Sam Harris On Defining Consciousness

[Rhondazvous]

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.

I understand what you mean and find myself feeling the same way. I hadn’t started this thread as fodder for debate and am somewhat dismayed by the turn it has taken. At certain points it feels like a scene from a Tyler Perry movie with folks calling each other idiots and what not. I don't want to accuse anybody of anything. That was just the dynamics we fell into.

You and I seem to be on the same page if I just dispense with the word “definition.” I used it to mean knowing what something is as opposed to what it’s not or what isn’t it. Yet. When I think about it, it’s more than that. There are other words like patriotism, love, humor, that we know what they are without being able to define them in precise words. Wars have been started over people insisting on a universal definition of the ineffable.

Maybe we can be done with the bickering and ad hominem. Unless we have any neurosurgeons in the house, we are limited in how much experimenting we can do, but we can share what we’ve read and explore ideas. That’s why I started this thread.