Our Shared Condition John Searle

"Of all the objects in the universe, the human brain is the most complex. There are as many neurons in the brain as there are stars in the Milky Way galaxy.", a quote from an issue of a Discover magazine article. But what comes from this complexion? The answer is thought. Consciousness has been quarreled between writers, scientists, priests, atheists and everyone in between. The priest says it is divine and cannot be explained, the atheist says no - it’s evolution. The writer romanticizes it, creating characters that contain the free will of the author but have more unrealistic complexion than any real human character. Scientists explain that we are in a state of awareness and that consciousness cannot be entirely explained as it is subjective and objectively, it cannot be measured. Human existence has transcended from being a simple organism living with survival instincts: hunting and gathering food for our kin, to working boring jobs to feed the family and to have just enough leisurely time to assure yourself not to jump off the nearest building to end it all. The question is - can an organism become complex enough to consciously choose what they believe is morally right with free will. Do we live for others or ourselves? Does consciousness actually exist and how do we prove it?

Growing up the common conception of what consciousness pertains to what is done with thought. However, when taking an in-depth examination of this topic, it appears that there is more to it than that. It is one of the most familiar concepts in the world, yet, it has a mysterious factor to it. Consciousness poses a baffling problem of the mind. It raises many questions surrounding its definition and furthermore how it correlates to everything else that we know today. Chalmers in his work (put name here) attempts to define what consciousness is and two problems that make it difficult to grasp. In addition, I will seek to derive a solution to the issue surrounding comprehending consciousness.

To define such a universally experienced phenomena as consciousness may seem on the most superficial level rather unnecessary. Yet a more scientific, and at times philosophical, investigation into the phenomena demands some sort of confirmed interpretation which supercedes any such common understanding. For our purposes the content of consciousness may be deemed those things of which one is aware and thus can report. Thinking, as well, and the higher-level mechanisms associated there in may also be components of this consciousness. While additionally an individuals' conception that the way in which she experiences the world comes from more than just the neuronal activity of her brain can be understood as a contribution

no, a machine could not be conscious. I propose that those who argue the yes case that a machine

Consciousness a term explained as being aware of all surroundings, emerging from the functions of the brain. When a person gets used to something they may be able to think of other things at the same time, until a change happens, then they regain their consciousness to what they were doing. This essay is to further explore the target which is the slides from lecture 17 consciousness using the slides Meanings and automatization by using examples from the book “ The Robots Rebellion” by Keith E. Stanovich, which is the base to further explain and expand on these points.

The fascination with consciousness dates back to the time of Plato and Descartes. Since those times the term “consciousness” has spurned controversy in many scientific fields, including the fields of biology, psychology, and neuroscience. However, with the recent advancements in brain imaging technologies, such as functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and electroencephalography (EEG), human consciousness has shifted from being a subjective, abstract idea into being a observable scientific phenomenon. As neuroimaging capabilities progress, the public interest in consciousness also grows.

My own theory of consciousness is a state of awareness of self. It has been said that this awareness stems from arousal. Consciousness, to me, is entirely internal. We experience the external world, but only through our senses. Dehaene and Naccache (2001) explain that neuroscience is beginning to investigate and understand the "neural underpinnings of consciousness." Thus, consciousness is something that we experience via our own bodies. However, there is an implied separation between experience and consciousness. Animals and plants also have mechanisms for interacting with the world, but they do not appear to have the same neural underpinnings that them to interpret the world with the same awareness that humans have. We, however, not only experience the external world, but we are aware of that experience.

So does consciousness exist outside the brain? Consciousness is defined as the state or quality of awareness, or, of being aware of an external object or something within oneself. Basically being aware enough to understand everything going on around you. Some would argue that consciousness is restricted to the brain and body only. If that were true then the brain would be able to operate outside the body but in reality cannot. Consciousness however, is utilized beyond the brain without any accusations of superstition as hundreds of experiments and millions of testimonials confirm it to be true. One out of many examples include psi researchers Charles Honorton and Diane Ferrari examining 309 precognition experiments carried out by sixty-two investigators involving 50,000 participants in more than two million trials. These studies were significant in showing that people can describe future events, something that can’t be done if our consciousness was so internalized. The odds that these results were not due to chance or random luck, but by actual skill or fact was greater than 10 to the twentieth power to one. Very high odds with a very high sample size representative of the general population for just one out of many experiments and tests. Consciousness is not something contained in our brain or minds but rather it’s an infinite, immediate and omnipresent phenomenon. It’s infinite because it is not confined to specific points in time or places like the brain. It’s immediate

from the physical body. In the Identity Theory, the mind is one with the brain and there

explanation of where our minds, or consciousness, came from and how we are able to

John Searle formulated the Chinese Room Argument in the early 80’s as an attempt to prove that computers are not cognitive operating systems. In short though the immergence of artificial and computational systems has rapidly increased the infinite possibility of knowledge, Searle uses the Chinese room argument to shown that computers are not cognitively independent.

Consciousness allows a person to recognize their existence, and subsequently, to form their essence. The

In his paper “Computing Machinery and Intelligence,” Alan Turing sets out to answer the question of whether machines can think in the same humans can by conceptualizing the question in concrete terms. In simple terms, Turing redefines the question by posing whether a machine can replicate the cognition of a human being. Yet, some may object to the notion that Turing’s new question effectively captures the nature of machines’ capacity for thought or consciousness, such as John Searle. In his Chinese room thought experiment, Searle outlines a scenario that implies machines’ apparent replication of human cognition does not yield conscious understanding. While Searle’s Chinese thought experiment demonstrates how a Turing test is not sufficient to establish that a machine can possess consciousness or thought, this argument does not prove that machines are absolutely incapable of consciousness or thought. Rather, given the ongoing uncertainty of the debate regarding the intelligence of machines, there can be no means to confirm or disconfirm the conscious experience of machines as well as the consciousness of humans by extension of that principle.

The essential properties of consciousness have been matters of philosophical debate since the 1600s, when Descartes proclaimed that mind and brain were separate substances. But recently, scientists and doctors have started asking

Substantial studying has been made on the subject and Turing’s overly optimistic point of view, yet, we experience difficulty when trying to combine idea of advancement in technology and what makes us humans: the capability of thinking. Conventionally, we have firmly grasp to the idea that the act of thinking is the official stamp of authenticity which differentiate humans from the rest of beings, and so while trying to decide if a computer can think or not, we are closely scrutinizing the foundation of our nature as beings to its core. But before we dive into the subject matter of why I disagree with Turing, we must inquire about what exactly is thinking. Some have tried to define thinking as having conscious thoughts; but thinking and consciousness are not terminologies that are mutually exchangeable. While thinking is a state of consciousness, consciousness is not thinking. Even as we process information necessary for reasoning, much of our brain activity and processing takes