Instead of trying to measure consciousness, let’s look at the relational structure. Consciousness consists of an ongoing relation of change between a living organism and its environment. So, there are actually three interrelating events here. You can’t dismiss one without negating consciousness. And you can’t ‘measure’ one event and claim to be measuring any more than evidence of a perceived potential for consciousness. — Possibility

Is this your position? I can observe an ongoing relation of change between a plant (living organism) and its environment. Is the plant conscious?

Your line that I highlighted in bold suggests this.

In order to specify position, velocity, etc, one needs to set up a frame of reference. But from a frame of reference we can specify what a distance is.

I don't think we can do the same to consciousness - as shown by your attempt that leads to more questions than answers. From my frame of reference, I cannot access your consciousness, only the external manifestation of it.

And that is the problem I have. There is brain biology and chemistry that can be access from outside. There is body motion and behaviour that can be accessed from outside. But consciousness is often used to mean those, it is used to mean an internal state of awareness. And that internal state can't be measured directly as far as I know.

While distance is used to mean a physical attribute that can be measure from a frame of reference.

Now perhaps that internal consciousness state can be be entirely written in terms of the physical,, which solves the problem. Maybe, I don't know.

Let's forget about my experience of my own consciousness for a minute. The only way I can know about another person's internal experience, consciousness, is by observing their behaviour, including the things they say, their facial expressions, etc. Actually, in these days of cognitive science, I might also be able to learn things based on observing neurological activity with brain scanning equipment. This is something we do all the time in our lives, but it applies to scientific study also. — T Clark

You can definitely scientifically study behaviour resulting from consciousness. You can also scientifically study the neural correlates of consciousness. You can study the physical manifestation of consciousness.

However consciousness is often used to mean an inner state of awareness, which is not directly measurable. This contrasts with distance, for example, that is used to mean a purely physical quantity.

Now I lean towards the theory that consciousness emerges from the physical. I have yet to find a convincing non naturalist position. Which leaves me in a pickle.

Can the meaning of consciousness be wholly described in terms of the physical? If that can be achieved, I may become less pickled.

If the answers is yes, then consciousness is everywhere, because everything is able to react to anything. — Angelo Cannata

I might not fully understand your position then. Your OP suggested that it was stupid to believe that consciousness was reducible to neuro-biology, but here you've indicated that the hard problem of consciousness described by Chalmers (the p-zombie issue) poses a serious challenge to your position (which I take to be that consciousness is not so reducible).

Your main problem, from what I've quoted from you above, isn't that you think the reductionists are wrong, but simply that they have a logically supportable position that happens to lead to an unpalatable conclusion. I'd just say it's not a valid objection for you to reject a position simply because it leads to an unhappy, yet perhaps true, result.

I'd just say it's not a valid objection for you to reject a position simply because it leads to an unhappy, yet perhaps true, result. — Hanover

What about if we look at it through a moral, hedonically moral, lens? Shouldn't the world ought to have been in a way that's pleasing to us? Why are we stuck with reality, dissatisfying as it is? I suggest that we stop arguing and do something about it: Can't we make consciousness immaterial?

What about if we look at it through a moral, hedonically moral, lens? Shouldn't the world ought to have been in a way that's pleasing to us? Why are we stuck with reality, dissatisfying as it is? I suggest that we stop arguing and do something about it: Can't we make consciousness immaterial? — Agent Smith

If you concede there is a (1) a reality and (2) there is what you'd like reality to be, and you choose to live in #2 while recognizing you're not truly in reality, but you're just in some Disney Magical Kingdom that you like to visit in your mind, you can do that I suppose.

I'm not sure how you can sustain the self imposed delusion.

In any event, though, when you're talking to me, let's focus on talking about what's behind door # 1.

Philosophy can even be considered ridiculous, hypocritical, stupid, in its efforts to assign to quantums and neurons and structures and molecules the task of building a good relationship of man with himself. — Angelo Cannata

I do not think philosophers do this tbh?

As for the ‘consciousness’ issue I tend not to bother listening to most people who have poor knowledge of the cognitive neurosciences.

Some questions are scientific and some are philosophical. As Feynmann once said, it is stupid to answer philosophical questions scientifically just as it is to answer scientific questions philosophically. The issue is knowing/understanding exactly what kind of question is being posed before jumping in to answer it.

This is exactly the problem: if you try to forget your own consciousness, what you are trying to understand is not consciousness anymore, — Angelo Cannata

Sure it is. Perhaps there is some truth in what you say for knowledge of my own consciousness, but consciousness is a mental property like any other. It's something people share. People other than me experience it too. The only way I can know that is by observing their behavior.

