If you assume pure subjectivity (it’s unmeasurable and incomparable), there’s not much to study or say about it. That’d explain by a selection effect why most researchers choose to focus/redefine to problems they can make progress on. Camp #1 has something to publish.
Camp #2 may well be correct, but it’s a very uncomfortable position for moderns. If you can’t measure or define consciousness, what are you basing all this talk of human rights and respect-for-others on? If you say this in the wrong crowd, you’ll be booed or assumed to be a eugenicist or something.
I am Camp 2 and I fully believe we can measure a lot and do predictive science on all this.
I don’t think Camp 2 has consensus on this conjecture (and we have anecdotal reports on all kinds of suggestive weird phenomena in this sense; and the upcoming technological changes which are likely to provide us with opportunities to test all of this experimentally).
If you assume pure subjectivity (it’s unmeasurable and incomparable), there’s not much to study or say about it. That’d explain by a selection effect why most researchers choose to focus/redefine to problems they can make progress on. Camp #1 has something to publish.
Camp #2 may well be correct, but it’s a very uncomfortable position for moderns. If you can’t measure or define consciousness, what are you basing all this talk of human rights and respect-for-others on? If you say this in the wrong crowd, you’ll be booed or assumed to be a eugenicist or something.
I am Camp 2 and I fully believe we can measure a lot and do predictive science on all this.
I don’t think Camp 2 has consensus on this conjecture (and we have anecdotal reports on all kinds of suggestive weird phenomena in this sense; and the upcoming technological changes which are likely to provide us with opportunities to test all of this experimentally).