TedTest

From the Ted Talk by John Searle: Our shared condition -- consciousness

Unscramble the Blue Letters

I'm going to talk about consciousness. Why consciousness? Well, it's a curiously neglected subject, both in our scientific and our poohaschiilpl 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 conitdion on anything being ionprmatt 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 ppeole do get interested in it, as I think they should, they tend to say the most alpanilpg 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 takeld 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 surctk 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 shrae a cmoomn set of aiomstnupss. One feature is the tradition of religious dualism: Consciousness is not a part of the physical world. It's a part of the siitrpual world. It belongs to the soul, and the soul is not a part of the physical world. That's the tdrtiaion of God, the soul and iralomittmy. 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 agrnumet 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 boiocglail phenomena — and once you accept that, most, though not all, of the hard perlbmos 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 wlord. How could spirituality move anything? Now, whenever somebody tells me that, I think, you want to see spirituality move something? Watch. I dedice 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 feinleg 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 aeelsp or die or otherwise become unconscious. Dreams are a form of consciousness on this dioitneifn. Now, that's the common-sense definition. That's our target. If you're not talking about that, you're not talinkg about cesononcuisss. 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 cuisncoos states, without exception, are caused by lower-level neurobiological processes in the brain, and they are realized in the brain as higher-level or ssytem 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 heardr questions. Let's specify the exact feuearts 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 isloluin 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 mitunnoas. It consciously seems to us, but that's not really hnpinaepg. 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 ceevllry 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 suocre of trouble to us, and that is, all of our conscious states have this qluativtiae 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 esxit 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 piotsion, 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 suond of my voice and the weight of my shoes against the floor, but they occur to me as part of one single great conscious flied 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 dreveis 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 ferutae of consciousness, after this marvelous uienfid 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 metarial 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 suqeecne of neruon firings, and they terminate where the acetylcholine is secreted at the axon end-plates of the motor neurons. Sorry to use philosophical tmongoierly here, but when it's secreted at the axon end-plates of the motor neurons, a whole lot of wonderful things heappn 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 rasie 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 stors of other things as it makes its way from the motor ctreox 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 leevl of dicostirpen where it's neurobiological, and another level of description where it's mental, and that's a sglnie event, and that's how nature wkors. That's how it's possible for consciousness to fouinctn causally. Okay, now with that in mind, with going through these various features of consciousness, let's go back and awsenr 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 irbecdilne 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 crary 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 sbmoyl muplintoiaan, usually thhogut of as zores as ones, but any soymbls will do. You get an algorithm that you can program in a brniay code, and that's the defining trait of the computer poagrrm. But we know that that's purely sycaiancttl. That's symbolic. We know that actual human consciousness has something more than that. It's got a content in addition to the sayntx. 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 bfirely, and that is, consciousness creates an observer-independent reality. It creates a reality of money, property, government, marriage, CERN conferences, cctioakl parties and smuemr 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 pepar is money or that a bunch of buildings is a university. Now, ask yourself about cmaupittoon. 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 calltcoaur and do the coaltcaluin, the only itnnrsiic phenomenon is the electronic circuit and its behavior. That's the only alobtsue 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 cptaaoutmniol interpretation. Now that doesn't mean computation is aairtbrry. I spent a lot of meony 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 biarn consisting of subjective states of stnceeine or feeling or aewrnsaes. So the ocoietbjn that you can't have an objective sicence 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 ojcbteive cmlais 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 aufwl lot of time left, but let me refute a couple more of them. I said that bvierohasim ought to be one of the gerat embarrassments of our intellectual cutulre, because it's refuted the moment you think about it. Your mental states are indtiaecl with your behavior? Well, think about the distinction between feeling a pain and engaging in pain behavior. I won't demonstrate pain bivoeahr, but I can tell you I'm not having any pnias 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 ginivg up on 300 yeras 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 poehnmnoen in bloiogy, or, for that matter, the rest of science. Thank you very much. (Applause)

