4 ms·

> 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 doe

> 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.
  - zozbot234 1y ago
    Memory is definitely a key component of our thinking processes, but "consciousness" in a philosophical sense is usually taken to refer to the so-called "hard problem" of the phenomenal character of awareness and experience, at its most basic level. The insight that this basic phenomenal character can be impersonal and even momentary in a way that nonetheless fully explains our ordinary experience is quite a substantial simplification! It does seem to make the "hard" problem just a little bit easier, if only by potentially restricting its scope.
    - AdieuToLogic 1y ago
      You have given me a few things to think about, and for that I thank you.
  - card_zero 1y ago
    Henry Molaison had both temporal lobes removed in 1953 and was unable to learn anything new, but was still conscious. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Molaison https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Molaison What are you saying? I don't get it.
    - AdieuToLogic 1y ago
      > What are you saying? I don't get it. What I said was: Amnesia is not the inability to "learn from one situation to the next." It is instead a condition affecting the ability of memory recall. Someone having "both temporal lobes removed" is separate and apart from amnesia AFAIK. Now as to the case you quoted - I was unaware of it until you kindly shared it. IMHO, this supports the plausibility of having consciousness while being unable to learn anything new (as you summarized). The implications of this are fascinating to me in a detached objective sense.
  - jibal 1y ago
    One can easily say things that aren't true. > Furthermore, I am unaware of any credible research claiming there exists amnesia such that all memory is blocked. But others are aware of same. > It is apparent to me you have a firm belief in your position regarding consciousness. ad hominem.

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.
- zozbot234 1y ago
  Memory is definitely a key component of our thinking processes, but "consciousness" in a philosophical sense is usually taken to refer to the so-called "hard problem" of the phenomenal character of awareness and experience, at its most basic level. The insight that this basic phenomenal character can be impersonal and even momentary in a way that nonetheless fully explains our ordinary experience is quite a substantial simplification! It does seem to make the "hard" problem just a little bit easier, if only by potentially restricting its scope.
  - AdieuToLogic 1y ago
    You have given me a few things to think about, and for that I thank you.
- card_zero 1y ago
  Henry Molaison had both temporal lobes removed in 1953 and was unable to learn anything new, but was still conscious. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Molaison https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Molaison What are you saying? I don't get it.
  - AdieuToLogic 1y ago
    > What are you saying? I don't get it. What I said was: Amnesia is not the inability to "learn from one situation to the next." It is instead a condition affecting the ability of memory recall. Someone having "both temporal lobes removed" is separate and apart from amnesia AFAIK. Now as to the case you quoted - I was unaware of it until you kindly shared it. IMHO, this supports the plausibility of having consciousness while being unable to learn anything new (as you summarized). The implications of this are fascinating to me in a detached objective sense.
- jibal 1y ago
  One can easily say things that aren't true. > Furthermore, I am unaware of any credible research claiming there exists amnesia such that all memory is blocked. But others are aware of same. > It is apparent to me you have a firm belief in your position regarding consciousness. ad hominem.