Consciousness is like a point that time pushes forward along a curve of decisions. It exists in the present moment. Once a moment passes, it becomes part of the self, which is the line of all past decisions and experiences. The self is not fixed – it is constantly changing and building upon itself.
Well, that’s just my view on consciousness. Now I’m wondering: where are the weak points? Does the view make sense?
There is a long history of discussions about consciousness here in the forum. They almost always break down because the term is never actually defined, and it has many different meanings. It would make sense for you to define exactly what you mean by consciousness.
You can’t define it if you don’t know what it is. A definition is the ideal end result of a discussion that aims to answer the question, “what is consciousness”.
In any case, @StrmsekKlemen says what they think it is in the OP.
That feeling of being alive, here and now. The part of you that in this moment senses, thinks, and decides. It’s not memory – that’s already past. It’s not planning – that’s the future. Consciousness is just this moment, when you know you are.
I picture it as a point that moves forward along a line. The line behind it is my self – everything I’ve experienced and decided up to now. Consciousness is just the tip that moves. Once this moment passes, it falls onto the line and becomes part of me.
I don’t believe this is anything mystical or supernatural. The brain developed it because it helped with survival. Like an animal that has to decide quickly – fight or run. Consciousness is a tool, nothing different from sharp eyesight or fast legs.
Just to clarify – English is not my language, so I’m using translation tools to help me.
New reply, sory still learning app
My problem with your original definition is that it doesn’t really say what consciousness is, it describes what it does. That’s why I commented previously. The definition you gave in your subsequent post was a good one and not too different from the one I use.
The idea has various different meanings. I usually think of it as self-awareness. For the concept of “the hard problem of consciousness,” it means subjective experience. Damasio talks about it as the awareness that my mental processes belong to me. It’s almost like every philosopher and psychologist has their own definition.
For me consciousness is not a mystical energy. It is simply an evolutionary tool that helped us survive. I don’t see a “hard problem” – just a biological function.
Please God no one starts the immensely tedious "what is it like to be a … " conversation.
Couldn’t one be a nihilist or pacifist and make no decisions (or ignore them altogehter) and still be aware of one’s existence?
Isn’t that what consciousness is, awareness of one’s own existence?
“Thinking about thinking” seems to be a reoccurring theme in similar discussions. A step above mere self-recognition via a mirror test (I.E. realizing your reflection is unique and not another “prop” on the stage of life).
Well obviously it isn’t a hard problem if you just call it a tool and move on. But the question isn’t what it does but what it is? How does physical matter and brain processes produce subjective experience or awareness. À la René Descartes res cogitans (“thinking substance,” mind) and res extensa (“extended substance,” matter). How does consciousness or awareness emerge from physical processes, and what ontological status do thoughts have: are they physical, mental, emergent, or something else? Nobel Prize awaits. 
“What makes the hard problem hard and almost unique is that it goes beyond problems about the performance of functions. To see this, note that even when we have explained the performance of all the cognitive and behavioral functions in the vicinity of experience - perceptual discrimination, categorization, internal access, verbal report - there may still remain a further unanswered question: Why is the performance of these functions accompanied by experience? A simple explanation of the functions leaves this question open.”
Facing Up to the Problem of Consciousness - David Chalmers
I think that there are precise reasons why the concept of consciousness is particularly tricky.
One reason is that the common idea of consciousness contains a fundamental ambiguity between two sides of it. On one side, consciousness is popularly agreed as knowledge: if I know that a chair is here, then I am conscious that a chair is here. The problem with this concept is that it is quite mechanical, so that it seems to imply that even a pocket calculator knows that 2+2=4. Despite this ability, we feel that the calculator lacks something. One thing that it seems lacking is freedom: a calculator is not able to freely decide a moment when to think about 2+2=4. The problem is that even about ourselves when cannot get objective evidence that such freedom exists in us.
Another reason is the confusion between repeatability and uniqueness. I feel my experience of consciousness as something unique and exclusive that is happening in me here and now. But, at the same time, the concept of consciousness exists and is understood, to a certain degree, because we treat it as something not unique, but shared by many humans, may be even by animals and, why not, plants and objects. Consciousness as a non unique concept is, after all, the consciousness of the pocket calculator: we treat it as just a phenomenon, an object. This conflicts with the exclusive uniqueness that I feel in myself when I pay attention to my ongoing experience of my present consciousness.
There is another fundamental confusion in the nature of language. Language can express shared things only. If something is entirely unique and exclusive, the consequence is that there is not a word for it. This means that the word “consciousness” is able to refer to those aspects of consciousness that are shared only. Ultimately, this is again the consciousness of the pocket calculator. But I feel in myself an ongoing experience that I can only feel, not tell, not tell to others, not even tell to myself. This is a very bizarre experience, because I feel that it is definitely in me, always available to myself whenever I decide to think about it, but, despite this seemingly such a strong and undeniable evidence to me, I must acknowledge that it is strong to me exclusively, strong as a feeling, but absolutely impossible to express by words even to myself.
I think that the basic ambiguity that creates all other ambiguities is the way how we conceive subjectivity. There is an objectified concept of it: it is when I think about your subjectivity, other people’s subjectivity or the abstract concept of subjectivity. But there is also an experience of subjectivity that it is impossible to objectify. It is to me my experience of my subjectivity. It is impossible to objectify it because it is impossible to express it.
Now you might wonder what I am talking about, since I have said that there is at least one side of consciousness and of subjectivity that cannot be expressed. There are two reasons why I have tried to talk about it all the same. One is that probably you experience like me something that we could call consciousness, or self, or subjectivity, that you, like me, feel impossible to express as well. This is just a free hypothesis of mine. In this case you might be able to find in yourself what I am referring to, but it impossible to me to express. The other reason is that, in my opinion, the two aspects of consciousness and subjectivity, that is the objectified one and the inexpressible one, the pocket calculator that is part of my brain and my unique exclusive feeling, are connected to each other and in a continuous dialogue with each other. This means that whenever we talk about one side, the other side is actually always present as well behind our words.
It’s possible that all living beings have their own form of consciousness? Plants turn towards the sun, single-celled organisms go towards food and reproduction… The difference is in the level of evolution of this consciousness. Is it possible that only a sufficiently developed consciousness develops an inner self?
Even if you don’t choose a decision, that too is a decision. Is it possible that it’s the ego, the self, that is aware of existence and not consciousness?
Maybe that inexpressible side of consciousness is exactly my “point” – that bare feeling of being alive, here and now. You really can’t put that into words. It just is. Like trying to capture a smell or a pain with words – you can describe the circumstances, but not the feeling itself.
Language comes from the self. From that line behind the point. The self is what has accumulated – experiences, memories, decisions. And the self can speak, because it has a history and words. It can say “I am aware”.
So maybe it’s no wonder that discussions about consciousness always get stuck. The point cannot be captured in words. The line can be – but that’s no longer consciousness, that’s already the self looking back.
I apologise for the topic that has been chewed over countless times, but it won’t leave me alone. This is my ego that isn’t looking for validation, but for an explanation that will be clear and satisfying for me, not necessarily for others.
What’s wrong with that definition?
Consciousness by itself is not awareness of one’s own existence. Consciousness is just bare feeling. Awareness of one’s own existence is the work of the self – the line that looks back at itself.
Not sure what you are asking, I haven’t made any comment about definitions.
thought you were referring to the explanation