How do you measure consciousness?

>There is no such unit of measurement.

>Where in that specific post you replied to
>that specific post you replied to

0 - unconscious
1 - conscious

If you're asserting that things that can't be measured don't exist, you'll have to prove it.

This post:

Is a diversion employed to avoid addressing the fact that your argument is absurd even within the confines of materialism.

Atheists BTFO

>your argument

My argument is that your argument is incoherent, which definitely isn't an absurd argument to make. I can't give you straightforward 'yes' or 'no' answers because your questions aren't coherent.

>How do you measure consciousness?
>it's just "an abstraction of behavior" so you can't measure it
>How do you measure "an abstraction of behavior"
>uuuuh

>it's just "an abstraction of behavior" so you can't measure it

I said "you don't," not "you can't." This is an important distinction. "Can't" implies your original question made sense, which it doesn't.

So (how) do you measure the abstraction then?

How do you measure the weight of your shadow?

These are above average diversions by the way, but shadows can be measured in a number of ways, weight not being necessary - at least not in the word's traditional meaning - to assert the existence of shadows in the confines of materialism.

What is one unit of measurement that can be applied to the abstraction of behavior (if you "don't" try to measure consciousness)?

Define "consciousness."

I cannot define it (or the abstraction) within the confines of materialism and neither can anyone else, which was my point.

You can't define it because it isn't a real thing. When someone stubs their toe and says "ow," there is no "pain consciousness." There is only a body prompted to engage in the reporting behavior of making the sound "ow."

by understanding neuroscience
/thread

This may be entirely true for certain people.

It's true for all people. Philosophical zombie argument is question begging garbage.

Factor out the electromagnetic pressure were you not there.

I'm leaning toward consciousness including several measures, self awareness, being able to understand you're you and not being completely slaved to instinctual behaviors. conscious beings also understand abstract concepts such as courage, loyalty, and self reflection. i would call a raven conscious, but it's not nearly as conscious as a human. Same with orangtutans.

I'm not trying to invalidate your experience. Certain iterations of human are definitely unconscious by anyone and everyone's definition, like psychopaths or some feral children. There is no reason to believe that this is binary. It's probably a spectrum where hard materialists fall somewhere in the middle.

qualia

You're implying you'd be able to tell whether you personally had "experiences" which were beyond hard materialist behaviorism. That's incorrect. What you have is reporting behavior. You talk about having had an "experience." Or you don't talk about it immediately but you behave differently later and are set to cite that "experience" as the reason for your difference in behavior if anyone asks you about it.

plato.stanford.edu/entries/private-language/

I don't see how you can declare what others can experience and individuate. It speaks of a huge deficit in theory of mind on your part.

>I don't see how you can declare what others can experience and individuate.

The point is it doesn't matter what others claim they've "experienced" because all such "experiences" would be indistinguishable from reporting behavior. And reporting behavior, unlike "experiences," can be clearly defined and explained in terms of ordinary physical cause and effect relationships.

But this is all based on prejudice and self-centered thinking, not to mention borderline-absurdist and antihuman.

If a neuroscientist or philosopher can only experience certain things but no others, he will claim his experience is the universal and the correct one, while dismissing others' different experiences as artifacts of whatever.

You can only know an other and of another inasmuch as you know yourself and of yourself. The less conscious you are, the more prone you are to assuming everyone is like you and that they're either lying or falling prey to a mental thingy when they say otherwise.

This is obvious when we look at the least conscious among us - psychopaths/sociopaths - who unironically believe everyone else secretly is just like them and act accordingly.

>If a neuroscientist or philosopher can only experience certain things but no others, he will claim his experience is the universal and the correct one, while dismissing others' different experiences as artifacts of whatever.

No, I'm not claiming my "experience" is correct and yours isn't. I'm claiming "experience" itself isn't real.

>consciousness
is this way

You can claim anything isn't real if you try hard enough.

only real answer

Total spectrum of operations and I/O constituting awareness at a given instant in time.

Very simple answer.

1 get a lab rat
2 weighs the lab rat
3 kill him in some way
4 reweigh the lab rat

weight in Step 1 - pesso in step 4 = consciousness

You are a very funny person. Did you know that?

I just tried to answer , I made some mistakes ? I am not an expert on these things

oh yes sorry
weight in Step 2 - weight in step 4 = consciousness

sorry

does it have neurons that respond to stimuli?

if yes then it is conscious if no then it is not.

the idea that human consciousness is fundamentally different from animal consciousness is lacking in self-awareness and narcissistic.