Consciousness can be infinitely explored and described, but it can't really be defined through naturalistic science. A definition is created from the end of som

Consciousness can be infinitely explored and described, but it can't really be defined through naturalistic science. A definition is created from the end of something. We can identify the length, breadth, horsepower and coolant capacity of a car, because all those things end somewhere. We can't consciously perceive an end to consciousness, as we'd be dead and the people who have lost consciousness are "dead" or "asleep". A definition is a tool for consciousness to use, not something it is subject to. Yet we all know what the word means and what we're talking about when it's discussed. We can map out consciousness and explore it's internal productions. We can think about how we think about consciousness and examine scientific damage to consciousness-related structures like the brain. We could ultimately know what it Means to be conscious, given enough time, defined or not. >Why? Starting with this assumption and searching for reasons it might be true is clear motivated reasoning. The idea that you can get consciousness from natural materialism has been disproven many times. You can't get "ought from is" from materialism or define consciousness from nature or technology. So what is "clear" about it? The metaphor of the most advanced technology of the time as the mechanism of the brain/mind/consciousness has been done to death. People used to posit that we were automatons with pistons inside our skull. So what is the "motivated reasoning"? The idea that human consciousness IS the technology of the day, is a basic metaphorical tool with no correlates to material reality. People used to suppose we were automatons with pistons inside our skull. It encourages people to think only like programmers, or mechanics, or engineers and cuts them off from asking any real questions. What they believe about a topic, or what it means. Which ultimately leaves them open to following the opinionated dictates of whoever is guiding the discussion. Even for the smartest physicists, engineers and technologists; the hunches, the ideas, the gambles they put their career on, are theologically and philosophically informed. People believe their career choices, their pet physical theory is right, their programming language is right, which is not based on a naturally formed consciousness. It is better to talk about this than not, and the disengagement with philosophy leads people to parroting the same millennia-old ideas some dead philosopher figured out and now people are repeating blindly and getting the same predictable results without knowing so. If a philosopher only needed to be insightful, he would have half the job. It's dangerous to go without.