|
|
|
|
|
|
by inventtheday
3225 days ago
|
|
|
Society has assumed the defacto circular definition of consciousness as "whatever we, as humans, are experiencing". For obvious reasons, this is not a helpful concept. Instead, I like to think of consciousness in terms of structures and mechanisms of information flow. If we open our minds up to this type of thinking, we can see consciousness in varying degrees in nature, in computers, and of course in people. For anyone who's curious, the guiding light in this school of thought is Hofstadter's Godel Escher Bach. |
|
|
Society as a whole has not assumed a concrete definition for consciousness, as there are a lot of people who don't give it a second thought. Among those who do recognize consciousness as such, the word "consciousness" is as close as you can get to being able to indicate the phenomenon. So I can't agree that it's not a helpful concept.
But in fact, the "thing" that is the referent of that term is not a concept at all. It is the pre-conceptual basis or arena for concepts that arise in it. The TV set is not a TV show.
Humans obviously vary in how conscious they are, both from one to another as well as individually over time so it cannot be properly defined circularly as you say above.
All "structures and mechanisms of information flow" are contents of consciousness not components. Awareness has no qualities, no form, no sides nor parts, it does not experience time: it is always "now", and it is always "here". What you are seeing "in varying degrees in nature, in computers, and of course in people" is mind I think. Cf. Gregory Bateson, "Mind and Nature: A Necessary Unity" and "Steps to an Ecology of Mind"
Lastly, "Godel Escher Bach" is an excellent book and was instrumental in my own process of coming to grips with consciousness. To wit: I think the closest we can come to modelling or describing consciousness mathematically is as a strange loop involving the entire Universe though-out all time.