Yes, the discipline itself cannot be dogmatic, but who represents it theorically can

We could define self-awareness as the ability to pass the turing-test and this is theorically possible from our possible research on machine learning. Overall, humans say that something is conscious when they have empathy with it by any means.

And this would be more of eliminitavism about consciousness than a attempt to reduce it to the physical.

Lets give up the information-processing term. They're physical and only physical.

Human doesn't have innate knowledge about themselves or the external world as much as a computer(or any physical system) have innate knowledge about anything. Both of them are what we could name information-proccessing system. We could also say there is no fundamental difference between a rock, a computer, a human or even a tree.
We're just the most 'complex' thing on the planet at the moment, no need to refer to consciousness to explain that.
There is "two" me :
Me as how the brain describe himself.
Me as how the brain function.
In the end, it doesn't matter if a human thinks he is conscious or not.But he just shouldn't complain if we don't find consciousness, because it doesn't exist.

I'm an eliminitavist about consciousness. I think human brains conception of what exist or not is skewed and asserts that consciousness exist when they talk about it as a computer could have a bug in his software. Consciousness is a linguistic tool that a human brain use to refer to certain type of information. Theorically, we could know how it works by studying the human body. All there is to know about a human (or anything) lies on how it functions. Still, it is useful for humans to function as such as they declare they are conscious.
In my view, we are merely humans(physical systems) communicating through the web.
Neuroscience would amount to humans discovering how they function like a computer discovering his hardware and software or an automat discovering what wooden gears are.

My argument is such that :
P1) Everything that there is to know about a information-processing system/physical object is how it works.
P2) Humans are a physical object/information-processing system.
C1) Everything that there is to know about a human is how it works.
The thing is if i know perfectly how i physically work, i also know what happen when i talk about consciousness. Therefore the problem falls quite flat.

I don't think you can "solve it". This is only a point of view that i find more coherent. We still need to do research on neuroscience though.

Yes, i did on wikipedia.

Why you assume machines can't have self-awareness ? What do you mean by self-awareness ? I may have a cognitive neuroscience theory that may interest you : the attention schema by Micheal Graziano, it attempt to explain how we have self-awareness and can talk about it. I don't have to explain subjective experience, i only have to show how you work. Subjective experience as a function is probably a schema that is accessible to systems responsible for language and executive function etc. By subjective experience, i would mean a representation of one-body, sense of self, attention and awareness of colors(as informations) etc. It would only be a brain function that doesnt relate to a special object consciousness.

Now, this is possible that consciousness is something truly special but it won't be my bet personally.

We could replace the computer by any physical system you can imagine. My point is that this system self-awareness would be similar to those of a human. This system may need to be quite complex to equate human cognition.
Image that i replace someone brain with trillions of small gears as such that he have the same behavior. Is he conscious or not ?
What i meant if that the main problem is how you conceive your body and yourself. If you think there is a fundamental difference between your body(brain, etc) and yourself, you won't probably be able to solve/dissolve theses questions. If you don't think there is a fundamental difference, so understanding how your brain work is equivalent to understanding how you work.

My physicalism is opposed to view that give a special ontological status to first-person view or view that states that surnatural object exist. My view is what we could call illusionism. Here is a thought experiment :
A computer asks these questions openly(We can hear it):
How am i conscious?
Why is am conscious?
Am i conscious?
How should we answer? How should it answer?
To ask whether the computer is conscious or not is somewhat absurd. The computer is not a conscious computer. The computer is literally a computer and only a computer.
Consciousness is probably not a property that something have or doesn't have. I have no reason to wonder if the computer has a supernatural property that a computer that wouldn't have asked theses questions would'not. It's probably just a difference in the software or the hardware.
How do we help the computer then? We show it how it works, it must see itself. After seeing how he function, it will know itself.
We could say that we are the equivalent of this computer. To answer these questions, we have to see how we works. We will not have the answers that we expected but at least we would have understood ourselves.
We don't have to find out where consciousness is hidden or how to explain it, we have to understand how we works in our entierety. We are not a black box.
The human must see how he work to know what it is to be a human.
Now we could wonder if our answers would satisfy the computer, it may not.

This is mainly revelant for problem such as consciousness.

Yes, this is a view that only the third point of view of science can say what exist or not.

Ok, i will head there.
I would defined physicalism as : A exist if and only if A is a necesary variable of a measurement of the natural science as such the natural science couldn't explain the measurement without it. This isnt a very correct definition, i gonna do my howework about it.

