5 ms·

"There is a kind of consciousness that lives not in thought but in presence." Yes, and I believe the strong association we often make between the most advanced

by rixed 1y ago

"There is a kind of consciousness that lives not in thought but in presence." Yes, and I believe the strong association we often make between the most advanced cognitive functions and consciousness are misleading us into believing that consciousness is somehow the result of those functions, while I suspect we (conscious selves) are just witnessing those functions like we are witnessing anything, "from the outside". It's of course the most amazing part of the show, but should not be confused for it. Consciousness is not made of thinking but of observing, we just spend a lot of time observing how we think.

zozbot234 1y ago
There's no such thing as an individual conscious self that persists over time - it is always a misconception and an illusion. Consciousness is just something that living beings do, not something that they "are". It's an impersonal phenomenon (as far as it goes - there's of course plenty of things, mental states, thoughts etc. that are genuinely personal about our individual lives!) not a state of being.
- peterashford 1y ago
  ' Consciousness is just something that living beings do, not something that they "are"' I'm not sure what distinction you're making
- rixed 1y ago
  I share the feeling about it being impersonal (I've started to doubt its individuality as well). I like to think of consciousness as "the universe observing itself", but that sounds a bit too new-agey.
  - dalmo3 1y ago
    > "the universe observing itself", but that sounds a bit too new-agey. That's hilarious. New Age has such a bad rep that the universe itself is repelled by it.
    - Hoasi 1y ago
      New Age is the absolute worst, even though it might contain elements of truth. A modern analogy: New Age is to spirituality what using an LLM is to reading a book in search of knowledge.
  - vixen99 1y ago
    "[Bits of] the universe observing itself" is indisputably true. And we know (as far as we can tell) that maintaining our component atoms within a certain kind of dynamic pattern is a prerequisite for what we experience as life and consciousness. Nothing metaphysical just stubborn fact.
- AdieuToLogic 1y ago
  > There's no such thing as an individual conscious self that persists over time - it is always a misconception and an illusion. If individual consciousness does not persist over time, how does one explain existence from one day to the next? Or learning from one situation to the next? And how is consciousness "a misconception and an illusion?" > Consciousness is just something that living beings do, not something that they "are". This implies a lack of awareness of self, which is fundamental to the definition of consciousness. And if a being is aware of itself, then they "are". > It's an impersonal phenomenon ... not a state of being. If individual consciousness does not qualify as "a state of being", then whatever could?
  - zozbot234 1y ago
    > If individual consciousness does not persist over time, how does one explain existence from one day to the next? Or learning from one situation to the next? That's easy: consciousness piggybacks on memory, which is what really creates persistence over time. But an amnesiac can be conscious in the moment and not "learn from one situation to the next". Plenty of philosophers (including Western philosophers such as David Hume) have looked into this, and the account of individual persisting consciousness as a kind of misconception or illusion (or at least, a very rough "folk" theory of personal identity) is one that elegantly explains the data. That's before you get into the kind of deep inquiry into phenomenology that Eastern meditation practitioners would be deeply familiar with.
    - AdieuToLogic 1y ago
      >> If individual consciousness does not persist over time, how does one explain existence from one day to the next? Or learning from one situation to the next? > That's easy: consciousness piggybacks on memory, which is what really creates persistence over time. One could just as easily say memory is a component of consciousness, be it short or long term versions. > But an amnesiac can be conscious in the moment and not "learn from one situation to the next". Amnesia is not the inability to "learn from one situation to the next." It is instead a condition affecting the ability of memory recall. Furthermore, I am unaware of any credible research claiming there exists amnesia such that all memory is blocked. It is apparent to me you have a firm belief in your position regarding consciousness. I disagree with this position while respecting your right to have it.
