[bbor]

> Consciousness just doesn't fit with anything else we know about the world. It's a fundamental mystery as things currently stand, and there's no explanation that makes a bit of sense yet.

Well put. I think there's one extremely solid explanation, though: it's a folk psychology concept with no bearing on actual truth. After all, could we ever build a machine that has all four humours? What about a machine that truly has a Qi field, instead of merely imitating one? Where are the Humours and Qi research institutes dedicated to this question?

[slowmovintarget]

We're making progress in being able to measure qualia. [1],[2] If the philosophical underpinnings of emergence in a physicalist sense hold, then that is a stepping stone toward a theory of consciousness.

[1] https://www.cell.com/iscience/fulltext/S2589-0042(25)00289-5

[2] Popularization: https://backreaction.blogspot.com/2025/06/scientists-measure...

[wat10000]

That looks to be some major equivocation on "qualia." What they're actually measuring is related to how colors are perceived. That's very different from the actual subjective experience that is what we call consciousness. An intelligence that wasn't conscious would not be distinguishable in this test from a conscious being.

[wat10000]

This sort of thing is why I seriously wonder if maybe some people have consciousness and some don't, rather than it being universal.

My experience of consciousness is undeniable. There's no question of the concept just being made up. It's like if you said that hands are a folk concept with no bearing on actual truth. Even if I can't directly detect anyone else's hands, my own are unquestionably real to me. The only way someone could deny the existence of hands in general is if they didn't have any, but I definitely do.

[bbor]

The point is that you believe you have something called consciousness, but when pressed no one can define it in a scientific (i.e. thorough+consistent) way. In comparison, I can absolutely define hands, and thus prove to myself that I (and others!) have them.

Regardless, some of the GangStalking people are 100% convinced that they have brain implants in their head that the federal government is manipulating -- belief is not evidence.

[wat10000]

My point is that my experience of consciousness is more than sufficient proof. In fact, it is the only thing I can definitively with 100% certainty know is real. Other people's consciousness is a lot harder to demonstrate, but my own is incontrovertible to me.

The only way someone with that experience could say that it's not real is if they're taking the piss, they're very confused, or they just don't have it.

[bbor]

But what are you experiencing? Something that cannot be defined? If so, do you see the issue there?

[wat10000]

I'm not sure. What is "the issue" exactly?

The difficulty in defining it certainly makes it hard to talk about. And it makes it impossible to even conceive of how one might detect this phenomenon in other people, or even come up with any sort of theoretical framework around it.

But if "the issue" is that this difficulty means I can't really be sure it's even there, no. As I said, this is literally the only thing I can be 100% sure exists. For everything else, there's room for at least a little doubt. This world, the room I'm in, the computer I'm using, even my own body could all be illusions. But my own consciousness is definitely real.

If you don't feel the same way about your own consciousness, then as I said, you're either taking the piss, you're very confused, or you just don't have it.

[bbor]

  As I said, this is literally the only thing I can be 100% sure exists.

How can you be 100% confident something exists if you don't even know what it is? That's literally impossible, on a logical level. You can't hold a belief about a concept you don't have -- it would be like a pointer to memory that doesn't exist (i.e. useless, invalid, and erroneous).

Certainly you're aware of things. There are some relevant phenomenological concepts that you hold beliefs about, just like there were real symptoms being described by the Humours system. But you have no justification for bundling them all together into something called "consciousness", which coincidentally comes packed with other, completely unproven assertions.