People usually think that it is very easy to prove that “I have consciousness” and they provide a whole bunch of “proofs”, however it is very easy to show that all these “proofs” are incorrect and contain multiple errors.
Here are several typical examples of such erroneous “proofs”.

1) “I can feel pain and I respond to pain, as for example when my finger is cut, I remove the finger and this proves that I have consciousness”.
Let’s rephrase this argument in more scientific way: “my reaction to stimulus proves that I have consciousness”. Let’s raise a simple question: is it really so? Does reaction to stimulus really prove that object has consciousness? We will remind how the fire alarm system works. Fire alarm system has sensors for detecting fire, and when these sensors detect fire or smoke – the fire alarm system reacts instantaneously by sprinkling the water, sounding the alarm and/or accomplishing some other actions. I.e. the fire alarm system has a property of being able to respond to stimulus. However does this mean that fire alarm system has consciousness? As we can clearly see from the example with fire alarm system, “reaction to stimulus” is not the proof consciousness.

2) “I can have emotions/feelings and this proves that I have consciousness”.
“The having of emotions/feelings” – is it really the proof of having consciousness? Ok, then what about computer game characters who have emotions/feelings – does this mean that computer game characters have consciousness? As we can clearly see from the example with computer game characters, “having of emotions/feelings” is not the proof consciousness.

3) “I can play music and this proves that I have consciousness”.
“The playing of music” – is it really the proof of having consciousness? Ok, then what about people who are unable to play music – are these people without consciousness or not?

4) “I can recognize myself in the mirror and this proves that I have consciousness”.
“Recognizing yourself in the mirror” (a.k.a. mirror self-recognition test) – is it really the proof of having consciousness? Ok, then what about blind people/monkey/etc who are unable to recognize themselves in the mirror – are they without consciousness or not? And what about robots who are able to recognize themselves in the mirror – does this mean that robots have consciousness?

5) “I have goals and I achieve my goals and this proves that I have consciousness”.
Let’s raise a simple question: is it really so? Does “having goals and achieving goals” really prove that object has consciousness? Artificial intelligent agents, like for example computer game characters, have goals and they are achieving goals too. However does this mean that computer game characters have consciousness? As we can clearly see from the example with computer game characters, “having goals and achieving goals” is not the proof consciousness.

6) “Machines/computers/robots can only imitate that they have consciousness, however only humans have true-consciousness.”
Let’s raise a simple question: is it really so? Please provide at least one evidence that you are not the imitation of consciousness, please provide at least one evidence you have true-consciousness.
Your claim “I have true-consciousness” is not the proof of having true-consciousness, because the machine can also claim the same statement that it has true-consciousness.

7) The list of “proofs” might be endless, however in every case it is very easy to show that every “proof” is incorrect.


The truth is that you cannot provide any evidence which would prove that you have consciousness. There is no experimental test which would enable to determine if object X has consciousness or not. In other words, there are no scientific criteria to determine if object X has consciousness or not, which means that the term “consciousness” is totally useless unnecessary ballast for describing and modeling of the behavior of living organism.
People who use term “consciousness” are unable to provide scientific definition of the term “consciousness”, they are unable to provide the list of criteria (the list of features) which would allow to determine if object X has consciousness or not. When a man uses a term/word which he is unable to define then it is quite obvious that such man does not understand himself what he is talking about, it is obvious that his speech is meaningless by definition.
The term “consciousness” is unscientific and has nothing to do with science. The term “consciousness” is pure pseudoscience and has no scientific basis whatsoever – you do not agree with that? Ok, in case if you disagree then please go back to our little exercise – where is the evidence that you have consciousness? Please provide at least one evidence that you have consciousness, please provide at least one evidence that you are not the agent without consciousness. And please do not come back until you have at least one evidence that you have consciousness.
It is important to note however that pseudoscientific term “consciousness” is so deeply rooted into society that this makes almost impossible to avoid it when discussing the functioning of the brain. In Neurocluster Brain Model we use pseudoscientific term “consciousness” only for legacy reasons in order to simplify comprehension of material for the reader – sometimes a little inaccuracy saves a ton of explanation.

And by the way, if speaking about tests – in computer science there is such thing as “Turing test”.

A lot of scientists write a computer programs which try to pass a Turing test, as for example one of the best human chat simulating program is “A.L.I.C.E.”.

However let’s raise a simple question: and what about human who fails to pass the Turing test (like for example man with Down's syndrome, an infant, etc)? How we should call a human who fails to pass the Turing test? What word/term we should use for denoting a human who fails to pass the Turing test? If a human fails to pass Turing test then this raises a simple question: “does such human have consciousness or not?”. As we can clearly see from the above examples, the Turing test is unable to determine if the object has consciousness or not. There is not a single scientific tool which would be able to test for the existence of consciousness which means that the term “consciousness” is 100% pseudoscientific term.

We will explain in more detail the essence of the problem.
Suppose we are sending a probe to a distant planet and the task of the probe is to find out whether there are any objects which have consciousness on this distant planet. In order to solve this problem the onboard computer of the probe needs to contain an algorithm/program, which would test the objects on this distant planet for the presence of the consciousness. We need a detailed list of diagnostic features which would allow to determine whether the object X has consciousness or not.

