Unless you don’t know I’m talking about (various kinds of reductive materialism), it sounds like you’re doing exactly what I’m saying is the main rhetorical move in reductive approaches to consciousness.

▲

arde a day ago | parent | next [-]

Mine was a straight question you should be able to answer directly for any debate to go forward, not any "rhetorical move" nor any "approach" involving anything. Any rhetorical moves or approaches of mine, reductive or not, conceding or refuting, would come after your answer but couldn't come before it because your point needs this disambiguation.

So again: please, without resorting to tautology from which anything could be implied, define what consciousness is to you in a way you don't consider reductive, so we can clearly see what there would be to reduce at all.

	▲	GPerson 21 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Consciousness is identical to the presence of qualia, that there is something rather than nothing, that the lights are on. ‘Reductive’ means the assumption that all phenomena reduce to what represent them in an external model or linguistic description. Science, language, and reason are fundamentally reductive. So in practice the reductive assumption is just denying that things have an existence which is not identical to our models of them. And since these are the respected modes of thought most people are unaware that they are committing to a non-trivial reductive assumption when reasoning about consciousness.

▲

pixl97 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

>reductive approaches to consciousness

There 100% must be reductive approaches to consciousness because consciousness lives on a gradient.

If your definition of consciousness exists on as a point like an electron, something that only exists as a whole, then you've already flunked out of the study of consciousness. It is wildly complex. Has a great number of pieces. Manifests itself in different ways in different animals. You have to explain what consciousness is in that framework, and not from your own subjective experiences.

	▲	GPerson 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		Right if my view was some ridiculous position you just invent to try to embarrass me then it would be ridiculous. Brilliant logic. I don’t think you know what reduction means here and you don’t actually engage with what I write here and on other posts so I don’t care to explain.