There is a distinction between two important concepts here. There is access consciousness and there is phenomenal consciousness. The actual paper published alongside the j-space blog post discusses the idea of access consciousness if you are interested.
Phenomenal consciousness is what the hard problem of consciousness is about. I personally believe there is a good reason to think the reducibility of this concept to some substrate independent description is equivalent to having a proper definition, and also believe it is not reducible to such a description. Hence the only definition one can give is akin to pointing at the moon and hoping you don’t look at the hand. I.e., phenomenal consciousness is first person experience, the existence of qualia, and that the “lights are on”.
We are biased as educated people to believe all concepts are reducible to substrate independent description but there is no reason to believe this a priori.
The substrate non-independence of consciousness, if correct, could mean we won’t just build one no matter how intelligent and human-like they become.
I agree with you that there is nothing “magical” about our intelligence. However we have as a species effectively believed in magic since Newton decided gravity is a black box that cannot be reduced to the mechanical philosophy, and went on with describing its properties formally. We don’t call it magic, but physics. We call quantum mechanics unintuitive because it disagrees with the Boolean logic that is appear at the every day level. For some reason we keep making this mistake over and over.
(There is one weakness to my view that I aware of. I think there must have at least at some point and maybe still been a role in which the process that results in phenomenal conscious plays in a correlated intelligence, because it seems unlikely to persist through evolution if not. I.e. certain physical processes encode information better than others, and we happen to live in a universe where such process is aligned with consciousness. Substrate independence doesn’t have to contend with this, but it does have worse problems in my view.)
Phenomenal consciousness is what the hard problem of consciousness is about. I personally believe there is a good reason to think the reducibility of this concept to some substrate independent description is equivalent to having a proper definition, and also believe it is not reducible to such a description. Hence the only definition one can give is akin to pointing at the moon and hoping you don’t look at the hand. I.e., phenomenal consciousness is first person experience, the existence of qualia, and that the “lights are on”.
We are biased as educated people to believe all concepts are reducible to substrate independent description but there is no reason to believe this a priori.
The substrate non-independence of consciousness, if correct, could mean we won’t just build one no matter how intelligent and human-like they become.
I agree with you that there is nothing “magical” about our intelligence. However we have as a species effectively believed in magic since Newton decided gravity is a black box that cannot be reduced to the mechanical philosophy, and went on with describing its properties formally. We don’t call it magic, but physics. We call quantum mechanics unintuitive because it disagrees with the Boolean logic that is appear at the every day level. For some reason we keep making this mistake over and over.
(There is one weakness to my view that I aware of. I think there must have at least at some point and maybe still been a role in which the process that results in phenomenal conscious plays in a correlated intelligence, because it seems unlikely to persist through evolution if not. I.e. certain physical processes encode information better than others, and we happen to live in a universe where such process is aligned with consciousness. Substrate independence doesn’t have to contend with this, but it does have worse problems in my view.)