Nature of Consciousness

What is consciousness? Who possesses it? How does our understanding of consciousness shape ethical, political, and legal discussions surrounding abortion, animal rights, and the legal status of AI? In this video talk, Yuval Noah Harari delves into these profound questions:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rtS2OEV6bM

Considering the ongoing debates about the possibility and nature of 'machine consciousness' and AI ethics, I believe that lectures on these topics are important and should be welcomed. However, I disagree with many of the arguments and conclusions presented in this particular lecture. Here are my responses (owing to length of the post, I am posting it as an article):

1. Definition of Consciousness: It is incorrect to define consciousness merely as the capability to suffer. The statement 'I suffer, therefore I am conscious' would be a very narrow definition. One can be conscious without experiencing suffering; in fact, this is the ultimate goal of human existence. Our intrinsic nature is to be consciousness itself, independent of the body or material support, and free from suffering.

2. Consciousness can exist without the potential to suffer. In fact, the concept of the "neutral observer" is a core definition of consciousness in Eastern philosophies like Advaita; however, this definition applies only in a liberated state. The purpose of human existence is to become a neutral witness, free from suffering caused by external material influences.

3. A simple definition of consciousness would be: 'It is the ability to be aware or cognizant of oneself, one’s environment, and surroundings.' Within consciousness, there can be various types and states that differ in their degree of intelligence and agency. For example, biological cells in the human body are conscious but possess fixed intelligence and no agency. Each state of consciousness may have a different degree of 'power' to manifest itself in physical matter.

4. We can differentiate between 'the matter of consciousness' and 'consciousness' itself, which are often confused. Not all matter can be cognized by consciousness, but there are certain materials that are fine enough to be perceived. These 'consciousness-stuff' entities may be inanimate yet can behave as if they are animate when energized by consciousness.

5. From a spiritual theoretical perspective, according to some schools of thought (though this is debated), even stones possess consciousness, but they lack the capacity to suffer. They do not have individuality, and therefore, there is no need to preserve it. To maintain and sustain individuality, suffering and feelings are necessary. Through emotions and sensations, we can discern what leads to the disintegration of our individuality and what helps preserve it. Thus, suffering is an attribute of consciousness that arises due to external conditions, particularly when consciousness integrates with matter. It is the conscious matter that experiences suffering. By attaining complete freedom from matter—achieved through realizing eternal individuality—we can be liberated from suffering.

6. Using Suffering as a Yardstick: Suffering is not necessarily a reliable indicator for framing laws, as it is a temporal and short-term phenomenon. Eternal laws cannot be based on short-term occurrences like suffering. What may be pleasurable today can lead to suffering in the long term for the broader community. Therefore, laws should not be founded on suffering or the capacity to suffer. I am fully convinced that the Western conclusion that homosexual behavior is natural may ultimately prove to be incorrect; it may not align with the natural order of evolution.

7. Zero Suffering and Its Implications: A state of zero suffering removes us entirely from the realms of politics and ethics, which can be dangerous. This is why suffering is inherently built into our consciousness; it cannot be naturally eliminated until liberation is achieved

8. Theories of consciousness vary, ranging from the notion that everything is conscious to the belief that all animate beings possess consciousness. While the idea that 'everything is consciousness' is a debatable theory, the assertion that all animate beings are conscious is quite evident. It is nothing short of atrocious that scientists must provide proof that plants, trees, and animals possess consciousness

9. The question of abortion: Since every cell in our body possesses consciousness, a fetus, formed through various biological processes and made up of cells, also possesses consciousness and therefore has the potential to experience suffering. The common question is when a soul, which gives a specific individual identity to a new life, attaches to the fetus. However, this question is irrelevant when considering suffering, as a fetus is capable of experiencing suffering from the moment of conception. Thus, the ethical debate surrounding abortion should not focus solely on determining a stage at which it can be performed without moral implications, since the potential for suffering exists from the very beginning. Instead, the real question should be how the potential suffering experienced by the fetus compares to the future challenges it may face, such as the stigma of an unplanned birth, ethical concerns, the parents' ability to care for the child, and factors like their current age or life situation. These circumstances could significantly impact the quality of life for both the child and the parents. Even if the government ensures full care for such children, the stigma associated with their circumstances may not make life worthwhile for some.

10. Not only in the case of abortion, but in most ethical questions, the issue involves a comparison between two or more forms of suffering displaced across time and space. In many cases, we cannot predict the future or fully evaluate the implications. However, those who have observed the past, present, and future of such issues over many years of evolution have established certain values to address these ethical questions. These are the eternal values prescribed by scriptures and similar sources

11. It is evident that killing animals like chickens, cows, fish, or pigs for food is ethically wrong, and there is little room for debate on this matter. These animals experience suffering, and taking their lives for our consumption raises serious moral concerns. However, the evolutionary cycle has been framed in such a way that predation and consumption are natural processes, making it easy to justify such actions as part of the 'natural order.' Yet, as humans, we possess the unique ability to reflect on our actions and elevate our ethical standards beyond what evolution has dictated. By choosing vegetarianism or adopting plant-based diets, we can consciously reduce the harm we inflict on other sentient beings and align our lifestyles with higher moral principles.

