. Is that stone conscious? Well, is it doing something? Yes, it's energy-matter behaving in a rockish-way. That action is evidence of its consciousness, but only if we assume panpsychism first! But that's no good is it? When @apokrisis and @180 Proof ask me for evidence, what they want is evidence that doesn't pre-suppose panpsychism! They want a reason to believe it that doesn't pre-suppose it. Similarly, if we look for the presence of brains as evidence of consciousness, that assumes a theory, namely that consciousness has something critical to do with brains. So that led me to try to think of evidence that doesn't pre-suppose any theory at all. And the only single piece of evidence that did not imply a whole load of argument and theory, was the fact that I am conscious. I know I am, regardless of any theoretical commitments (and I know some will question even that).

So, with regard to a rock and another human being, is there any theory neutral evidence to be had?

@fdrake
@Michael

So it's possible there are things our senses and devices can't perceive that are the foundation of this imperceptible macro-characteristic. It makes sense that we can't perceive the micro-properties. — Patterner

Righto, OK, thanks. That sounds like you are open to the possibility of panpsychism. Is that right? It also sounds like you might be a mysterian like McGinn, perhaps: the idea that we can never know exactly how physical processes cause or constitute consciousness, while nevertheless accepting that they do.

Define experience in a way that could break out of your hermeneutic circle. — apokrisis

I'm not sure exactly what you mean. In any case it's not my job to define 'experience' by fiat. The definition, or concept of consciousness, I take to be a given. One place it is given is in dictionaries. The definition is not up to us. Philosophers can attempt to refine and clarify a little perhaps, if a dictionary definition is not quite clear enough or we want to isolate a particular sense, but basically the definition of consciousness is public property. I think "the capacity to have experiences" captures the relevant sense fairly well.

If you want to define the word differently, please go ahead, but then we may not end up talking about the same thing.

What are its measurables from the microphysicalist perspective you want to take as a Panpsychist? — apokrisis

What is the 'it' you are referring to? Experience? I'm not a microphysicalist. I'm not sure exactly what you are asking.

What useful role does consciousness play outside of “experiencing”? In what sense is it causal precisely?

That's a good question. I'm not sure, but I'm considering the possibility that all causation is psychological, or at least reducible to the psychological. So the difference that consciousness makes is that without it, nothing would happen at all. I've been meaning to start a thread about that for a while to think it through, but haven't got to it.

Consciousness is the capacity to experience. A model of the world used to make predictions is a model of the world used to make predictions. The one isn't the other. They're conceptually distinct.

But the model isn't consciousness

Hence — apokrisis

Hence!

He's saying a whole lot more than that. But the cell as a self-defining self, as membrane and contents seems to be the beginning of that caring that gives meaning to anything. Cells have attitude! From that plus many more layers comes the predictive model that includes a self-model that becomes human consciousness — unenlightened

Yes, that's what I understand Apo to have been saying for a while. I have no particular objection to that narrative as the origin of a complex self that starts to resemble some of the mental faculties of humans. I just don't think it helps getting from non-consciousness to consciousness. As I said, I think there is an important distinction between the self and consciousness.

I think that's a very interesting point, and I think we've talked about it before. It may well be that a change that matters is a necessary condition for a conscious system to undergo an experience. That seems intuitively very plausible. If that's all Apo is saying then I agree, probably.

The usual assertions sans support. — apokrisis

I've set out my own views numerous times on the forums over the years, but I'll do so again at some point if you really want me to. I'm also aware that both you and 180 have asked me what evidence I have for, say, a rock to be conscious. That's of course a perfectly good question and I haven't answered it yet. Starting a thread is a considerable commitment for me, so I can't do it too often. My next one may well be on evidence for consciousness, and the criteria for admission as evidence, and whether that criterion is necessarily theory-laden. It'd be interesting to get your views on that. It's way easier to do brief criticisms and questions about other people's views than set out one's own. Probably a bit anti-social, but I think that's inevitable for this kind of format to an extent.

How do you define consciousness? — ssu

The capacity to experience.

Is a baby infant conscious?

Yes

Is a chimpanzee?

Yes

A spider?

Yes

An amoeba?

Yes

If you assume that it's exactly on/off, then what is the switch that has to be on?

The existence/non-existence switch. Or the something/nothing switch. I'm a panpsychist.

Nice analysis Mr Apokrisis! — Janus

Could you explain Apo's point to me?

So now you have to give a good counterfactual reason for why it wouldn't "feel like something" to be modelling the world from a point of view. Where is the scope for reasoned doubt. — apokrisis

It does feel like something to do that, but not because doing that peculiarly necessitates feeling like something. It feels like something because panpsychism is true.

