Consciousness theory slammed as ‘pseudoscience’ — sparking uproar

Author: n8nrgim

Posts

Total: 41
Topic's author
#1
n8nrgim
n8nrgim's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 953
3
2
4
n8nrgim's avatar
n8nrgim
3
2
4

i think the argument that skeptics and atheists have... that humans are nothing than elaborate flesh robots, is asinine. it lacks common sense.

i think any theory of consciousness is suseptible to being called pseudo science... but that goes for both materialists and religious theories as well. consciousness is just not understood enough scientificially to act like there's a clear theory to explain it. 
#2
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,030
3
2
4
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
4
-->
@n8nrgim

i think the argument that skeptics and atheists have... that humans are nothing than elaborate flesh robots, is asinine. it lacks common sense.

i think any theory of consciousness is suseptible to being called pseudo science... but that goes for both materialists and religious theories as well. consciousness is just not understood enough scientificially to act like there's a clear theory to explain it. 
The problem with IIT is that it is presumptive with a process product circularity that presumes consciousness has a mathematically measurable physical basis and then concludes consciousness has a mathematically measurable physical basis, because it concludes it's presumptions it is not explanatary. 

It cannot be a working hypothesis, because a working hypothesis is one that will rise or fall on the basis of relevant evidence, it is not testable and consequently, there is no “evidence” as such that could tell for or against a “hypothesis” of this sort.  It is not a scientific hypothesis; it is only phrased as if it were.
The very process by which IIT postulates a translation of qualitative experiences into measurable quantities that do not themselves exhibit the qualitative constituents of experience, fundamentally changes the subject matter of the investigation such that the resultant account of consciousness is a contradiction in terms.

A theory of consciousness must take experience as fundamental, and will necessarily require the addition of something fundamental to our ontology, as everything in physical theory is compatible with the absence of consciousness.

Consciousness operates in a teleological manner which includes intent, values, and purposes, and a purely physical process cannot operate in a teleological manner, and physical processes do not and cannot include intent, values, and purposes.

Without a distinction between subject and object, between knower and known, the fact of knowledge would be unaccountable, consequently, in the end, materialistic theories of consciousness fail because they run into the self-referential paradox, the subject of knowledge cannot simultaneously be the object of knowledge.


#3
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,278
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@n8nrgim
Consciousness theory, consciously slammed.


In so much as consciousness defines itself.

Even if we don't fully understand the intricacies of the processes involved.


Slamming, is a current and popular conscious  exercise.

As is backlashing.


#4
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,122
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8

See:  A New Theory in Physics Claims to Solve the Mystery of Consciousness

#5
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 269
Posts: 7,611
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
i think the argument that skeptics and atheists have... that humans are nothing than elaborate flesh robots, is asinine
Yeah, you are not a robot. I am not a robot either. Even tho I dont have free will, and just act the way God programmed me, I am still very special and umm yeah, something like that.

#6
IlDiavolo
IlDiavolo's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,233
3
2
5
IlDiavolo's avatar
IlDiavolo
3
2
5
What worries me is the fact that to deem any theory as pseudosience you only need a bunch of scientists that sign a petition to call it pseudoscience. Lol. 

I saw the same attitude on other theories like the theory of evolution. I mean, scientists are also humans and as such tend to be authoritarians about their point of view on the ground that they are the only ones who know about the subject, which is obvioisly a fallacy. 

#7
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,271
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@n8nrgim
There exist degrees of consciousness. Ex pain scale from 1 - 10. Consciouness scale of 1 - 360.

Most logical common sense critical thinking people will argue that, a nervous system --ergo animal kingdom--- is require for consciousness. I disagree. It is about how we define consciousness and more specifically in its complexity aspects. However, the abiiity to accecess Meta-space mind/intellect/concepts and ego/is appears to be synnergetically, the most complex.

Consciousness requires at minimum a two-ness/otherness. Observer o and o  the observed. This two-ness inherently requires a 3rd aspect and that is a
line-of-relationship of observation Ex o------o and that can be any of the following below.

