4 ms·

Before we can ask intelligent, falsifiable questions about consciousness we need a rigorous definition of what consciousness is. Personally I think the word is

Before we can ask intelligent, falsifiable questions about consciousness we need a rigorous definition of what consciousness is. Personally I think the word is a vague term and that a rigorous definition is impossible. Therefore, if my hypothesis is true, we can not not scientifically investigate "consciousness" any more than we can scientifically investigate "divinity" or "spookiness." If you disagree with my hypothesis then I challenge you to define the term in a non-circular, objective way. My hypothesis is that consciousness is not an objective thing. It is merely an experience of the mind, thus it is an amorphous amalgam of feeling, memory, sensation, thought, embodiment.

dr_dshiv 6y ago
Well, remember, we can't even rigorously define something like "life". Doesn't mean we can't scientifically investigate it.
- morpheos137 6y ago
  Sure we can. Biological life is something that replicates autonomously using DNA contained inside the apparatus of at least one cell. Viruses are not alive because they can not replicate on their own and do not produce their own cells. More abstractly life is something that follows the Darwinian program as demonstrated on Earth. If you had competing, replicating programs in a virtualised Earth-like environment I would say they were alive too if they could fully reproduce and establish resource economising ecosystems on their own.
  - rhn_mk1 6y ago
    You seem to be able to, but it doesn't seem to generalize to scientists in general: https://www.quantamagazine.org/what-is-life-its-vast-diversity-defies-easy-definition-20210309/ https://www.quantamagazine.org/what-is-life-its-vast-diversi...
    - morpheos137 6y ago
      I was creating an operational definition. Of course others disagree. That is how words work. They have narrower and broader meanings to different people or in different contexts. The fact the others disagree with my operational definition does not invalidate my operational definition which stands on its own. Gp asserted "We don't know how to define life." I put forth a closed definition of life that makes sense. Others may have a less restrictive definition...my definition demonstrated that sufficient conditions exist to define life.
      - n4r9 6y ago
        The difficulty I think is not in proposing a coherent definition, but in capturing precisely the shared understanding of what people mean when they say something is "alive".
        morlockabove 6y ago
        There isn't a shared understanding, people's intuitions disagree.
        n4r9 6y ago
        There's probably an argument that can be made along those lines, but it's not self-evident.
tayo42 6y ago
> Personally I think the word is a vague term and the a rigorous definition is impossible. I don't think its just you, there isn't a good scientific definition of consciousness. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness#Definitions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness#Definitions
potatoman22 6y ago
How are we supposed to define consciousness without first investigating it?
carapace 6y ago
There can be no rigorous definition of what consciousness is, just names (experience, subjectivity, awareness, self, you) because it has no qualities. Consciousness is impossible to describe. It is neither hot nor cold, it has no size, and it experiences no passage of time as it is always now, eternal. There are no sides to it and no parts. It has no extent. It cannot be pointed to. It is beyond all possible signification, yet it is the significance of all acts and events and things. The closest thing you can get to a physical referent for consciousness is to notice that "consciousness" is a synonym for "now". (To spell it out: you have never once in all your life been conscious at a time other than now.) - - - - From my POV a very common mistake (TFA makes it, and you seem to as well) is to insist that the contents of consciousness are the thing itself. It's like mistaking the television program for the screen itself. The problem with that mistake is that there's no argument that can counter it. Reality of consciousness is an experiential thing that, once grokked, changes the nature of one's being, not a formula or measurement.
- loopz 6y ago
  There is a quality often associated with conscious consciousness. The ancients called it light, ie. the inner light of perception, reasoning, voice, etc. Meditation is focus/defocus from even that. As beings, humans are mostly preoccupied with the changing phenomena however.
- morpheos137 6y ago
  Ok I actually understand what you mean. You are defining "consciousness" to be the "essence of being" in that case I agree it exists but as you mention >[Essence of being] is impossible to describe. It is neither hot nor cold, it has no size, and it experiences no passage of time as it is always now, eternal. There are no sides to it and no parts. It has no extent. It cannot be pointed to. Therefore it is not amenable to scientific or logical study. Study of essence of being is a spiritual quest for the individual and the Universe as a whole. Maybe some "enlightened" or "adept" can use their insight or gifts but it is not a general technology that can be studied, measured, classified, boxed, etc.
  - carapace 6y ago

dr_dshiv 6y ago

Well, remember, we can't even rigorously define something like "life". Doesn't mean we can't scientifically investigate it.

