For the actual definition, I think we will find that consciousness will only fully make sense when we understand some more basic facts of the universe, like: does time really only go in one direction, or is this an artifact of our perception? Because currently all epistemology is predicated on that assumption and we don't actually really know it's true.
I think Hoel is just confusing people. He's saying consciousness is a NAME (in sense of the Kripke causal theory of reference) while everyone else is saying they want a DESCRIPTION (in the descriptivism sense). When people say "consciousness has no definition" what they are really saying is that there are distinct limitations to what you can accomplish in discussion about it as a result. No one is saying that a name that is not precise is not useful at all.
Like, we all know what people usually mean by "the inventor of the lightbulb" even though the truth is more subtle. This name is not "descriptive" (in the descriptivist sense) because it is incorrect. But that's ok because (so Kripke says) there is a causal chain linking my usage back to the initial popular usage.
And so it is with consciousness. We all get in broad strokes what the name refers to. That is not the problem. The problem is we can't talk about it in any more detail because we don't know anything else.
For the actual definition, I think we will find that consciousness will only fully make sense when we understand some more basic facts of the universe, like: does time really only go in one direction, or is this an artifact of our perception? Because currently all epistemology is predicated on that assumption and we don't actually really know it's true.
I think Hoel is just confusing people. He's saying consciousness is a NAME (in sense of the Kripke causal theory of reference) while everyone else is saying they want a DESCRIPTION (in the descriptivism sense). When people say "consciousness has no definition" what they are really saying is that there are distinct limitations to what you can accomplish in discussion about it as a result. No one is saying that a name that is not precise is not useful at all.
Like, we all know what people usually mean by "the inventor of the lightbulb" even though the truth is more subtle. This name is not "descriptive" (in the descriptivist sense) because it is incorrect. But that's ok because (so Kripke says) there is a causal chain linking my usage back to the initial popular usage.
And so it is with consciousness. We all get in broad strokes what the name refers to. That is not the problem. The problem is we can't talk about it in any more detail because we don't know anything else.