Definitely, but the point I'm getting at is that there are loads of things we discuss without having to define them. Especially the basic terms of whatever you happen to be defining. I.e. do I need to define the words I use in this question for you to understand what I am asking?
If youre going to discuss something it helps to have a common ground to begin with, as i dont pretend to know what consciousness is or if it even exists, i asked Tichy to tell me his definition so i can understand what hes denying.
Not to the point of defining all the words, just the basic concepts were trying to understand.
Then I am sorry, I didn't think you meant the question serious. My criticism of the whole consciousness debate is that nobody knows what they are talking about, so I am the last person who could give you that definition (since my point is that there is no meaningful definition of it).
People have this notion that there should be this something called consciousness, but they can not say what it is supposed to be. This becomes especially clear in Searle's Chinese Room where Searle describes how an intelligent process is supposedly not conscious, but he still dodges the question what he means by consciousness. To me the chinese room shows that there is no such thing (ie the notion seems to be that a human speaking chinese does so by employing his "consciousness", whereas the chinese room example basically proves that consciousness is not required).