morpheos137 6y ago
Sure we can. Biological life is something that replicates autonomously using DNA contained inside the apparatus of at least one cell. Viruses are not alive because they can not replicate on their own and do not produce their own cells. More abstractly life is something that follows the Darwinian program as demonstrated on Earth. If you had competing, replicating programs in a virtualised Earth-like environment I would say they were alive too if they could fully reproduce and establish resource economising ecosystems on their own.
- rhn_mk1 6y ago
  You seem to be able to, but it doesn't seem to generalize to scientists in general: https://www.quantamagazine.org/what-is-life-its-vast-diversity-defies-easy-definition-20210309/ https://www.quantamagazine.org/what-is-life-its-vast-diversi...
  - morpheos137 6y ago
    I was creating an operational definition. Of course others disagree. That is how words work. They have narrower and broader meanings to different people or in different contexts. The fact the others disagree with my operational definition does not invalidate my operational definition which stands on its own. Gp asserted "We don't know how to define life." I put forth a closed definition of life that makes sense. Others may have a less restrictive definition...my definition demonstrated that sufficient conditions exist to define life.
    - n4r9 6y ago
      The difficulty I think is not in proposing a coherent definition, but in capturing precisely the shared understanding of what people mean when they say something is "alive".
      - morlockabove 6y ago
        There isn't a shared understanding, people's intuitions disagree.
        n4r9 6y ago
        There's probably an argument that can be made along those lines, but it's not self-evident.

tayo42 6y ago

> Personally I think the word is a vague term and the a rigorous definition is impossible. I don't think its just you, there isn't a good scientific definition of consciousness. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness#Definitions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness#Definitions

potatoman22 6y ago

How are we supposed to define consciousness without first investigating it?

carapace 6y ago

There can be no rigorous definition of what consciousness is, just names (experience, subjectivity, awareness, self, you) because it has no qualities. Consciousness is impossible to describe. It is neither hot nor cold, it has no size, and it experiences no passage of time as it is always now, eternal. There are no sides to it and no parts. It has no extent. It cannot be pointed to. It is beyond all possible signification, yet it is the significance of all acts and events and things. The closest thing you can get to a physical referent for consciousness is to notice that "consciousness" is a synonym for "now". (To spell it out: you have never once in all your life been conscious at a time other than now.) - - - - From my POV a very common mistake (TFA makes it, and you seem to as well) is to insist that the contents of consciousness are the thing itself. It's like mistaking the television program for the screen itself. The problem with that mistake is that there's no argument that can counter it. Reality of consciousness is an experiential thing that, once grokked, changes the nature of one's being, not a formula or measurement.

loopz 6y ago
There is a quality often associated with conscious consciousness. The ancients called it light, ie. the inner light of perception, reasoning, voice, etc. Meditation is focus/defocus from even that. As beings, humans are mostly preoccupied with the changing phenomena however.
morpheos137 6y ago
Ok I actually understand what you mean. You are defining "consciousness" to be the "essence of being" in that case I agree it exists but as you mention >[Essence of being] is impossible to describe. It is neither hot nor cold, it has no size, and it experiences no passage of time as it is always now, eternal. There are no sides to it and no parts. It has no extent. It cannot be pointed to. Therefore it is not amenable to scientific or logical study. Study of essence of being is a spiritual quest for the individual and the Universe as a whole. Maybe some "enlightened" or "adept" can use their insight or gifts but it is not a general technology that can be studied, measured, classified, boxed, etc.
- carapace 6y ago