[ExI] Consciousness as 'brute fact' and meta-skepticism
ben at zaiboc.net
Sat Feb 8 19:12:19 UTC 2020
On 07/02/2020 18:57, Will Steinberg wrote:
> It has always bugged me when otherwise rigorous science-types claim
> that consciousness JUST IS.
Well, before you start explaining something, you need to define it. How
do we define consciousness? Is there an accepted definition? 'Awareness'
seems to be the most common one, but that seems fairly simple to
explain, in terms of information in systems, that allows them to react
to their environment and other systems, and even themselves
Somehow, though, I suspect that won't be enough for some people.
If that's the case, those people need to come up with (and agree on) a
definition of 'consciousness' that we can use as a starting point for
Maybe the actual problem here is defining the word in a way that is
meaningful and amenable to scientific investigation (which brings us
back to 'Awareness', as far as I can see, and that's not something that
'just is', it's something we can already explain).
Any other suggestions?
More information about the extropy-chat