I think we could potentially have knowledge of the mathematical and physical structures that give rise to particular types of experiences in general. In this case, a first-person experience could indeed be defined. However, I don’t think that consciousness is a concept which is coherent enough formally define even if we hypothetically had good third-person knowledge of the structures of consciousness.
The gap cannot be fully closed because that would require a sort of lossless recursion. Approaching it might look like augmenting ourselves with artificial senses which feed our brains with near-lossless real time information of our own bodies at appropriate level of abstraction. It’s obvious why this is difficult. Fully lossless would be actually impossible.
I think we could potentially have knowledge of the mathematical and physical structures that give rise to particular types of experiences in general. In this case, a first-person experience could indeed be defined
Only as the subjective thingy that arises from.an objective thingy. We can do that already—red is what you see when you look a tomato. That isn’t a definition of a subjective quality in the Mary’s Room sense.
However, I don’t think that consciousness is a concept which is coherent enough formally defined
I think the word “consciousness” labels several concepts that can be coherently defined.
I tend to find that sort of thing underwhelming. You can point at some objective thing, and say it’s subjective..but why? Explanations need to be explanatory.
Or you can.adopt some.camp.#1 definition of consciousness that doesn’t include the subjective.
Then I don’t understand why you dismiss first-person concepts as “not something that can be defined”?
Narrow ≠ fully close.
I think we could potentially have knowledge of the mathematical and physical structures that give rise to particular types of experiences in general. In this case, a first-person experience could indeed be defined. However, I don’t think that consciousness is a concept which is coherent enough formally define even if we hypothetically had good third-person knowledge of the structures of consciousness.
The gap cannot be fully closed because that would require a sort of lossless recursion. Approaching it might look like augmenting ourselves with artificial senses which feed our brains with near-lossless real time information of our own bodies at appropriate level of abstraction. It’s obvious why this is difficult. Fully lossless would be actually impossible.
cc @TAG
See related ideas from Michael Levin and Emmett Shear.
Only as the subjective thingy that arises from.an objective thingy. We can do that already—red is what you see when you look a tomato. That isn’t a definition of a subjective quality in the Mary’s Room sense.
I think the word “consciousness” labels several concepts that can be coherently defined.
I tend to find that sort of thing underwhelming. You can point at some objective thing, and say it’s subjective..but why? Explanations need to be explanatory.
Or you can.adopt some.camp.#1 definition of consciousness that doesn’t include the subjective.