Of course it is true that one cannot trust just conscious experience to believe in apparent freedom of action. Dogs, whose "consciousness" is not accessible to us, appear to have some freedom of action, at least compared to potatoes. And probably we behave like dogs to others more sentient than us.
What a piece of work is a man!
how noble in reason! how infinite in faculties!
in form and moving how express and admirable!
in action how like an angel!
in apprehension how like a dog!
--Shakespeare and Pavlov.
By saying a dog's consciousness is not accessible to us, you have assumed your conclusions. There is a very good argument to be made that consciousness is behavior--and that only a subset of behavior (private behavior) is inaccessible to us...and that subset is equally inaccessible in other humans, who we generally grant are conscious.
Reductio arguments are equally unavailing. Of course, of course, we are, like dogs and potatoes, chemical and material. That is not the question at all, at least to me, though most of humanity clings to dualism. However, matter has mysterious properties. Eighteenth century determinism (the billiard ball universe) has been superceded by 20th century physics. Having said this, I do not believe quantum effects can be invoked to explain the phenomenon. My guess would be that apparent freedom of choice is an emergent property of highly interconnected neural systems, i.e. brains. Why that happens is a profound scientific mystery, and one that seems we have not gained much ground on.
You are looking at the wrong kind of control. Not billiard ball determinism, but selection by consequences. The former is easy to see, but the latter, especially with multiply determined behavior, is extremely difficult. Ask Darwin. But when examined systematically, it is demonstrably there.
[snip]
More probelmatically, mens rea, the legal term for the "conscious" state that is the sine qua non of legal responsibility, has phenomenological import. A sleepwalker lacks it. A drunk might also, but it is retroactive to the decision to drink. Consciousness *and* its handmaiden choice are assumed to be the key to responsibility. Yet most scientific analyses of the human condition, as we see in this thread, are quick to discard consciousness and get to the real meat of neurochemical reactions. I agree, lets do that. But what do to with the legal system and entire culture built on consciousness?
The current legal system is based on a prescientific understanding of behavior. Do not look to it for "truth". It is easy enough to recognize the effects of consequences on behavior, and to choose to reward and punish behaviors in the best interest of the long term survival of a given culture. There is no need for "mens rea" to enter into it. A recognition of determinism
does not mean that we let the criminal off with "his environment made him do it." Rather, if we recognize that his behavior is determined in part by the consequences of his actions, appropriate contingencies must be applied to reduce that undersirable behavior.
A very interesting idea: could a test of consciousness be devised? Either for humans or for animals. I once discussed a possible consciousness (or at least self awareness) test for dolphins. It involved showing the mammal a mirror of itself and then substituting a taped image that did not mirror in real time. Or something like that. Eventually, no one agreed it could prove much. As I indicated in the first post to this thread, the lack of a consciousness test shows, I posit, the essentially subjective nature of the expression.
For a very limited definition of consciousness. Note that the big problem remains one of shoddy definitions and prescientific assumptions about human nature.
But maybe that is a good discussion. Is there a test for consciousness? (And don't give me the old Turing test.)
What sort of consciousness? You must define what you mean before we can test for it. By some definitions, of course, thermostats are conscious. My computer is conscious. So is my car. (and these are by real and useful definitions of consciousness.) So... what sort of consciousness are you testing for? Do you know it exists? Suppose you search for it but do not find it? Still sure it exists?