Open Cloze

I'm going to talk about consciousness. Why consciousness? Well, it's a curiously neglected subject, both in our scientific and our _____________ 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 _________ on anything being _________ 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 ______ do get interested in it, as I think they should, they tend to say the most _________ 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 ______ 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 ______ 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 _____ a ______ set of ___________. One feature is the tradition of religious dualism: Consciousness is not a part of the physical world. It's a part of the _________ world. It belongs to the soul, and the soul is not a part of the physical world. That's the _________ of God, the soul and ___________. 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 ________ 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 __________ phenomena — and once you accept that, most, though not all, of the hard ________ 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 _____. How could spirituality move anything? Now, whenever somebody tells me that, I think, you want to see spirituality move something? Watch. I ______ 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 _______ 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 ______ or die or otherwise become unconscious. Dreams are a form of consciousness on this __________. Now, that's the common-sense definition. That's our target. If you're not talking about that, you're not _______ about _____________. 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 _________ states, without exception, are caused by lower-level neurobiological processes in the brain, and they are realized in the brain as higher-level or ______ 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 ______ questions. Let's specify the exact ________ 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 ________ 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 _________. It consciously seems to us, but that's not really _________. 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 ________ 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 ______ of trouble to us, and that is, all of our conscious states have this ___________ 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 _____ 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 ________, 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 _____ of my voice and the weight of my shoes against the floor, but they occur to me as part of one single great conscious _____ 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 _______ 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 _______ of consciousness, after this marvelous _______ 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 ________ 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 ________ of ______ firings, and they terminate where the acetylcholine is secreted at the axon end-plates of the motor neurons. Sorry to use philosophical ___________ here, but when it's secreted at the axon end-plates of the motor neurons, a whole lot of wonderful things ______ 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 _____ 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 _____ of other things as it makes its way from the motor ______ 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 _____ of ___________ where it's neurobiological, and another level of description where it's mental, and that's a ______ event, and that's how nature _____. That's how it's possible for consciousness to ________ causally. Okay, now with that in mind, with going through these various features of consciousness, let's go back and ______ 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 __________ 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 _____ 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 ______ ____________, usually _______ of as _____ as ones, but any _______ will do. You get an algorithm that you can program in a ______ code, and that's the defining trait of the computer _______. But we know that that's purely ___________. That's symbolic. We know that actual human consciousness has something more than that. It's got a content in addition to the ______. 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 _______, and that is, consciousness creates an observer-independent reality. It creates a reality of money, property, government, marriage, CERN conferences, ________ parties and ______ 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 _____ is money or that a bunch of buildings is a university. Now, ask yourself about ___________. 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 __________ and do the ___________, the only _________ phenomenon is the electronic circuit and its behavior. That's the only ________ 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 _____________ interpretation. Now that doesn't mean computation is _________. I spent a lot of _____ 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 _____ consisting of subjective states of _________ or feeling or _________. So the _________ that you can't have an objective _______ 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 _________ ______ 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 _____ lot of time left, but let me refute a couple more of them. I said that ___________ ought to be one of the _____ embarrassments of our intellectual _______, because it's refuted the moment you think about it. Your mental states are _________ with your behavior? Well, think about the distinction between feeling a pain and engaging in pain behavior. I won't demonstrate pain ________, but I can tell you I'm not having any _____ 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 ______ up on 300 _____ 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 __________ in _______, or, for that matter, the rest of science. Thank you very much. (Applause)

Solution

manipulation
incredible
sorts
behaviorism
sentience
years
computation
binary
intrinsic
paper
summer
position
talking
raise
biology
briefly
feeling
neuron
program
cortex
money
arbitrary
mountains
culture
spiritual
identical
science
absolute
consciousness
symbols
single
happen
works
feature
problems
syntactical
sound
philosophical
argument
zeros
appalling
giving
people
field
conscious
exist
computational
share
awareness
illusion
thought
talked
decide
asleep
function
common
assumptions
source
condition
world
features
derives
symbol
cocktail
material
struck
calculator
objective
biological
behavior
cleverly
terminology
phenomenon
harder
answer
awful
brain
carry
definition
happening
pains
qualitative
important
calculation
level
great
system
description
syntax
tradition
unified
objection
sequence
immortality
claims