- felixyz 1y ago
  > There's no such thing as an individual conscious self that persists over time True. But then again, there is nothing that persists over time. Entities with enduring identities - of any kind - are just abstractions that we superimpose on experience. > Consciousness is just something that living beings do To my eyes, you're switching over to another meaning of "consciousness" here. Sure there's no enduring self, but that doesn't mean consciousness (the capacity for experience, rather than mere behavior) is just something we do. We can understand feelings, thoughts, emotions etc as fundamentally "impersonal", yes, but that doesn't mean that they are not states of being. To me such states are about as real as anything. Again, it's two separate issues: 1) the nature of a persistent self, 2) the nature of mental states, not taken as "possessions" of such a self. (Still, psychologically speaking, the sense of self is baked into even our most basic acts of cognition. When you see an apple, there is always an implicit "you" in relation to the apple. In practical terms, it takes a lot of effort to separate one from the other - yet another topic!)
- childintime 1y ago
  Research has been done that shows the popular pet theory among amateur consciousness scientists, that consciousness is emergent of the brain, holds no water, see https://dn721502.ca.archive.org/0/items/davidickehumanracegetoffyourknees_202003/Pim%20van%20Lommel%20-%20Consciousness%20Beyond%20Life.pdf https://dn721502.ca.archive.org/0/items/davidickehumanracege...
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - rixed 1y ago
    Would you mind developing a bit to help us find out if that long reference is relevant or not?
  - IAmBroom 1y ago
    That's literally just one theory: "these other theories are wrong". Get back to us when loads of actual scientists agree.
jstanley 1y ago
> I suspect we (conscious selves) are just witnessing those functions like we are witnessing anything, "from the outside" Do you imagine the self being split into an "actor" who makes all the decisions, and an "observer" who can see what's going on but can't influence the actor? That can not be the case, because the "actor" can catch the "observer" in the "act" of "observing". You can introspect, and you can speak about your introspections, or write them down, which means there is a feedback loop between the acting part and the observing part. We're not simply observing "from the outside".
- Swiffy0 1y ago
  Hmm but that sounds pretty much like how I currently understand how our brains work. Not sure how factual this is, but I remember watching a video about how our brains essentially lie to us. I think there was a ping pong example in the video. It said something like you think you watch the ball come towards you and you think that you are making a decision and action to move the paddle on the ball's trajectory, but what really happens is that most of that is pre-observed, pre-decided and pre- acted upon subconsciously. So the subconscious part does most of the work and then when your conscious part catches up and you feel like you are doing the reacting, it's actually your subconsciousness lying to you that this was your observation and your decided reaction. Again, not sure how factual any of that is, but it made sense to me when I thought about how complex the task of observing+deciding+acting is in e.g. ping pong and how very little time there is to actually do all of that. Is it really possible to consciously observe, decide and act to a ping pong ball with so very little time there is to do all of that? So based on that it does seem like we are the observer and our subconscious is the actor which also lies to us to make us feel like that the actor is us. I can introspect, but that could just be my subconsciousness doing it and lying to me that it was by own conscious introspection.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - N_Lens 1y ago
    Kinda explains how CEOs take credit for the company’s success! Postfact justification.

