3 ms·
Simply ignoring the entire field of philosophy of mind and imposing your own definitions is not going to get you anywhere. Thought is not required for consciou
by uoaei 3y ago
Simply ignoring the entire field of philosophy of mind and imposing your own definitions is not going to get you anywhere.
Thought is not required for consciousness, only experience. I strongly suggest you read the literature and traditions of thought so you may be more informed about the things of which you speak.
> there isn't a definition
There is, and I quoted it directly above. If you have an issue with the definition I suggest you bring it up with the community that came up with it, namely, professional philosophers. I suspect they already have a precise term for the thing you're referring to as 'consciousness'.
However the most ridiculous part of your reply is this:
> We've never observed consciousness
You have never experienced color? Taste? I consider it pretty important for someone with such strong opinions on the matter to have personal... ahem, experience... in it.
- tgv 3y agoThose philosophers have been ignoring the entire field of cognitive and neuro-psychology. Well, not the entire field, they cherry-pick, and have a weird tendency to then chose people with views that are not widely shared, to put it politely. > You have never experienced color? We've got a model for that, thanks. It's called perception. But we haven't observed it, not as a group. Many of us can describe it from personal experience, but since no-one, not even your beloved philosophers, has come up with a good, operationalizable definition, there's no way of observing it.