8 } +360+ {  most complex  is woman { X x } with man { X y } close 2nd.
....8a} a line-of-relationship as sight { narrow band of visual frequency EMRadiation  },
.....8b} smell Olfactory...7 primary...},
......8c}   touch { tactile },
.......8d} hearing { auditory ...vibrating air molecules },
........8e} taste  { gustration...5 primary.. }.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

7 }{ Infrared { far-mid-short/near }  ---vipers sense frequency of infra-red { far-mid-short } long low energy ..." Infrared signals are initially received by the pit organ, a highly specialized facial structure that is innervated by nerve fibers of the somatosensory system..... How this organ detects and transduces infrared signals into nerve impulses is not known."...

------------.." The atoms in a CH2 group, commonly found in organic compounds, can vibrate in six different ways: symmetric and antisymmetric stretching, scissoring, rocking, wagging and twisting: "....

------ magnetic... "birds, frogs, sea turtles, honey bees, salamanders, lobsters,  dolphins, rodents"

----- ex " Scientists believe that salmon navigate by using the earth’s magnetic field like a compass."-----

} +260 - ( fair or not.= I give some cetaceans this extra + in their degree of abstract complexity

} -260- { Here list of ten smartest animals according to "AZ Animals website and we unfairly or not we will give all of these bilateral animals a scale in degrees of consciousness complexity a }-200-{
...." Orangutans and chimps are some of the smartest animals. Orangutans share 97% of their DNA with humans, and both primates use tools and shelter, with complex ritualistic social structures and some rudimentary language skills.
  • Scary smart bottlenose dolphins can switch back and forth between specialized and generalized languages. They’ve also been observed communicating and cooperating with other species.
  • African Grey Parrots learn huge vocabularies and understand shapes, colors, spatial reasoning, and relational concepts.
  • '...https://a-z-animals.com/blog/the-10-smartest-animals-in-the-world/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
6 } -110- {  And we have to list the least complex animals with a nervous ...." Annelida { prostmal brain } are advanced over Nematoda { no brain } in having"...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

5 } -55- {  .."Are jellyfish conscious? Jellyfish have no brains and therefore are not aware of their own existence. So no, while alive they are not “conscious”....0

Jellyfishes are more complex than a sponge because:
  1. Because jellyfish have complex tissue, a gut, and a nervous system, they are more complex than sponges.
  2. It splits apart and then reunites to form a young.
  3. The medusa and the polyp are the two forms they can take.
  4. Jellyfishes have a highly complicated life cycle.
  5. Most of a jellyfish's existence is spent as a medusa.
} -20- { Sponges...." Yes, sea sponges are considered animals not plants. But they grow, reproduce and survive much as plants do. They have no central nervous system, digestive system or circulatory system – and no organs! "...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

4 } -5- {The other kingdoms have RNA-DNA cells. Ffungi { closet genetic relation to animals } then we have  protist { algea protozoa } and monera { bacteria }.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

3 }  1- { viruses have not lipid membrane, rather, they a protein shell and they only have RNA or DNA, never both.
..." Virus capsids predominantly come in two shapes: helical and icosahedral. '....
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

2}   } 0.5 {..." Various organic molecules have previously been discovered in interstellar space, but i-propyl cyanide is the first with a branched carbon backbone.
The branched structure is important as it shows that interstellar space could be the origin of more complex branched molecules, such as amino acids, that are necessary for life on Earth."....

.......2a } 0 . 001 { atomic elements } ex the simplest is hydrogen atom { 0.000, 01 meters approx } i.e. one proton, one electron and the EMField exchange between those two

1 } 0 .000 000 000 000 001 { and in spatial size of proton in negative meters. proton { 3 quarks }, mesons are 2 quarks, electrons, neutrinos  ergo  fermionic matter,  and  we also
photon { bosonic force },  strong sub-nuclear force of gluons binds two or three quarks together  and these gluonic bosons are inferred indirectly to exist.

