Definitions are important, especially when discussing complex topics. For example, the topic of consciousness is so fraught with subtleties that discussions about it really need to start with a clear definition of what it means. Definitions themselves are often the first step in exploring an idea, so creating one can be an act of investigation. In other words, proposing different definitions for a concept may help us explore what is really important or fundamental about it.

Continuing with the topic of consciousness, some define it as just information processing, some define it as the phenomenon of experience. These are very different definitions that generally reflect different metaphysical positions – strict physicalism versus somewhat more open views. I wonder if it would be possible to develop a definition based on something that cuts across these global perspectives.

Regardless of which class of definition one uses, one thing that is generally agreed upon is that consciousness is a purely subjective experience. Even strident physicalists agree that we need to rely on people’s own reports of what is going on in their conscious events. This subjectivism makes it hard, perhaps impossible to do science on consciousness the way we do with physical systems.

Consider that subjective experience, whether simple information processing or something more, is at the heart of why we care about things like pain and suffering. As such, it can be said to be at the heart of morality itself. Perhaps this is one reason that many believe that morality is ultimately beyond the reach of science, since at its heart is something purely subjective and science deals with objective truths.

So, perhaps an interesting definition of consciousness could be: that thing that allows morality to exist, that gives it meaning.

Without something like that, we need objectively agreed upon values upon which to construct a system of ethics, but this is notoriously hard. But we can all agree, at least in principle, on the importance of less suffering, largely because we all have personal experience of pain. Of course, there are many details that need to be fleshed out in this idea, but it could provide at least a starting point, and dovetails nicely with the idea of an existence based on love.

Interestingly, one of the key ideas of most religions is some system of morality, and Christianity, in particular, recognizes the importance of reducing suffering. In this sense, it addresses the very thing that most matters to us in regard to human experience and morality, even though that thing is completely beyond the reach of science. In other words, one of the things that matters most in human experience is something that science cannot completely address but which has been addressed in Christianity, successfully enough that our modern ethical system is almost entirely based on it (even though many people don’t realize it).

I’m not completely convinced that this really works, but I find the proposal intriguing if for no other reason than that it triggers some interesting lines of thought. Sometimes these sorts of thought experiments can help us become more aware of different perspectives.