本文探讨了“意识”一词在不同语境下的多重定义所造成的沟通障碍。作者指出，人们对“意识”的理解各不相同，导致讨论时难以达成共识。文章建议用更具体的词汇替代“意识”，以避免误解，并强调了在动物伦理和心灵哲学领域进行更明确的政策制定的重要性。作者认为，我们应该优先考虑与人类相似的心智，但这应基于务实的政策，而非未被发现的生物物理学或算法属性。

🧠 作者观察到“意识”一词在日常讨论中容易引起混淆，因为它在不同人眼中有着多种定义，包括觉醒、对自我的思考、注意力分配和主观体验等。

🤔 文章指出，人们对“意识”的理解差异源于他们对“微妙的神经优越性”（SNS）的共同信念。即使我们对大脑有深入了解，也难以从生物物理学或心理学角度找到SNS的确凿证据。

💡 作者建议在讨论中避免使用模糊的“意识”一词，转而使用更具体的术语，以促进清晰的交流。作者认为，虽然优先考虑人类心智是合理的，但这应基于务实的政策，而非科学发现。

Published on June 26, 2025 10:22 PM GMT

I often hear people say consciousness is a phenomenon that urgently needs deeper understanding. Yet the word consciousness is a major source of the confusion. I'm trying to replace it with clearer words in my conversations.

Often, in both mainstream & rationalist contexts, i encounter people with these different definitions of the word:

Awakeness (but everyone agrees this is the boring one)Thoughts about oneselfThoughts about oneself AND the capability to think about complex situationsAttention routingSubjective experience

People often also believe that one of the phenomena above is closely bound to one of these other phenomena:

Pleasure & painEmotionsNeurons (as opposed to simulated neurons)Moral worthWorthiness of respect

The problem is that you define consciousness as 1+ of the above, but your conversation partner has checked a different set of the checkboxes, so you talk past each other.

I suspect most people are okay with this vague terminology because they all share a belief in a Subtle Neural Superiority that distinguishes humans from plants, or perhaps from krill. It's okay for others to equate this SNS with the wrong phenomenon. It's okay if you think the invisible elephant is tusk-based rather than trunk-based - at least we agree there is a invisible elephant! 

But i doubt we will ever find this invisible elephant, this Subtle Neural Superiority. We will one day fully understand the brain^[1], but even then biophysics & psychology will reveal no clear evidence of a SNS. The distinction will always be a matter of pragmatic consensus, not of hard science. 

So i agree that we need to research minds in detail, & i agree that we need to devise explicit, detailed policies for which phenomena to prioritize over others. I agree that it's reasonable for us to prioritize a human over a microscopic worm, but not because of a undiscovered biophysics or algorithmic property. I simply think it is reasonable to prioritize humanlike minds for the time being. This is a pragmatic policy, not a claim about hard science.

I intend to write more about my opinions on animal ethics & philosophy of mind, since i've recently discovered that they are novel to some people. 

But you certainly don't have to agree with me about everything. All i request is that you try to use more specific words than consciousness. People don't know which definition/s you have in mind - & rarely guess correctly!

1. ^{^}

   A mere millennium of research left to do!

Discuss