Wikipedia provides the summary of the endeavors of the pseudoscientists trying to define the term “consciousness”:
1) Question: what is the “consciousness”, how can we detect if object X has consciousness or not? Answer: object X has consciousness ONLY IF it has awareness.

2) Question: what is the “awareness”, how can do we detect if object X has awareness or not? Answer: object X has awareness ONLY IF it has consciousness.

In other words: 1) object X has consciousness ONLY IF it has awareness, 2) object X has awareness ONLY IF it has consciousness.
It is obvious that these definitions are circular/recursive definitions. However circular/recursive definitions are meaningless by definition and have nothing to do with science, here is one practical example of such meaningless circular/recursive definition: “To define recursion, we must first define recursion.”

And now let’s raise the question: do such “definitions” of “consciousness” provide any help in making of the algorithm/program which would be able to test the objects for the presence of the consciousness?
Obviously, the answer is “no”.
It is obvious that such “definitions” have nothing to do with science; such blabber is simply the claptrap.

It is important to note that many people have no clue whatsoever about what the word “scientific” means. This is due to the simple reason.
Universities have huge number of faculties which actually have nothing to do with science. As for example, many universities have “faculty of theology” or “faculty of literature”, and so on. And these “faculties” issue diplomas with academic degrees like “master”, “doctor”, “professor”, etc. And what is the activity of such “professors of theology”, what do they do? They study the superstitious writings called “sacred scriptures” and then debate each other about what did Jesus/Muhammad/Krishna/etc said and who is superior over whom – Jesus is superior to Muhammad or vice versa. They can debate whatever they want, however that is not science, this activity does not meet the scientific criteria. And then such people from universities with academic degrees write books, give lectures, talk on TV/radio, etc – they simply flood the society with their claptrap material. When average common people read/listen to this claptrap material they get the false impression that this material is “science” – and this is due simple reason: the authors of that claptrap material have scientific academic degrees. As the result of this, majority of the population are totally incapable to distinguish science from pseudoscience. As the result of this, they are totally incapable to detect circular/recursive definitions and they are totally incapable to understand that circular/recursive definitions are meaningless by definition. That is a huge problem in society.
The article “What is science and what isn't science?” contains more detailed instructions about how to distinguish science from pseudoscience.

Quite often, the same identical terms/words have different meanings in different fields/professions.
As for example, the same identical term/word “syncope” in various fields/professions has the following meanings:

The same situation is with the word “consciousness”.
In medicine, the term/word “consciousness” means the “neurological/physiological state/condition”.

When medics talk about “consciousness”, they mean the “neurological/physiological state/condition” and such meaning of the term/word matches the scientific criteria.

When religious adepts, who mimic “scientists”, talk about “consciousness”, they mean the object called “consciousness” (“one that is looking at the screen”, “one that hears/sees/feels/etc”) – this meaning of the term/word does not meet the scientific criteria, this is pure pseudoscience.

It is important to note that: 1) the “physiological state” called “consciousness” and 2) the object (“observer”) that has the name “consciousness” – are two different things.
Quite often, the same identical terms/words have different meanings in different fields/professions – the term/word “consciousness” is exactly such a case.

We will remind that religious adepts, who mimic “scientists”, publish articles/books/theses/etc about “consciousness” at industrial scale in which “consciousness” is meant as an object that can be transferred (“transfer of consciousness/mind into another system”, etc.).
Moreover, extremely illiterate religious adepts even claim that “consciousness is located inside quantum microtubules”.

It is interesting to note that a lot of pseudoscientists claim that high level of intelligence (or the possession of “consciousness”) is needed in order to possess abstraction capabilities, however it is very easy to disprove this claim.
We will remind that all organisms are able to distinguish “food” from “non-food”.
However “food” and “non-food” are abstract objects.
And that means that all organisms have abstraction capabilities.

Below is the classical typical example of pseudoscientific claims about “consciousness”.
Pseudoscientists Christof Koch and Giulio Tononi claim that “any system with integrated information different from zero has consciousness”.
In other words, pseudoscientists Christof Koch and Giulio Tononi claim that CD-ROM disk and USB flash drive do have consciousness. It is quite obvious that pseudoscientists Christof Koch and Giulio Tononi do lack neurons in the brain areas responsible for logical thinking.

“Consciousness” is the hallucinatory object that exists only in the imagination of the religious adepts, and this hallucinatory object has nothing to do with science for a very simple reason – there is no laboratory test which can determine if the concrete object X has consciousness or not. In other words, there are no scientific criteria for determining whether the object X has consciousness or not.
“Consciousness” is the hallucinatory object similar to hallucinatory objects like “chakras”, “astral cord”, "energy egg", all sorts of subtle bodies (etheric, astral, mental, buddhic, atmic, and so on), etc.
The arguments about the existence of the “soul/spirit” and the arguments about the existence of the “consciousness” – both are identical, there is no difference between them.

The article “What is science and what isn't science?” contains more detailed instructions about how to distinguish science from pseudoscience.