The reason it feels like something to be conscious is that we are busy modelling the world - a world in which our self is the enactive anchor of that model. — apokrisis

The self isn't consciousness. Again, why can't this self-anchored modelling happen without consciousness?

A cone cell switches on when it exposed to dominantly “red” spectrum, and then signals the opposite when exposed to dominantly “green” spectrum. A neural correlation for reported experience is available in a way that makes complete explanatory sense. — apokrisis

But why is any experience at all correlated with that? Why can't that happen without an experience with it?

No! But it's an interesting question.

Consciousness seems obviously something that gradually increases and there isn't this one thing, one detail that switches consciousness on or off like a switch. — ssu

It seems to me that consciousness, conceptually, is exactly something on/off. Something either has experiences or it doesn't, I don't see a middle ground. A middle ground just doesn't fit the concept.

I'm just confused by the statement that "there is something it is like to be such-and-such". It refers to the same thing too many times for me. There is something (the football) it (the football) is like to be the football (the football). It can be applied to literally anything, is all I'm saying. — NOS4A2

Yeah I see, the meaning of the figure of speech is opaque to some, and unhelpful in getting the concept across sometimes.

There is something it is like to be a football. — NOS4A2

What is it like to be a football? What are you thinking of? Round (or oval if you're a septic), inflatable, ect? Is that what you mean?

To be clear, if I had a pill that would stop you being autistic, I would give it to you. I have no problem at all with you disliking it and I hope you can find some way to stop being it. But I'm against such a pill being available to the general population. That would mean the end of autism. My son would be in the last generation. Parents would give it to their autistic children en masse.

Yes you can. Not really hitting it out of the park huh. — Darkneos

Well, sort of. You could maybe develop a medication or surgery or something that turn people from being autistic to neurotypical, but such a thing could only correctly be called a 'cure' by people like you who conceive of autism as a disease. Neurodivergence is generally not conceived that way, so 'cure' would be the wrong word. Unless you want to say that you could 'cure' bipedalism by hacking someone's leg off.

the problem is that people seem to forget this can manifest in many ways and while some have the good traits and minimal bad down have nothing but bad and struggle needlessly. — Darkneos

What are you calling good traits? Can you list a few? And the bad? Can you list a few of those? Just so I know what you mean.

There are autistic people who struggle a lot, and are extremely disabled, and yet would not choose to take the cure pill. There are, no doubt, autistic people who are not especially disabled, who nevertheless would take the cure pill, just to fit in better. I'm just making the point that there is no necessary connection between having a shitty time and wanting not to be autistic. I haven't done a survey, and it would be interesting and informative to do one (maybe someone has), but I'm pretty sure autistic people who don't want to be autistic are in a minority. But I could be wrong. I suspect you are doubly-marginalised unfortunately, being a minority of a minority.

The "you would be a different person" argument isn't valid. We change over time, no one is the same person they were when they were a teen or a kid etc, so his argument in there about wishing their kid was dead by not having autism could literally apply to ANYONE who changes something about themselves in a manner that isn't recognized. — Darkneos

Yes, and it's bad when it does. Children grow up in ways their parents don't like, and parents disown them. My mum thought I was fab until I grew up and got a job as a labourer. Then she thought I was a useless failure. She had expectations of me that did not align with my own. I'm not clear what your point is. You seem to be agreeing with Sinclair.

IMO it's not a positive message — Darkneos

Not to you, clearly. But many people have found it extremely helpful.

They treat everyone's case as the same when it's not, — Darkneos

He's speaking to a group of parents, not an autistic individual. It's critically important, sans a 'cure', for parents to not think their kids are crap versions of neurotypicals, rather than perfectly good specimens of autistic people. Even if that's false (which it isn't), it will result in better outcomes for the kid.

I'm sick of being told to change my attitude as if they know what I've had to deal with. — Darkneos

What have you had to deal with? This?

Always being on the outside when it came to social interactions, never being able to read into things like others do, rigid thinking, etc, etc. — Darkneos

Well, that is the same for all autistic people! What you've said so far seems to be entirely autistic-normal, it's pretty much the defining characteristics. The difference, as you say, seems to be that you don't find any positives about being autistic, whereas many other autistic people do. So is that what you mean when you say "What you've had to deal with"? Is it not feeling anything positive about your autism?

This is the naïveté I was talking about that I don’t like from the pro side. — Darkneos

Can you explain what you perceive as naivite among autistic people who feel OK about being autistic? Is it that they tell you you can feel fine about it as well if you just change your attitude or something patronising like that?

