4 ms·

>> 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?

>> 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.
- AdieuToLogic 1y ago
  >> Furthermore, I am unaware of any credible research claiming there exists amnesia such that all memory is blocked. > But others are aware of same. Hence my clear declaration of "I am unaware". >> It is apparent to me you have a firm belief in your position regarding consciousness. > ad hominem. My statement in no way qualifies as an ad hominem. It is simply a recognition of what I understand the person to whom I replied has expressed, without judgement. > One can easily say things that aren't true. Now this could reasonably be interpreted as an ad hominem, as you wrote the above in direct reply to my post.
- peterashford 1y ago
  No, an ad hominem would be him saying your argument was invalid because of something about you unrelated to your argument - profession, race, age etc
  - jibal 1y ago
    It's a textbook ad hominem ... there's no reason to make the statement other than to undermine the credibility of the person's claims.
    - peterashford 1y ago
      I have a degree in Philosophy. I'm pretty sure I understand what an ad hominem is. "It is apparent to me you have a firm belief in your position regarding consciousness" Is a statement about the target's level of belief in their position. It does not state that the position is wrong because of the person who made the statement.

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.

AdieuToLogic 1y ago
>> Furthermore, I am unaware of any credible research claiming there exists amnesia such that all memory is blocked. > But others are aware of same. Hence my clear declaration of "I am unaware". >> It is apparent to me you have a firm belief in your position regarding consciousness. > ad hominem. My statement in no way qualifies as an ad hominem. It is simply a recognition of what I understand the person to whom I replied has expressed, without judgement. > One can easily say things that aren't true. Now this could reasonably be interpreted as an ad hominem, as you wrote the above in direct reply to my post.
peterashford 1y ago
No, an ad hominem would be him saying your argument was invalid because of something about you unrelated to your argument - profession, race, age etc
- jibal 1y ago
  It's a textbook ad hominem ... there's no reason to make the statement other than to undermine the credibility of the person's claims.
  - peterashford 1y ago
    I have a degree in Philosophy. I'm pretty sure I understand what an ad hominem is. "It is apparent to me you have a firm belief in your position regarding consciousness" Is a statement about the target's level of belief in their position. It does not state that the position is wrong because of the person who made the statement.