Most of us are primarily interested in the problem of suffering, and secondarily in the question of consciousness. Because suffering is a phenomenal phenomenon we need to know what is consciousness. This seems to be important in how we approach the question of consciousness here.
Currently, the science of consciousness and the science of suffering are still in a pre-natal stage, the former being almost born, the latter just conceived. We cannot ‘define’ what we don’t know yet, but we may begin a scientific approach with working definitions.
It seems clear to me that consciousness and suffering are in another category than a table, a mountain or baldness. Life is a better comparison, but not adequate yet. To get good working definitions, I suggest that we consider that consciousness and suffering are phenomena in two senses:
– an object or aspect known through the senses rather than by thought or intuition (consciousness and suffering are known like that, by an “immediate sense”, unlike the “categories” of table, mountain, baldness or life)
– a fact or event of scientific interest susceptible to scientific description and explanation (consciousness, suffering and life are like that, but not a table, a mountain, or baldness)