Defining Consciousness

Only total fucktards, who want to perpetually run in circles, sit around and try to define consciousness.
>ITT complete dumbassery
Every. Fucking. One. Of. You.

Consciousness don't really idiot.

Awareness is a meme, free will is a meme, I think therefore I am is a big fat meme.

Memes are a meme.
They are also real things, so you haven't really created an argument, you have just made your vocabulary less coherent by stripping context from more meaningful words and reducing them all to some common vague attribute they all share.

who the fuck is keeping this shitty thread alive? Every week there's a goddamn fool who keeps begging for an answer to consciousness. Just fuck off there's no actual paper out there that have any definite answer so if you ask it here it ain't gonna get any beneficial answer.

Most of the shit here is philosophical with some vague neurology backing it.

Until we get a philosophy board there really isn't any more fitting place than Veeky Forums to discuss metaphysics. You can cry about it, or just fuck off and hide threads you aren't interested in like every other reasonable person would.

A philosophy board would be a bigger circle jerk than /pol/. It's nothing but logic working against itself to prove a point about itself

The concept of a meme is also a meme, so what you just said is unreal and can be disgarded.

I agree that there should be a /phil/ board but this board will have to do for the time being.

I think you should be able to come at this from any angle, just as long as it makes sense and people know what you mean when you use the vocabulary you use.

So here's what I think:

The hard problem (which is actually the easy problem) has the answer: Consciousness is the recognition of experience. It really is that simple. You could ask "well what determines whether the recognition has taken place?" or "what determined whether there is experience?" These are good questions but probably more relevant to the other problem. After all, whatever the answer is to these, there is no doubt that there is experience. Experience is KNOWN, and experience IS. That is what is meant by consciousness. Not as a matter of language processing or abstraction or whatever, but as a reality.

The other problem, the easy problem (which is actually the incredibly hard problem), is how does the content of experience and/or consciousness correlate with the physical structure of the brain? I don't know the answer to this one. A neurologist would have vastly more knowledge about this; even then, there isn't yet a complete picture. This is where questions like "Well are plants or rocks conscious?" come into play. The better we know the relationship between experience and the brain, the better we will be able to answer those types of questions.

>Experience is KNOWN, and experience IS. That is what is meant by consciousness. Not as a matter of language processing or abstraction or whatever, but as a reality.

You would be surprised by the number of people who would disagree with this. Even after being described the definition of experience in a number of ways, they lack that intuitive understanding of what we mean when we say it. One might ask, is it that they have gotten so used to experience being in the center of their lives, that they are unable to question it, or do they simply lack first person experience?

>The hard problem (which is actually the easy problem) has the answer: Consciousness is the recognition of experience.

How exacly does that correlate to the hard problem? The hard problem is about how there can be any experience at all, not neccesarily about how the brain acknowledges it, but that is an interesting question as well. If consciousness is fundamental and its existance is governed on the quantum level or below, it is kind of weird how the higher biological systems of the brain can even understand the nature of experience and the hard problem at all, when experience is not directly connected and integrated with it on the biochemical level.