by rixed 1y ago

zozbot234 1y ago

There's no such thing as an individual conscious self that persists over time - it is always a misconception and an illusion. Consciousness is just something that living beings do, not something that they "are". It's an impersonal phenomenon (as far as it goes - there's of course plenty of things, mental states, thoughts etc. that are genuinely personal about our individual lives!) not a state of being.

peterashford 1y ago
' Consciousness is just something that living beings do, not something that they "are"' I'm not sure what distinction you're making
rixed 1y ago
I share the feeling about it being impersonal (I've started to doubt its individuality as well). I like to think of consciousness as "the universe observing itself", but that sounds a bit too new-agey.
- dalmo3 1y ago
  > "the universe observing itself", but that sounds a bit too new-agey. That's hilarious. New Age has such a bad rep that the universe itself is repelled by it.
  - Hoasi 1y ago
    New Age is the absolute worst, even though it might contain elements of truth. A modern analogy: New Age is to spirituality what using an LLM is to reading a book in search of knowledge.
- vixen99 1y ago
  "[Bits of] the universe observing itself" is indisputably true. And we know (as far as we can tell) that maintaining our component atoms within a certain kind of dynamic pattern is a prerequisite for what we experience as life and consciousness. Nothing metaphysical just stubborn fact.
AdieuToLogic 1y ago
> There's no such thing as an individual conscious self that persists over time - it is always a misconception and an illusion. If individual consciousness does not persist over time, how does one explain existence from one day to the next? Or learning from one situation to the next? And how is consciousness "a misconception and an illusion?" > Consciousness is just something that living beings do, not something that they "are". This implies a lack of awareness of self, which is fundamental to the definition of consciousness. And if a being is aware of itself, then they "are". > It's an impersonal phenomenon ... not a state of being. If individual consciousness does not qualify as "a state of being", then whatever could?
- zozbot234 1y ago
  > If individual consciousness does not persist over time, how does one explain existence from one day to the next? Or learning from one situation to the next? That's easy: consciousness piggybacks on memory, which is what really creates persistence over time. But an amnesiac can be conscious in the moment and not "learn from one situation to the next". Plenty of philosophers (including Western philosophers such as David Hume) have looked into this, and the account of individual persisting consciousness as a kind of misconception or illusion (or at least, a very rough "folk" theory of personal identity) is one that elegantly explains the data. That's before you get into the kind of deep inquiry into phenomenology that Eastern meditation practitioners would be deeply familiar with.
  - AdieuToLogic 1y ago
    >> If individual consciousness does not persist over time, how does one explain existence from one day to the next? Or learning from one situation to the next? > That's easy: consciousness piggybacks on memory, which is what really creates persistence over time. One could just as easily say memory is a component of consciousness, be it short or long term versions. > But an amnesiac can be conscious in the moment and not "learn from one situation to the next". Amnesia is not the inability to "learn from one situation to the next." It is instead a condition affecting the ability of memory recall. Furthermore, I am unaware of any credible research claiming there exists amnesia such that all memory is blocked. It is apparent to me you have a firm belief in your position regarding consciousness. I disagree with this position while respecting your right to have it.
felixyz 1y ago
> There's no such thing as an individual conscious self that persists over time True. But then again, there is nothing that persists over time. Entities with enduring identities - of any kind - are just abstractions that we superimpose on experience. > Consciousness is just something that living beings do To my eyes, you're switching over to another meaning of "consciousness" here. Sure there's no enduring self, but that doesn't mean consciousness (the capacity for experience, rather than mere behavior) is just something we do. We can understand feelings, thoughts, emotions etc as fundamentally "impersonal", yes, but that doesn't mean that they are not states of being. To me such states are about as real as anything. Again, it's two separate issues: 1) the nature of a persistent self, 2) the nature of mental states, not taken as "possessions" of such a self. (Still, psychologically speaking, the sense of self is baked into even our most basic acts of cognition. When you see an apple, there is always an implicit "you" in relation to the apple. In practical terms, it takes a lot of effort to separate one from the other - yet another topic!)
childintime 1y ago
Research has been done that shows the popular pet theory among amateur consciousness scientists, that consciousness is emergent of the brain, holds no water, see https://dn721502.ca.archive.org/0/items/davidickehumanracegetoffyourknees_202003/Pim%20van%20Lommel%20-%20Consciousness%20Beyond%20Life.pdf https://dn721502.ca.archive.org/0/items/davidickehumanracege...
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- rixed 1y ago
  Would you mind developing a bit to help us find out if that long reference is relevant or not?
- IAmBroom 1y ago
  That's literally just one theory: "these other theories are wrong". Get back to us when loads of actual scientists agree.

jstanley 1y ago

> I suspect we (conscious selves) are just witnessing those functions like we are witnessing anything, "from the outside" Do you imagine the self being split into an "actor" who makes all the decisions, and an "observer" who can see what's going on but can't influence the actor? That can not be the case, because the "actor" can catch the "observer" in the "act" of "observing". You can introspect, and you can speak about your introspections, or write them down, which means there is a feedback loop between the acting part and the observing part. We're not simply observing "from the outside".

Swiffy0 1y ago
Hmm but that sounds pretty much like how I currently understand how our brains work. Not sure how factual this is, but I remember watching a video about how our brains essentially lie to us. I think there was a ping pong example in the video. It said something like you think you watch the ball come towards you and you think that you are making a decision and action to move the paddle on the ball's trajectory, but what really happens is that most of that is pre-observed, pre-decided and pre- acted upon subconsciously. So the subconscious part does most of the work and then when your conscious part catches up and you feel like you are doing the reacting, it's actually your subconsciousness lying to you that this was your observation and your decided reaction. Again, not sure how factual any of that is, but it made sense to me when I thought about how complex the task of observing+deciding+acting is in e.g. ping pong and how very little time there is to actually do all of that. Is it really possible to consciously observe, decide and act to a ping pong ball with so very little time there is to do all of that? So based on that it does seem like we are the observer and our subconscious is the actor which also lies to us to make us feel like that the actor is us. I can introspect, but that could just be my subconsciousness doing it and lying to me that it was by own conscious introspection.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- N_Lens 1y ago
  Kinda explains how CEOs take credit for the company’s success! Postfact justification.