Then I think you are only redefining the word, not asserting something about the thing it previously meant.
This looks like an example of an argument that goes, consciousness has a property P, therefore everything with property P is conscious. The P here is “closed-loop feedback”. Panpsychists use P = existence. Others might use P = making models of the world, P = making models of themselves, P = capable of suffering, or P = communicating with others. Often this is accompanied by phrases like “in a sense” or “to some degree”.
Why do you choose the particular P that you do? What thing is being claimed of all P objects, that goes beyond merely being P, when you say, these too are conscious?
I wouldn’t say I’m redefining “consciousness” exactly. Rather, “consciousness” has a vague definition, and I’m offering a more precise definition in terms of what I think reasonably captures the core of what we intend to mean by “consciousness” and is consistent with the world as we find it. Unfortunately, since “consciousness” is vaguely defined, people disagree on intuitions about what the core of it is.
Personally I try to just avoid using the term “consciousness” these days because it’s so confusing, but other people like to say it, and closed loop feedback is how I make sense of it.
As to why I think closed-loop feedback is the right way to think about “consciousness”, I included some links to things I wrote a while ago in a sibling comment reply.
Then I think you are only redefining the word, not asserting something about the thing it previously meant.
This looks like an example of an argument that goes, consciousness has a property P, therefore everything with property P is conscious. The P here is “closed-loop feedback”. Panpsychists use P = existence. Others might use P = making models of the world, P = making models of themselves, P = capable of suffering, or P = communicating with others. Often this is accompanied by phrases like “in a sense” or “to some degree”.
Why do you choose the particular P that you do? What thing is being claimed of all P objects, that goes beyond merely being P, when you say, these too are conscious?
I wouldn’t say I’m redefining “consciousness” exactly. Rather, “consciousness” has a vague definition, and I’m offering a more precise definition in terms of what I think reasonably captures the core of what we intend to mean by “consciousness” and is consistent with the world as we find it. Unfortunately, since “consciousness” is vaguely defined, people disagree on intuitions about what the core of it is.
Personally I try to just avoid using the term “consciousness” these days because it’s so confusing, but other people like to say it, and closed loop feedback is how I make sense of it.
As to why I think closed-loop feedback is the right way to think about “consciousness”, I included some links to things I wrote a while ago in a sibling comment reply.