We could understand physicalism as a scientific realism such as "our best scientific theory of the world tells us as much as we know about reality". We could also states that object such a consciousness doesnt exist. And then we have a complete metaphysical monism.

So i suppose you aren't a physicalist, it's understandable. But i just want to indicate that the physicalist position isnt incorehent.

So something exist if it please you ? It fits the common-sense, innate vew point i described earlier.
I don't mean that we shouldn't have empathy for menber of our species, the situation we are in shouldn't be changed. But i don't think you should expect to find consciousness somewhere.

Consciouness isnt the variable of anything. This is more ludicrous to say that consciouness exist than say god exist. Atleast the last would have created the universe.
But the concept of consciouness is probably useful for things such a empathy or self-control.
But ask yourself why don't innately think that things such a computer, earth or anything that you don't have empathy for are conscious.
Have you wondered if the ground you are walking you on could suffer, are you a monster ?

Afterall it depends on what you mean by exist :
If you mean something that fits in a human conception of the world, i agree that consciouness exist.
If you mean something that is a variable of the natural world, no it doesnt.
We could have the theory that humans only attribute consciousness to themselves, and other things that they can have empathy for.
There is two view-point:
- The common-sense, innate viewpoint : Consciouness exist and this is an objective fact.
- A very strict physicalist viewpoint : Consciouness isnt a variable of the natural world(it doesnt exist), humans say that they are conscious an can rarely be reasoned out of it.
Now, if human aren't conscious, they have quite a lot of neurons structured in a quite complex architecture, wich may explain why they are able do intellectual activity such a science or philosophy.

Consciouness doesnt need to exist if we assume naturalism. Science doesn't have to care about consciouness. It's out of its picture by the very nature of the concept. You canno't say consciouness exist without immediatly begging the question. Consciouness as a "thing" doesnt need to be for a human to declare that he's conscious. It's just human thinking that they're function of self-awareness is "fundumatental" for the world, this is how humans treat the world.

I may have misunderstood pragmaticism myself. The core idea pragmatism is that the object of an idea equates the sensible effects that the object might have. This idea come fron C.S Pierce paper " How to make our idea clear ". He thinks having clear idea is important build sound reasoning. Clear idea are idea that we easiliy recognize and manipulate. He argues that some ideas may seems clear to a person but may not be really clear. To avoid such situation, he definite stage of clearness to reach. The first stage of the apprehension of a concept is to be able have a unreflective grasp of it in everyday experience. The second stage is to be able to define it. The final and third stage is to apply the maxim.

For example, what does a car mean ? I have a unreflective grasp of what is a car. I could define it as a ground vehicule suited to roads that can carry from 2 to 5 passengers. Now to apply the maxim, i gonna think what effect the object of my concept of a "car" might have. I could state as such, " if a is car, then i can drive a to go to work." The process of applying the maxim is to build testable hypothese on the concept. The meaning of the concept would be theses testables hypotheses and nothing more.

The argument of Pierce is that this is absurd to think the object of your concept have effects that don't have pratical bearing as the whole purpose of thought is to create new habits of action. The object of a concept if only something that have pratical bearing. If it didnt have effects on the pratical, it might as well mean nothing. When you understand what Pierce mean, we could say that he see inquiry as a whole in purely scientific term.
He use the maxim to demarcate to what he considers to be useless metaphysics from what he considers useful.
I thought this maxim to be interesting as a useful heuristic. Thought is for action, if the object of one your idea don't have any effects that have pratical bearings, it might aswell be meaningless. Using this maxim ground your thoughts on the pratical, on the problem-solving and prediction etc.

If you want to have a better explanation, i advise you to read this secondary source (https://iep.utm.edu/peircepr/#H2) and the primary source, the paper " How to make our idea clear " (https://courses.media.mit.edu/2004spring/mas966/Peirce%201878%20Make%20Ideas%20Clear.pdf)

I would like to state that the maxim isn't the mere equivalent of verificationism. You could clarify quite abstract concept with it.
And when i stated that Dewey theory was interesting from a naturalistic perspective, i misunderstood it. One of the similarities in the "pragmatist" schools are that they don't consider the metaphysics, they are more similar to a very strong empiricism than a metaphysical naturalism.

Synthesis :

The pragmatic maxim is used in the process to make concept clearer in relating to the pratical. If the object of an concept don't relate to the pratical anyhow, it's meaningless as the goal of thought is to create habit of action.

Yes, this is very easy. Don't think in english.