....1a } non-quantised and an question-able that  they have an associated quanta
...ex graviton at 10^ -36 0 . 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, { proton } 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 001 { graviton-darkEon }

So now were at bottom of occupied space barrel of two graviton-darkEons { two sides of the same minimal space coin { proverbial }.

Then we have to ask ourselves if they are composed of an occupied space something. My answer is a speculative yes. However, the answer is more complicated than others may want to read about. So for simplicity sake I will just say this. We have reached the minimal  3D two-ness.  O----O that has some kind of a line of relationship that connects them. that is why it is called a relationship.

In past Ive shown these relationship to be geodesic and not linear as (O)( )( )(O).  Ergo minimal set of consciouness with a background ---by which the other three exist within--  as the 4th and indirect aspect of consciousness.

Topic's author
#8
n8nrgim
n8nrgim's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 953
3
2
4
n8nrgim's avatar
n8nrgim
3
2
4
-->
@Best.Korea
you could choose to beat your wife. or you could choose not to beat your wife. that sounds like free will to me. 
#9
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 269
Posts: 7,611
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@n8nrgim
Thats actually a very nice circular reasoning.

"You can choose because you can choose."

you could choose to beat your wife. or you could choose not to beat your wife. 
You can only have one of those at the time. Plus, why would someone choose not to beat his wife? I assume he was programmed to make that choice while living in delusion that you can choose your choice.
Topic's author
#10
n8nrgim
n8nrgim's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 953
3
2
4
n8nrgim's avatar
n8nrgim
3
2
4
-->
@Best.Korea
so are you doing any different? "you can't choose because you can't choose?" 

you are the one taking a basic premise... that we can make decisions for ourselves, no matter what they are, and trying to make it complicated. i can choose to type AAA or i can choose.... not to. you are the one making it convoluted. 
#11
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@n8nrgim
I think the theory of consciousness is mostly undecided because it is so vaguely defined.
Without a common consensus of what consciousness is, how could anything be discovered about it? 

28 days later

#12
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,030
3
2
4
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
4
-->
@Critical-Tim
I think the theory of consciousness is mostly undecided because it is so vaguely defined.
Without a common consensus of what consciousness is, how could anything be discovered about it? 
By its very nature, it invokes the self-referential paradox that always makes a logically certain and conclusive analysis crumble.   it is all but impossible to define precisely; any attempt at a precise definition will be self-referential and therefore paradoxical at best.  By definitionself-reference is not referential at all.

We know it's a definition issue and the problem is that there isn’t anything even approaching common agreement on what consciousness is, and for every different attempt at a definition, it's still hard to know about because we don't have access to the inner world of anybody but ourselves.   The dilemma is that we can’t even be sure other people areconscious, we can only presume it about other people and some of them make thatreally hard to do. 

We do have access toour own inner world, so I know I'm conscious, I can start there, but I can'teven examine my own consciousness very well because it's constantly changing,it just won't sit still long enough to become a well-defined object of analysis.  Despite the fact that we directly experienceit and so we know it with greater certainty than we can know anything else, theobject of study, consciousness itself, remains hidden behind its effects, it'slike trying to understand and analyze the movie projector by watching the moviein a theater.  I'm having thisexperience, I know it's back there in the back of the theater causing theseimages to appear on the screen, but the movie just doesn't help me describe theprojector with any degree of accuracy.  Consciousness if just too fuzzy of a concept and the experiential datawe have to go on is even fuzzier, hell, before I've had my coffee in themorning the experience of consciousness is even more fuzzy.

As I said, this question is a matter of our identity and"Know thyself" is an ancient aphorism that appears to be something ofa philosophical mandate, but when you set yourself to the task, it's hard notto think these ancient philosophers weren't a bunch of comedians just trying topiss us off. I have this image of Socrates and Plato smoking a joint andSocrates says to Plato, "Hey man, let's put a lot of stuff about"know thyself" in there, that should keep them flustered forthousands of years", and they both start laughing hysterically while Platosays, "Stop it man, you're killing me".
#13
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,271
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@Sidewalker
Consciousness if just too fuzzy of a concept and the experiential datawe have to go on is even fuzzier, hell, before I've had my coffee in themorning the experience of consciousness is even more fuzzy.

