Sam Harris On Defining Consciousness

[brewer]

In this discussion on this topic and at this point I see no practical benefit.

Whenever I think a topic is not worth talking about, I generally stay out of the discussion. Do you think the participants in this discussion have carried it on for 3 pages because they aren't intelligent enough to realize it's not worth talking about and need you to tell them? I ask this with all due respect to someone I do respect.

Hi Rhonda.

I didn't know if I wanted to insert myself and my opinions into this thread in the beginning. That's why I began with all of the questions. My opting out of the discussion was because I came to the conclusion that, after repeated questions and responses and other posts, I had nothing further to add to "Defining Consciousness". It had nothing to do with yours, mine or anyone other participants intelligence or the worthiness of the topic. Each person here has their right to discuss what ever they want and to their opinion, view and position. I can either choose to accept it (in part or whole) or not.

The written word is not my preferred form of communication. Also, I'm not much for debate. Debate is more often than not win/loose and adversarial. I am willing to discuss as along as both/other positions are accepted. I didn't feel that was happening. It felt like debate.

So, I've had some time to think about this thread. I'll give my position/opinion and then step out again. I don't think we are anywhere close in our investigation, study, attempts at interpretation and understanding to formulate a definition of consciousness. At least not for the purposes here. To come up with a definition prior to study and observation is, as far as I'm concerned, putting the cart before the horse. Google the definition of definition. You'll find words like exact, definite, fixed, essential. At this stage of understanding I believe it would be exceedingly arrogant to think that we could define consciousness. I believe a more correct term would be theory or hypothesis. Those are more open to additional testing, observation, experimenting and change where "Definition" is not.

I do not accept the position that we need to have a definition to gain knowledge or understanding. Here are some examples why: Converting iron into steel. We did not define steel prior to attempts to understand, experiment or investigate the process for making it. The definition came after. I believe the same for gravity. Newton did not start with defining. He started with observation, investigation and study. Gunpowder. The experimenting, testing and understanding came first (use some of this white rock, with some of this yellow rock and some charcoal hopefully in the right amount). Then the definition, combining in the correct ratio sulfur, potassium nitrate and carbon to create an explosion when ignition is applied.

With all this being said I'll now bow out of this thread. I'll still continue to follow. I'm not sure I'll contribute anything additional.