I think it is possible to experience what we call consciousness directly without language or concepts, but then, that's not consciousness anymore. The minute you call consciousness by it's name, it's not the experience you are describing, it's a concept. That consciousness can't be understood, it can only be experienced. The tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao. But it is possible to understand consciousness the concept. Consciousness is as much, and as little, a thing as a loaf of bread.

You can definitely scientifically study behaviour resulting from consciousness. You can also scientifically study the neural correlates of consciousness. You can study the physical manifestation of consciousness.

However consciousness is often used to mean an inner state of awareness, which is not directly measurable. This contrasts with distance, for example, that is used to mean a purely physical quantity.

Now I lean towards the theory that consciousness emerges from the physical. I have yet to find a convincing non naturalist position. Which leaves me in a pickle.

Can the meaning of consciousness be wholly described in terms of the physical? If that can be achieved, I may become less pickled. — PhilosophyRunner

I agree with all of this. See my response to Angelo Cannata above.

If you concede there is a (1) a reality and (2) there is what you'd like reality to be, and you choose to live in #2 while recognizing you're not truly in reality, but you're just in some Disney Magical Kingdom that you like to visit in your mind, you can do that I suppose.

I'm not sure how you can sustain the self imposed delusion.

In any event, though, when you're talking to me, let's focus on talking about what's behind door # 1. — Hanover

I hear ya. Just a thought. Kinda feels like the so-called naturalistic fallacy (how nature is is how it should be).

You cannot gain knowledge of consciousness through quantums and relativity, because consciousness is you, the subject, the one who is waiting to be met. You cannot meet yourself through quantums and metaphysics. Rather, what Pascal suggested was "esprit de finesse", spirit of fineness, or we can just say spirit.

I think that it depends entirely on what you are referring to by "consciousness". I do not hold that exploring, empirically, consciousness is a self-defeating (absurd) task (to that like continually running into a brick wall). Certain aspects, at the very least, of what I would consider consciousness is obtainable via empirical observation. For example, we can discover that this aspect of the brain has some role in color interpretation (e.g. damage that and they can't see red anymore). However this may merely be a semantical difference between us because I hold that reason is the "subject" and, therefore, is the bedrock. Moreover, the investigation (empirically) of reason inevitably fails (only in the sense of grounding it absolutely in the brain) because it is that which is presupposed (which is what I presume you were trying to convey), but I don't think that "reason" is generally synonymous with "consciousness": we can causally evaluate consciousness to see how it relates to conscious states. Maybe "reason" is what you are referring to by "spirit"?

We can even consider noble, honourable, this pseudo-science, because science is research that, as such, improves human knowledge and human condition.

I don't find anything "pseudo" about empirically observing my own mind recursively to evaluate what seems metaphysical or transcendent (or what isn't): in fact, I think it is progressive and insightful into understanding itself. However, I do agree that this is always performed with careful consideration that it is being logically derived from reason itself (or from "me" as you put it) and, as you stated, everything is always conceptualized as an object and, therefore, even both of our arguments entail that we are providing an explanation which is an objectification of subjectivity, because, I would say, there is no subjectivity in that sense of the term--for "subjectivity" is simply manifested, conceptualized, as what is manifesting the manifestations. Therefore, even to argue "consciousness" is "me", as I think you did, is to merely conceptualize the manifestations, ever active conceptualizations, as an object manifesting them. Something truly "beyond reason" is something relatable to "indeterminate", "impossible", "undescribable", or "unfathomable". However, even those concepts do not transcend reason, in a literal sense, and so there is not a truly transcendent concept. With that being said, we can still logically derive the objective relation of "subjectivity" to the "objects", for they are both inevitably objectified (e.g. reason is metaphysical in relation to the physical, but neither truly transcends reason as they are both conceptualized as objects).

In short, I do not really see the dilemma, or contradiction, in binding "consciousness" to the brain, albeit that nothing transcends reason (not even the very concept of "transcendence" and "nothingness"). I don't think it is hypocritical, stupid, etc to empirically investigate anything, including the brain and "consciousness" and "reason", for that is all we have (nevertheless, we can thereafter, naturally, have things, i.e. chains of reasoning, which produce a convincement of metaphysical aspects that transcend things). But once we begin empirical, recursive examination of reason on itself, we quickly realize that, in relation to reason, it logically follows that reason itself is not a "thing" but, rather, metaphysical. But this was obtained empirically, because it all is.

