How do you measure consciousness?

>>8321804
well its not by the number of posters who respond to your shit-tier bait thread before it gets deleted and you get banned, if thats what you were thinking OP...

>>8321804

You don't because it's not a thing, it's an abstraction of behavior.

>>8321828

>first comment is a concession

At least attempt a courtesy riposte, Jesus.

>>8321858

By which unit of measurement could you differentiate the abstraction of my behavior from that of a dog?

>>8321863

>By which unit of measurement could you differentiate the abstraction of my behavior from that of a dog?

There is no such unit of measurement.

>>8321868

So...the abstraction itself isn't real either?

>>8321863
Meters
Human consciousness is about 3m than dog

>>8321898

It sounds like you have no understanding of anything related to this topic.

>>8321909

Something that can't be measured actually exists?

Are you a crank?

>>8321925

Where in that specific post you replied to is there any claim about anything existing or not existing? You would probably have a clearer understanding of what you're asking about if you stopped making so many assumptions.

>>8321939
>>8321868

>There is no such unit of measurement.

>>8321941

>>8321925
>>8321939

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

0 - unconscious
1 - conscious

>>8321925
If you're asserting that things that can't be measured don't exist, you'll have to prove it.

>>8321948

This post:

>>8321909

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

>>8321952
Atheists BTFO

>>8321963

>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.

>>8321961
>>8321979

>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

>>8321990

>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.

>>8322005

So (how) do you measure the abstraction then?

>>8322008

How do you measure the weight of your shadow?

>>8322021

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)?

>>8322054

Define "consciousness."

>>8322060

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

>>8322069

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

>>8322085

This may be entirely true for certain people.

>>8322092

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

>>8322021
Factor out the electromagnetic pressure were you not there.

File: image.jpg (59KB, 702x691px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 702x691px

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.

>>8322096

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.

>>8321804
qualia

>>8322120

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.

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

>>8322154

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.

>>8322191

>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.

>>8322199

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.

>>8322244

>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.

File: where do you think you are.png (154KB, 559x556px) Image search: [Google]

154KB, 559x556px

>>8321804
>consciousness
>>>/x/ is this way

>>8322304

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

>>8321952
only real answer

>>8321804
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

>>8324092
You are a very funny person. Did you know that?

>>8324096

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

>>8324096
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.