4 ms·

Such goal attainment does not require consciousness. Even in our species, functions like breathing and blood circulation are autonomous, and they continue even

by arunix 9y ago

Such goal attainment does not require consciousness. Even in our species, functions like breathing and blood circulation are autonomous, and they continue even in our sleep when consciousness is absent.

CuriouslyC 9y ago
The fact that you have no memory of time while you are asleep does not prove that consciousness is absent. The fact that your brain's executive network are unaware of the workings of "autonomous" activities does not indicate that those activities lack consciousness. You are also unaware of my consciousness but I assure you that it exists.
- the_af 9y ago
  > The fact that your brain's executive network are unaware of the workings of "autonomous" activities does not indicate that those activities lack consciousness. I'm lost. To me it means those activities lack consciousness. It's also the opinion stated in Jaynes' book, which was mentioned by user breckinloggins. It's not the same as me being unaware of your consciousness. Your consciousness is foreign to me. It's always impossible for me to perceive it. My own consciousness is internal and I can perceive it. You may argue there are some activities of my own consciousness that I cannot perceive -- it's debatable, but we can discuss it -- but arguing about your consciousness from my perspective does not apply.
  - CuriouslyC 9y ago
    You are making a special distinction between stuff that is "part" of you, and stuff that is not "part" of you. In actuality there is no such clear distinction, there is only correlation in state, which is not binary but rather occurs on a spectrum. Understand that I'm defining consciousness as the property of having awareness, not as the human mind. The human mind is what it is like to be a cerebral cortex with our given structure. Think of consciousness as being like a computer screen, and the mind as a picture displayed on that screen. That screen could display a very different image, but that wouldn't change what the screen itself is.
    - the_af 9y ago
      > You are making a special distinction between stuff that is "part" of you, and stuff that is not "part" of you But this a crucial distinction when talking about consciousness, it's not arbitrary. Consciousness requires a subject to be conscious. Splitting awareness from the human mind seems weird to me. It's not very useful to consider, say, my liver to be conscious. Even worse, there's no way to prove or disprove the assertion that it is conscious; it's even less falsifiable than talking about other people's consciousness! The whole point of Jaynes' book is that consciousness is not required for most activities. He argues that not only are your body organs not conscious, but also that most activities you engage in every day aren't conscious either.
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
      - CuriouslyC 9y ago
        Decoupling awareness and its contents is a necessary prerequisite to a much more parsimonious philosophical viewpoint. Without taking that step, you're stuck with the idea that human awareness is somehow different in kind from the physical awareness that drives the evolution of everything else in the universe.
        the_af 9y ago
        > Decoupling awareness and its contents What do you mean? I don't understand what you mean by "the evolution of everything else in the universe", either. Consciousness isn't required for the evolution of living beings. Or do you mean something else?
        CuriouslyC 9y ago
        When I say evolution here I mean a change in state, not Darwinian evolution. I'm drawing a distinction between humans, who seem to have the ability to make choices, with the prevailing scientific world view, that everything is the result of mindless causal forces. I suppose you could hold the epiphenominalist view that consciousness is a side effect with no causal agency, but then you have to explain why things that hinder survival/reproduction feel bad, and things that aid it feel good. If consciousness was truly an epiphenomenon there is no reason why there should be any concordance between survival value of events and their phenomenal character.

by arunix 9y ago

CuriouslyC 9y ago

The fact that you have no memory of time while you are asleep does not prove that consciousness is absent. The fact that your brain's executive network are unaware of the workings of "autonomous" activities does not indicate that those activities lack consciousness. You are also unaware of my consciousness but I assure you that it exists.

the_af 9y ago
> The fact that your brain's executive network are unaware of the workings of "autonomous" activities does not indicate that those activities lack consciousness. I'm lost. To me it means those activities lack consciousness. It's also the opinion stated in Jaynes' book, which was mentioned by user breckinloggins. It's not the same as me being unaware of your consciousness. Your consciousness is foreign to me. It's always impossible for me to perceive it. My own consciousness is internal and I can perceive it. You may argue there are some activities of my own consciousness that I cannot perceive -- it's debatable, but we can discuss it -- but arguing about your consciousness from my perspective does not apply.
- CuriouslyC 9y ago
  You are making a special distinction between stuff that is "part" of you, and stuff that is not "part" of you. In actuality there is no such clear distinction, there is only correlation in state, which is not binary but rather occurs on a spectrum. Understand that I'm defining consciousness as the property of having awareness, not as the human mind. The human mind is what it is like to be a cerebral cortex with our given structure. Think of consciousness as being like a computer screen, and the mind as a picture displayed on that screen. That screen could display a very different image, but that wouldn't change what the screen itself is.
  - the_af 9y ago
    > You are making a special distinction between stuff that is "part" of you, and stuff that is not "part" of you But this a crucial distinction when talking about consciousness, it's not arbitrary. Consciousness requires a subject to be conscious. Splitting awareness from the human mind seems weird to me. It's not very useful to consider, say, my liver to be conscious. Even worse, there's no way to prove or disprove the assertion that it is conscious; it's even less falsifiable than talking about other people's consciousness! The whole point of Jaynes' book is that consciousness is not required for most activities. He argues that not only are your body organs not conscious, but also that most activities you engage in every day aren't conscious either.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - CuriouslyC 9y ago
      Decoupling awareness and its contents is a necessary prerequisite to a much more parsimonious philosophical viewpoint. Without taking that step, you're stuck with the idea that human awareness is somehow different in kind from the physical awareness that drives the evolution of everything else in the universe.
      - the_af 9y ago
        > Decoupling awareness and its contents What do you mean? I don't understand what you mean by "the evolution of everything else in the universe", either. Consciousness isn't required for the evolution of living beings. Or do you mean something else?
        CuriouslyC 9y ago
        When I say evolution here I mean a change in state, not Darwinian evolution. I'm drawing a distinction between humans, who seem to have the ability to make choices, with the prevailing scientific world view, that everything is the result of mindless causal forces. I suppose you could hold the epiphenominalist view that consciousness is a side effect with no causal agency, but then you have to explain why things that hinder survival/reproduction feel bad, and things that aid it feel good. If consciousness was truly an epiphenomenon there is no reason why there should be any concordance between survival value of events and their phenomenal character.