Is your frustration more towards people who are more that of materialists? Those who claim the brain and the mind are one and the same? That we will be able to causally examine a brain so in depth that we discover all truths of the mind therefrom?

Is this your position? I can observe an ongoing relation of change between a plant (living organism) and its environment. Is the plant conscious? — PhilosophyRunner

Not really - sorry, I should have clarified this here, but my aim at this point was just to acknowledge three event structures. I don’t consider a plant to be an integrated event, even though we do classify it as a living organism. It’s made up of systems that appear to have an ongoing relational structure, but are not integrated such that any relation of change (awareness) can be said to occur across an overall system. Some of them come pretty close, though.

My position is that consciousness has an ongoing relation of change between an integrated event system and any differentiated event structure. I think this means consciousness is a five-dimensional system of value, in itself. But this is speculation based on the idea of an evolving geometry of integrated and non-integrated system structures in nature.

In order to specify position, velocity, etc, one needs to set up a frame of reference. But from a frame of reference we can specify what a distance is.

I don't think we can do the same to consciousness - as shown by your attempt that leads to more questions than answers. From my frame of reference, I cannot access your consciousness, only the external manifestation of it. — PhilosophyRunner

I’m not sure if we can, either. Measurement is defined by a reference point in spacetime, but if consciousness involves an ongoing relation of change between two spacetime events, then it has two relative frames of reference. I wish I could present this speculation in a way that quantum theoretical physicists might take seriously, because they work with mathematical representations of five-dimensional relations, but I know I’m a long way from that. Still, Rovelli’s descriptions of physical reality as consisting of interrelated events gives me hope.

And that is the problem I have. There is brain biology and chemistry that can be access from outside. There is body motion and behaviour that can be accessed from outside. But consciousness is often used to mean those, it is used to mean an internal state of awareness. And that internal state can't be measured directly as far as I know.

While distance is used to mean a physical attribute that can be measure from a frame of reference.

Now perhaps that internal consciousness state can be be entirely written in terms of the physical,, which solves the problem. Maybe, I don't know. — PhilosophyRunner

Either way, measurement isn’t going to cut it. I think we need to calculate predictions of events, in terms of structures of effort and attention over time.

You use " relation of change" a few times, do you mind expanding that term as I'm not sure exactly what you mean.

In particular how you think conscious and non-conscious entities differ in terms of " relation of change."

You use " relation of change" a few times, do you mind expanding that term as I'm not sure exactly what you mean.

In particular how you think conscious and non-conscious entities differ in terms of " relation of change." — PhilosophyRunner

Relation of change refers to the structure of variability in any relation between two entities. If two atoms reduce the distance between each other, there is a system to how either atom will vary, depending on the relative structure of each atom, the energy available and the relative point of ‘impact’. They might just ‘bounce’ off each other, or transfer electrons, share them as an integrated molecular structure, even break down. When we understand the internal structures involved, we can make confident predictions on what will occur.

A carbon atom has the most variably stable internal atomic structure. This means that any relation of change or variability between a carbon atom and another entity is the most complex of any single atom without compromising the integrity of the atomic system. This is what I mean by relation of change as ‘awareness’.

No entity has complete awareness of its internal system structure - only a sense of this variable relation. A living entity is a four-dimensional, temporarily stable system of structural change (growth, movement, interaction, etc). It doesn’t necessarily have any overall relation of change with its environment, and those with less integrated structures break down more easily in interactions. A sponge is an example of a living entity with no integration.

With four-dimensional integration, a living structure can use its relation of change (awareness) to inform the entire system - growth, movement, interaction, defences, reproduction, etc - without compromising the integrity of the living system. This is the lower limit of ‘consciousness’ (zero potential).

But a conscious entity is more than its living system - even though this is all that can be observed. It is a system of potential or predicted relation of change between this integrated, four-dimensional living structure and an ongoing, four-dimensional universe.

One of the key advantages of integrated living entities is DNA: a three-dimensional molecular blueprint of the living system’s most beneficial relations of structural/biochemical change, updated based on its own long-term interactions. Along with sexual reproduction, this is how living entities have evolved to maximise the complexity of their relations of change, without compromising the integrity of the system.

Taking its cue from the success of DNA, the conscious system also constructs a reasonably stable prediction of its most reliably potential relations of change/variability between the organism and its access to the universe that would maintain the integrity of the system’s conscious potential, allowing for more detailed, ongoing adjustments along the way to maximise this complexity.

Sorry - there’s a lot to unpack in there. Hope you can follow my thinking...