As far as I know Dennett denies the existence of qualia which is something I can not understand however hard I try. I agree that in terms of intellectual capabilities the human brain is not magic. But consciousness kind of is.

I have difficulty digesting the concept of qualia as well.

In my view, qualia refers to a phenomenon, but tries to deny that it is a phenomenon by arguing that it is something independent from the physics of perception. I believe that if anyone ever tried to devise a machine to represent the boundary between physics and qualia, such as an artificial intelligence or brain, the hardware of that AI would provide a means to decoding subjective experience into objective terms.

Qualia would cease to be a useful term, and we would instead rely on a more objective look of individual perception, all while losing no advantages for abandoning "qualia" to the word graveyard.

I agree with you. Denying the existence of qualia makes no sense to me, except as the result of psychological processes. When you have to believe something in order to hold on to other cherished beliefs, there is a strong human tendency to do so, whether it's consistent with obvious evidence or not. A lot of mankind's tendency to believe in religions can be explained that way. So can Dennet's denial of qualia. (Ironic, in view of Dennet's view of religion.)

That's a very insulting reduction of Dennett's arguments

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia#Daniel_Dennett

I can hardly believe I wrote what I wrote -- I'm not normally that dismissive, at least of the views of people I know to be smart, particularly when I haven't ingested their arguments. I must have been in a very bad mood. Thanks for the reference to the overview of Dennets arguments, which I look forward to reading.

The basis for my saying what I said was that the existence of qualia seems at least as self-evident as the existence of anything else, particularly if you engage in a practice like zazen, as I do. (I would guess that the people who deny qualia and do that kind of meditation are probably quite few in number.) But that doesn't mean some extremely logical and compelling argument that I can't imagine now couldn't possibly make me see things in some entirely new, transformative light.

If anyone would be discussing that Dennet overview with me after I've read it, please say so...

Why? We are information processing devices, is it surprising that we have a first-person experience? I'd say it was more surprising if we didn't. I don't see what's magic about it.

Whatever consciousness is, it's not obviously required for an AI to start manipulating its surroundings to its advantage, which is one if the fears here.

True... the possible dangers of AI can exist even if AI never achieves true consciousness. Many forms of life have evolved to service their own needs at the expense of other forms of life, and most of them either have no brains or brains too primitive to be likely to involve consciousness as we know it. There's no reason AI can't do the same thing.

I recommend a book by Peter Watts called Blindsight. It explores the question whether consciousness is needed for intelligent behaviour.

If AI is an algorithm.

Consciousness is just a feature of that algorithm, in which it just becomes aware of its own existence and then ponder its implications.