malf
Member
Nobody was suggesting that the actual word did work!
Given that we have no consensus on any definition of the word this distinction is moot. Perhaps the difficulty in defining it is due, at least in part, to it not being a single 'thing'? Maybe we should be more open-minded to this notion?
I guess we see slipperiness and vagueness where it suits us :). I find the phrase "consciousness is fundamental" pretty vague... certainly it's easier said than explained or envisaged.Can't you see how slippery and vague discussions become - and yes, you are right, this is exactly the way they talk. My reference to anaesthesia was meant to remind you that we aren't talking about something vague or metaphysical, we are talking about something utterly concrete. Imagine you were under the knife, but that the anaesthetic had worn off (but you were still paralysed from the muscle relaxant drug they use), would you say, "consciousness is just a word we've assigned to a collection of biological/neurological processes"!
There is obviously huge amounts of correlative evidence to support the notion that consciousness is just a word we've assigned to a collection of biological/neurological processes (injuries, pharmacology, developing infant brain etc). Probably too much to completely dismiss it outright. Again, I appreciate that many of us tend to concentrate on the evidence we prefer.