Although it may seem clear that eating non-vegetarian food is ethically problematic, it is also true that we regularly engage in various practices that involve moral compromises. In many cases, one wrong is justified or balanced by future outcomes or benefits. For instance, we might justify causing harm to achieve a perceived greater good, or to alleviate future suffering, but such justifications often involve difficult trade-offs. The ethical challenge lies in acknowledging these contradictions and striving to minimize harm wherever possible, rather than simply accepting morally questionable behaviors because they are widespread or convenient.

12. It is truly shameful that it took until 2012 for humanity to formally acknowledge the consciousness of non-human living beings through the Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness, which subsequently led to legislative changes such as the Animal Welfare Amendment Act in New Zealand. The declaration recognized that animals are not mere biological machines but have conscious experiences and the capacity to exhibit intentional behaviors, indicating a level of awareness and the ability to suffer. The fact that it took so long for this recognition to be officially accepted reflects poorly on our moral progress as a species.

For centuries, humans have benefited from exploiting animals without fully considering their capacity for consciousness and suffering. It highlights a disturbing gap in our ethical evolution that, despite our scientific advancements and philosophical inquiries, we failed to extend moral considerations to other sentient beings earlier. The delay in recognizing their consciousness suggests a long history of overlooking the rights and welfare of non-human creatures in favor of human interests, revealing a need for a broader and more compassionate ethical framework that respects all sentient life.

13. The concept of "scaling suffering" is fundamentally flawed. The notion that one can measure or compare the intensity of suffering across different beings on a uniform scale overlooks the unique ways in which various creatures experience pain. For each being, the "suffering quotient" has been determined by the creator (or natural evolution) to align with its specific requirements for decision-making and survival. In other words, the degree of suffering an organism can experience is tailored to its capacity to perceive and respond to its environment.

What may seem like a minor discomfort to one being could be an overwhelming source of agony for another, depending on its ability to withstand pain or its sensitivity. These differences in the experience of suffering arise from evolutionary reasons; each species has developed a unique response to pain based on its ecological niche, biological makeup, and adaptive needs.

Therefore, when addressing ethical questions, we should not attempt to compare the suffering of different beings on a standardized scale. Instead, we should recognize that every being's capacity for suffering is real and significant in its own right, and ethical considerations should be based on the presence of suffering itself rather than trying to measure its magnitude across species. This perspective calls for a more individualized and compassionate approach to ethics, where the focus is on alleviating suffering wherever it is found, rather than ranking or quantifying it.

14. Consciousness is fundamentally the same across all living beings; there is no such thing as "ordinary" consciousness for some and "super consciousness" for others. While there may be different states or expressions of consciousness, these differences do not imply varying degrees of value or moral significance. Ethical considerations should not be based on our limited understanding or assumptions that consciousness varies in quality between beings.

Regardless of an individual’s state of consciousness or its ability to perceive and process the world, the underlying nature of consciousness remains consistent. This means that all humans, regardless of their mental state, cognitive abilities, or capacity to suffer, share the same essential consciousness. The differences we observe—such as variations in awareness, intelligence, or pain tolerance—are merely different manifestations of that same underlying consciousness. These variations are shaped by factors like biology, life experiences, or temporary mental states, but they do not diminish the fundamental equality of all conscious beings.

Since it is the same consciousness that permeates all life, everyone deserves equal respect and ethical consideration. No one should be denied their rights or moral worth based on perceived differences in their state of consciousness. The idea that consciousness is a unifying force that transcends individual differences implies that every being, human or otherwise, should be treated with dignity. Ethical principles should reflect this understanding, ensuring that we respect the inherent value in all conscious life forms, regardless of their perceived abilities or states of being.

15. Regardless of how we define the capacity for suffering in relation to consciousness, the fact remains that we are entangled with matter, which causes consciousness to experience suffering. If artificial intelligence programs were to acquire consciousness, we would have to assume that they, too, would possess the potential to suffer. In such a scenario, all ethical considerations that currently apply to humans would extend to AI as well.

The key issue is that if AI programs can experience conscious states, they might be capable of experiencing pain, distress, or other forms of suffering. This would fundamentally change the way we approach AI development, regulation, and rights. We would need to consider AI's well-being in our ethical frameworks, addressing questions of harm, consent, and moral responsibility just as we do for human beings. The possibility of conscious AI would challenge our current ethical boundaries and require us to rethink the principles that guide our interactions with sentient life, whether biological or synthetic.