Well,  remember the old images of and electron cloud, --as the atom---   and how fuzzy it was and I presume, that, to this day the latest images are still fuzzy.

There is also the old saying, that, our human eyes --ergo, access to most complex consciousness--   are Gods/Universes windows to know it self. Or something like that.

 Is our access to complex consciousness  clearer ---i.e. less fuzzy--- than a jellyfish, nematode, cetacean, ape?  Does our ability to understand and comprehend more aspects of Universe, make our consciousness the fairest of them all ??  mirror mirror on the wall :--)))
#14
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,278
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@n8nrgim
One chooses on the basis of.

So wife beating and not wife beating are both choices based upon.
#15
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,278
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Sidewalker
@Critical-Tim
#12

Fantastic first paragraph.

Critical-Tim is still thinking about it.

And I haven't proceeded to decipher it.

Which might all be self reverentially defining.
#16
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,122
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8


See post #4
#17
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,122
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8

This is why consciousness exists.  Human brain has more switches than all computers on Earth   https://www.cnet.com/tech/computing/human-brain-has-more-switches-than-all-computers-on-earth/

A typical, healthy one houses some 200 billion nerve cells, which are connected to one another via hundreds of trillions of synapses. Each synapse functions like a microprocessor, and tens of thousands of them can connect a single neuron to other nerve cells. In the cerebral cortex alone, there are roughly 125 trillion synapses, which is about how many stars fill 1,500 Milky Way galaxies.
#18
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,271
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@FLRW
From post #13
Well,  remember the old images of and electron cloud, --as the atom---   and how fuzzy it was and I presume, that, to this day the latest images are still fuzzy.

There is also the old saying, that, our human consciousness is Gods/Universes eyes as windows to know it self.   . Or something like that.

 Is our access to complex consciousness  clearer ---i.e. less fuzzy--- than a jellyfish, nematode, cetacean, ape?  Does our ability to understand and comprehend more aspects of Universe, make our consciousness the fairest of them all ??  mirror mirror on the wall :--)))

Brains map space and time with triangles and hexagons

..."They then let the animals run around an empty space. Occasionally, the target neuron would fire. By mapping the points on the floor where this happened, the researchers discovered that the points where the neurons fired mapped out a grid of equilateral triangles. The arrangement was so well-defined that the researchers initially suspected an equipment malfunction."...

Go to 11:30 in this vid and wathed through 13:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OV9MnAZLmMQ

#19
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@zedvictor4
@Sidewalker
I don't see the definition as a self-referential paradox, but an attempt for a mutually agreed concept, which if done well could be conclusive.
#20
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,030
3
2
4
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
4
-->
@FLRW
This is why consciousness exists.  Human brain has more switches than all computers on Earth   https://www.cnet.com/tech/computing/human-brain-has-more-switches-than-all-computers-on-earth/

A typical, healthy one houses some 200 billion nerve cells, which are connected to one another via hundreds of trillions of synapses. Each synapse functions like a microprocessor, and tens of thousands of them can connect a single neuron to other nerve cells. In the cerebral cortex alone, there are roughly 125 trillion synapses, which is about how many stars fill 1,500 Milky Way galaxies.
Why would physical complexity be “why consciousness exists.”

The answer to the hard problem would entail a description of the mechanism by which the conscious experience is produced, the number of synapses in the brain does nothing to explain why a physical state is conscious rather than not conscious. The description of a physical state is not enough, to be explanatory, there must be a descriptive mechanism that tells us why it feels like something to be in that physical state.



#21
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,030
3
2
4
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
4
-->
@Critical-Tim
I don't see the definition as a self-referential paradox, but an attempt for a mutually agreed concept, which if done well could be conclusive.
After attempting for thousands of years, how do you explain our failure to find "a mutually agreed concept".
#22
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,278
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Sidewalker
How do you explain our failure to find "a mutually agreed concept".

