[csee]

There isn't, but the response to this lack of definition shouldn't be to simply terminate the discussion.

We know it's probably a real thing because we experience it, and it's an extremely important open question whether an AGI on hardware will have "it" too.

The answer to the question will have large ethical implications a few decades into the future. If they can suffer just like animals can, we really need to know that so we don't accidentally create a large amount of suffering. If they can't suffer, just like rocks probably can't, this doesn't have to be a concern of ours.

[grumbel]

The response to the lack of definition should be investigation into how that definition could look like, not arguing if we or something else has it or not. Without a definition and criteria to test you're never going to make progress.

[csee]

Philosophers have been trying for decades to define it rigorously and have failed decisively. It really looks intractable at the moment. Given we are in this quagmire, I think it is ok to explore/discuss a bit further despite the shaky foundations of only having fuzzy definitions of "qualia" or "consciousness" to rely on.

[mannykannot]

Quite a lot of the philosophical debate has been tied up in the effort to show that minds cannot be the result of purely physical processes or will never be explained as such, which does not tell us anything about what they are.

We are not going to be able to say with any great precision what we are trying to say with the word 'consciousness' until we have more information. In lieu of that, what we can do is say what phenomena seem to be in need of explanations before we can compile a definition.

At this point, opinions that human-level consciousness is either just more of what has been done so far, or cannot possibly be just that, are just opinions.