[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.

[wat10000]

"Certainly you're aware of things."

Seems you agree with me, then. The "you" i.e. me being aware is what I'm certain exists. I'm not sure what other assertions you think are bundled in there, seems like just the one thing to me.