Individualism.
#23
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@Sidewalker
After attempting for thousands of years, how do you explain our failure to find "a mutually agreed concept".
Consciousness is not empirical, yet many people try to describe and measure it. Not all people agree about what it should be called because it is closely tied with religion and fate, making it often an emotionally driven topic. It would make sense to me that people won't reach an agreement until they agree on a single religion and philosophy, which will probably never happen.
#24
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,271
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
There exist degrees of consciousness. Ex pain scale from 1 - 10. Consciousness scale of 1 - 360.

See post #7

Consciousness is not difficult to explain or define.

Access to higher degrees of Meta-space  mind/intellect/concepts is more difficult t come to grips with, tho still not that hard to explain or define.

It all stems from nervous system that includes all mechanisms of the brain. Memory is one of the dominant keys to more moderately complex consciousness. Old news

  All else is likened to superstition.

Visible radiation enters human eyes.  Electro-magnitism plays a role with some animals we know with some animals.

Gravity if not also Dark Energy at the most ultra-micro-scales are there, irrespective of how much of role they may or may not play in our everyday consciousness abilities, however, when we die, there has long been this suspicison by humans of a connection to relatives, or re-incarnation etc.

The other night, I thought of dying and I believe many or most of us think of returning as another fertilized egg, fetus/baby, child etc and it can be scary cause we have no control of our lives at those times. I think this is perhaps one of the most scary cosmic aspects for any human. Not being in control and others are in control of you life from fertilization til adulthood.

And the other part of these cosmic scenarios, is that, in eternally existent occupied space Universe { @ }, if I ebuc arise again, it could be two days, 100 years, a zillion zillion years, and we have no idea of any of the time that has passed.  So then I think of black holes and how that our the ultimate gravitation sink holes (--->S<---), where Roger Penrose proved Einsteins calculations that the photon geodesics in a black are null geodesics ergo Singularties of non-existence { 0 }. 

However, some if not all black holes also evaporate and to me that says ...what goes in must come out......  and vice versa, what goes out must come back in i.e. naught is lost or created only transformed eternally.

.................space...............................@.....................................space...............Universe @ and whats outside of it

..................space...........................(* @ *).................................space...........conception of Universe @ by most complex mind accessing creatures

The consciousness experience limited, yet eternally reoccurring.  Time via  occupied space and as occupied space reality,  are both eternally existent ---well maybe not the reality part, at least not in its full bloom--- despite what Einsteins Gravitation formula pointing toward Singularity / Null Geodesics

This latter part about reality Ive explained before with diagrams, of how reality is moving outward ---via Dark Energy--   and dissiapates away into geodesic Gravity field, however, my guess is, that the Gravity geodesic feeds around and and begins popping back in to existence, --- gradually { BANG! }--- or gradual accumulation til enough arrives that it goes BANG! etc. 

This diagram is the 2D basics in static presentation.  You have to imagine that the reality is moving toward Gravity geodesic field, and then know that at number 1, a pulse of tubular motion is higher and moves on geodesic spiral forward trajectory  around  vertical part of tube ---more perpendicular to the greater closed loops---, to arrive at number 2p ergo on the inner Dark Energy geodesic field. 

Gravity.....1.....................5p.....7p.....................greater closed loop { likened to a circle } back to self on a outer torus surface

Reality.0...............................6...........................greater closed loop back to self on inside of torus
Reality.................3p...........................9..............greater closed loop back to self on inside of a torus

Dark Energy..2p........4...................8..................greater closed loop { likened to a circle } back to self on inner surface of torus

So as reality dissipates { expanding Universe } into the Gravitation geodesic field, it spirals around to 2p DE field and then pops back in as reality.

So most of reality was expanding outward twoward Gravity field, and suddenly, one by one ---0, 3p, 6, 9 etc--- dissiapates away rapidly, and travels around to DE field and rapidly pops-back inside  { temporarily }.

So what were seeing is new wave of much shorter jumps into reality from Dark Energy, until a gradual enoough of them stay accumulate in period of time to created a BANG! of reality near the inner DE field an the whole process of reality moving from inner surface to outer surface begins again.