EDIT: It would be naive of me if I thought I could extrapolate my own experience to all other autistic people, such that what works for me works for everyone. But exposing other autistic people to information, narratives, culture and so on often does help. Simply doing that isn't naive. Expecting it to always be helpful and strike everyone's bell certainly would be.

Like I said it’s different for everyone so it should be left up to the person. — Darkneos

What about children?

The origins of a more positive narrative around autism can be found in Jim Sinclair's seminal presentation to parents of autistic children called "Don't Mourn for Us". Here's the link, it has had a huge impact on many autistic people:

https://www.autreat.com/dont_mourn.html

When I was reading literature on autism one particular aspect which I came across was how 'theory of mind' plays an important role, with autism often involving a lack of understanding of other minds. — Jack Cummins

This is just the principle, applicable to anyone, that it is hard to understand people who are different from ourselves. It's not peculiar to autistic people.

So in terms of social policy, what approach should society take if a 'cure' is discovered? You and I might be on opposing sides of the debate by the sounds of it.

If Chalmers doesn't think consciousness is an object, element, aspect, or entity, then why does he speak about it like it is? — NOS4A2

He thinks it's a property, like spin charge and mass

Sure, disability is a different kind of minority. But if autistics were in the majority, neurotypicals would be disabled. They may even be forcibly detained for making decisions based on feelings, for not saying what they mean, for being over reliant on social interactions for comfort, and generally being a menace to society. Much disability is indeed caused by an ill fit with the social environment, although not all. I don't think autistic people are intrinsically 'socially handicapped'. They appear so when the environment is taken for granted and therefore invisible. A fish on a pavement is disabled. In the water it's fine.

I also never got how people say it's the world that's fucked up and not me, I mean logically it would be the other way around because the world is just what it is. It's not like it's actively malicious or plotting your doom (no matter how we feel some days). — Darkneos

The world isn't just what it is in the sense that it isn't a product of human beings and can't be changed. Any more than billionaires having all the money is 'just the way it is', as if nothing can be done.

Minorities generally have to somehow deal with the fact that they live in a context that is not set up with them in mind. There are a number of ways to cope with this. Not coping is also an option.

I was diagnosed about 7 years ago I think. The general consensus among autistic activists is that a cure is not appropriate because autism isn't a disease. I probably mostly agree with that, however, there are a lot of co-occurring conditions (epilepsy being the main one I guess) that there are significant downsides to. If there was a pill that got rid of some of the crappier co-occurring conditions without changing the autism, I'd be in favour of that. And there are also a significant minority of autistic adults who don't want to be autistic. It sucks, and these people are not comforted by the social-model line that there's nothing wrong with them it's the world that's fucked up. I sympathise with them, and for those people a cure would be great. Unfortunately there might be a lot of unintended consequences. Do we want a world without autistic people in it? I don't.

EDIT: have you managed to find other autistic people you can relate to?

Incels: a misogynist hate movement so extreme they approve of enslaving and raping women. Living embodiments of rape culture as unenlightened and @Baden astutely point out. — fdrake

Really? I haven't explored that online grotto. I just thought incels were disgruntled angry men who can't get a shag. They really want to enslave and rape women?

Sounds great. I'm envious. I still haven't figured out a feasible method.

How does it feel to be objectified as a man, by women that earn more, have higher social status and influence. — Benj96

Pretty shitty. They're not interested in my personality.

EDIT: My most recent partner only liked me for my broad shoulders, rugged looks, ability to cook, trim shrubs and maintain bicycles. When I expressed my personality I told her I was submissive, that her right-wing views were disgusting, that she was ignorant and unwilling to learn, and that sometimes I hated her, she dumped me.

I hope that doesn't signal a problem. Some people need more privacy than others. Some, because their talent and interest inclines them to solitary pursuits: graphic arts, literature or academic study; some because they have matters to contemplate, ideas to work through; some due to particular fears or general lack of confidence; some because they're hypersensitive, so that their feelings and perceptions are overwhelmed by too much interaction, or more simply, they lack access to a compatible pool of potential friends - that's more likely if a child is exceptional in some way. It might be a good idea to investigate the reason - it's possible the boy could use some help. Or he may be quite content until he's ready to move on to the next phase. — Vera Mont

He's autistic like his mum and dad. He'll be OK, just needs to find his tribe, like I had to. It was just a lot easier for me because I could cope with school. We're trying to set up a DnD group at the moment, hopefully that will work out.