Original Text

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)

Frequently Occurring Word Combinations

ngrams of length 2

collocation	frequency
computer program	4
physical world	3
twin traditions	2
program running	2
spirituality move	2
conscious states	2
conscious machine	2
unified conscious	2
objective science	2

ngrams of length 3

collocation	frequency
computer program running	2

Important Words

absolute
accept
accepted
accepts
acetylcholine
actual
add
addition
admits
agent
agents
algorithm
analysis
animal
answer
answered
appalling
applause
arbitrary
arch
argument
arm
art
asleep
aspect
assumption
assumptions
attraction
automatically
awareness
awful
axon
bad
basic
beer
begins
behavior
behaviorism
belongs
binary
biological
biology
bit
bottom
brain
brains
briefly
build
buildings
bunch
busy
calculation
calculator
care
carry
carrying
case
causally
caused
cern
channels
character
circuit
claims
cleverly
cocktail
code
coma
combination
common
completely
computation
computational
computations
computer
computers
concerned
condition
conferences
confusion
conscious
consciously
consciousness
consisting
consists
constructed
content
convinced
cortex
couple
create
creates
creations
culture
curious
curiously
damn
damned
day
days
decide
decision
deeper
define
defined
defining
definition
demonstrate
demonstration
depending
derives
descartes
description
detailed
die
difference
digestion
digital
disappointment
discipline
discussing
distinction
domain
doubt
dreamless
dreams
drink
early
easy
electronic
embarrassing
embarrassments
engaging
enormous
evaporate
event
exact
exasperation
exception
exist
existence
exists
experienced
experiences
experts
extra
fact
fall
famous
feature
features
feel
feeling
feels
fibers
field
fields
figure
firings
floor
fool
force
forget
form
french
front
full
function
functions
gave
generates
geneva
genuine
give
giving
god
good
government
gravitational
great
guy
guys
hand
happen
happening
hard
harder
hardware
haul
hope
hostility
human
identical
illusion
illusions
immortality
impatience
implicit
important
income
incredible
influence
influential
intellectual
interested
interpretation
interpreted
intrinsic
ion
irreducible
issues
jar
juice
key
kind
laughter
leave
lecture
left
level
line
liquid
liquidity
listen
literature
lives
logical
long
lot
machine
machinery
manipulation
marriage
marvelous
mass
material
matter
mental
message
mind
mistake
mistakes
mitosis
mode
molecules
moment
money
morning
motor
mountains
move
music
mysterious
nature
neglected
nerve
neurobiological
neurobiologist
neurobiologists
neurologists
neuron
neurons
notice
number
objection
objections
objective
objectively
objectivity
objects
obsolete
obvious
occur
opposed
opposing
outrageous
pain
pains
paper
paralyzing
part
parties
patients
people
persistent
phenomena
phenomenon
philosophical
philosophy
photosynthesis
physical
piece
pocket
position
power
problem
problems
processes
program
progress
promised
property
pun
purely
qualitative
qualities
questions
rainbows
raise
raising
read
ready
real
reality
realized
reason
refute
refuted
relative
religious
reluctance
research
rest
rich
rid
robot
robotics
running
science
scientific
scientists
searle
secreted
secreting
semantics
sense
sentience
sequence
set
setting
share
shoes
showed
showing
shown
sight
simple
simply
single
sky
sleep
slow
solid
solution
sorts
soul
sound
source
spent
spiritual
spirituality
squirted
stabbers
stable
standard
state
states
step
stomachache
straightforward
stretches
struck
study
subject
subjective
subjectivity
suffer
summer
sun
sunsets
symbol
symbolic
symbols
syntactical
syntax
system
talk
talked
talking
target
tax
tells
tend
tenure
terminate
terminology
thinks
thought
time
told
totally
tradition
traditional
traditions
trait
trouble
true
twin
ucsf
unconscious
understanding
unified
university
vacations
vocabularies
voice
wake
watch
water
weather
weight
wonderful
working
works
world
worry
worst
wrong
yeah
years
zeros
zombie