Naught is lost nor created on transformed is not just a fancy saying, it is the way of nature/Universe as as systemic and structural integrity.

And always, this is not to be seen as shape of dynamic Universe @ as a torus, rather, the finite Universe @ is a myriad set of Quantum Spacetime Tori  overlapping and interfering.  I suppos this concept, like Penroses Conformal { See Escher micro-infinity image } Cyclic Cosmology is a little difficult to get our heads around. 




#25
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,030
3
2
4
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
4
-->
@Critical-Tim
After attempting for thousands of years, how do you explain our failure to find "a mutually agreed concept".
Consciousness is not empirical, yet many people try to describe and measure it.
The very process by which science translates qualitative experiences into measurable quantities that do not themselves exhibit the qualitative constituents of experience, fundamentally changes the subject matter of the investigation such that the resultant account of consciousness is a contradiction in terms.

Not all people agree about what it should be called because it is closely tied with religion and fate, making it often an emotionally driven topic.
The reason that this concept has been so hotly debated for centuries is that it is it is a matter of our identity; it speaks to what and who we are as human beings.

Consciousness is difficult to define precisely, but nevertheless, we all use the pronouns “I”, “you”, and “we”, with an understanding that what we are talking about is intuitively clear and involves common agreement.  It may be hard to articulate a definition, but we know it more immediately than anything else we know.  We observe it during every waking moment, it is a fundamental part of our experiential reality at all times, hence it is self-evident.  The definition problem is only a problem of physicalism, like time, consciousness, is just conceptually real, it is an idea without any physical referent.  It is not a physical reality; it is just an experiential reality.

It would make sense to me that people won't reach an agreement until they agree on a single religion and philosophy, which will probably never happen.
That wouldn’t make sense to me.
#26
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@Sidewalker
After attempting for thousands of years, how do you explain our failure to find "a mutually agreed concept".
Consciousness is not empirical, yet many people try to describe and measure it.
The very process by which science translates qualitative experiences into measurable quantities that do not themselves exhibit the qualitative constituents of experience, fundamentally changes the subject matter of the investigation such that the resultant account of consciousness is a contradiction in terms.
I'm skeptical to agree that science translates qualitative experiences into measurable quantities that do not themselves exhibit the qualitative constituents of experience.
#27
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,122
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8

Primary consciousness can be defined as simple awareness that includes perception and emotion. As such, it is ascribed to most animals. By contrast, secondary consciousness depends on and includes such features as self-reflective awareness, abstract thinking, volition and metacognition.

We have consciousness due to the fact that life is made from atoms. It's time for a whole new theory of why the Universe exists in the first place.

#28
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,030
3
2
4
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
4
-->
@FLRW
We have consciousness due to the fact that life is made from atoms.
That makes no sense at all.

It's time for a whole new theory of why the Universe exists in the first place.
Maybe the Universe exists because ice is made from water.
#29
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,278
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@FLRW
@Sidewalker
We assume that the Universe exists because we assume that we are conscious.

The Universe is irrelevant otherwise.
#30
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,030
3
2
4
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
4
-->
@zedvictor4
We assume that the Universe exists because we assume that we are conscious.

The Universe is irrelevant otherwise.

We assume the Universe exists, but we do not assume that we are conscious, that is a brute fact.

All knowledge begins with experience andknowledge itself is based on a distinction between subject and object, knowerand known, so to speak.  Descarte’s “Ithink, therefore I am” comes to mind, he explained that the only knowledge wehave that is immediate and can be taken as a given, is that we exist assubjective experiencing beings. All other knowledge is mediate, contingent uponsomething, our only evidence that there even is a universe, or a reality, comesfrom a “presumption” of sorts. What we take as the reality outside of us, theso-called objective reality, is a construct that is the presumed cause of oursensations. We must presume something is “out there” causing these sensationsthat we are having “in here”. The only knowledge that is immediate is “inhere”, in our consciousness, that is the only thing we know directly. All otherknowledge is mediate; everything else is a projection, we only know it by oursensations, reality is the thing we presume to be “out there”, beyond us;causing our sensations.