[RivieraKid]

I think I have a relatively good understanding of consciousness:

* Content of consciousness is the only thing that we can be sure of. Let's say I'm scared. This fact is true no matter if I'm in a dream or hallucinating. (We could argue if "scared" is the correct label for the feeling but that's not the point.)

* It's impossible to define consciousness objectively. Subjective definition is simple: Consciousness is my current feelings, perceptions, thoughts, etc. There's no way to create a definition, that 1) is logically consistent 2) matches our intuitive understanding of consciousness 3) is objective: you can say whether some group of atoms (like brain) is conscious or not.

[bornhuetter]

What you have just said doesn't in any way help answer most of the questions on the survey.

[RivieraKid]

It does help to answer most of the true philosophical problems about reality etc.

Many problems on that page are IMHO psychological or sociological problems, e.g. the ethical problems.

[memla]

I think this claim is just confusing descriptive and normative ethics. Probably the most common confusion about ethics there is.

True, descriptive ethics is almost entirely composed of various facts about human psychology and sociology, but no normative claim can be deduced from these facts alone.

[RivieraKid]

My view of ethics is that it's basically just a (often vague) set of principles in our minds. Some of ethics is in our genes, some of it is cultural. Different cultures may have different ethical principles. Fundamentally, it's about feelings – something is good, because it feels good.

[pessimizer]

>Content of consciousness is the only thing that we can be sure of. Let's say I'm scared. This fact is true no matter if I'm in a dream or hallucinating.

I admire your confidence.

[RivieraKid]

Thanks :)

[aaimnr]

The admiration seems to be sarcastic, though...

[RivieraKid]

As was the "thanks"...

If there was a rational counterargument hidden in that, I didn't find it unfortunately.