I think people confuse definitions for labels, or even deliberately equivocate between them.
For me, consciousness is that "whatever it is" that happens when I wake up in the morning. I have thoughts, I see red as red, I experience sound and other sensation, but beyond that there's nothing I can say without begging the question or making unfounded (read "pragmatic") assumptions. So as a LABEL, consciousness works fine. As a definition, it is almost meaningless.
I'd also like to point out that we immediately have a circle, in that you must be conscious (whatever that is) to define or label consciousness. Identifying physical rules, the brain, correlates between brain function and reproted experience, etc. really doesn't do much to save us from that initial circle-- it only serves to expand it or convolute it past the ability of the mind to follow all those convolutions, necessitating philosophical milestones which are after all just assumptions first called "pragmatic" and then "obvious."
Let's go straight to physicalism, i.e. the brain as consciousness. We have a rich experience of things, of the interaction among things, of human behavior, of the brain (at least indirectly), etc. But none of it, absolutely none of it, has been perceived, labeled or defined outside the framework of a conscious mind. We take all those ideas to represent an objective reality, and once that bastion has been established as unchallengeable (or challenged only by fools), then we can confidently foray into purely objective observations AS THOUGH they represent observations of conciousness.
For me, consciousness is that "whatever it is" that happens when I wake up in the morning. I have thoughts, I see red as red, I experience sound and other sensation, but beyond that there's nothing I can say without begging the question or making unfounded (read "pragmatic") assumptions. So as a LABEL, consciousness works fine. As a definition, it is almost meaningless.
I'd also like to point out that we immediately have a circle, in that you must be conscious (whatever that is) to define or label consciousness. Identifying physical rules, the brain, correlates between brain function and reproted experience, etc. really doesn't do much to save us from that initial circle-- it only serves to expand it or convolute it past the ability of the mind to follow all those convolutions, necessitating philosophical milestones which are after all just assumptions first called "pragmatic" and then "obvious."
Let's go straight to physicalism, i.e. the brain as consciousness. We have a rich experience of things, of the interaction among things, of human behavior, of the brain (at least indirectly), etc. But none of it, absolutely none of it, has been perceived, labeled or defined outside the framework of a conscious mind. We take all those ideas to represent an objective reality, and once that bastion has been established as unchallengeable (or challenged only by fools), then we can confidently foray into purely objective observations AS THOUGH they represent observations of conciousness.
