"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.
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.
> 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!)
> 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?
> 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.
>> 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.
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.
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.
>> 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.
>> 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.
> It's a textbook ad hominem ...
This has been shown to be false elsewhere in this thread.
> there's no reason to make the statement other than to undermine the credibility of the person's claims.
Nowhere did I assail the credibility, validity, nor intent of the person with whom I disagreed. All I did was identify the disagreement, acknowledge the position communicated is held with conviction (my interpretation), and convey my respect of their right to have a differing opinion.
It is difficult for me to interpret your post as being anything other than a form of projection[0].
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.
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.
"[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.
> 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.
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.
> 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?
Not exaclty, because I bieleve this distinction between the material world and the "world of experience" is nothing but a simple model that's not helpful most of the time.
But I can surely imagine a world with all the actors, all the action, and no observers, yes. Isn't that what's called "the zombie" though experiment? But that's a though experiment that does not lead very far; soon you end up with a world of philosophical zombies who write and talk about their introspections and write whole books about consciousness, yet this imaginary world is supposed to be devoid of consciousness ; feels like a bunch of autonomous language models in a loop talking to each others add nauseam pretending to be humans, after the end of all life.
That's why in my mental model the biological phenomenon and the subjective experience are two sides of the very same coin unlike in the zombie though experiment. In practice you can't have one without the other.
I am unconvinced by your argument for the reason I gave initialy and that is nicely illustrated in that article: Your argument posits that introspection and thoughs belong firmly into the realm of consciousness. I actually believe, at the contrary, that if we wanted to have an actionable definition of conscousness we would have to free this concept from all particular biological processes such as thinking or introspecting, which certainly "color" it but do not define it. Of course we then end up with a concept of consciousness that is restricted to the immediate personal experience we have of experiencing something; the tiny tiny bit of unknown that's outside the reach of our senses and sciences, the only thing we can't observe. And the task is to articulate this mysterious bit with everything else we know.
I'm not sure if I'm making my view clearer or if I'm confusing everyone; to be fair we don't have a good vocabulary to describe what we cannot observe :)
The notion that consciousness is inherently linked to a clumsy homunculus in our mind that we call an "observer" is itself faulty. This "observer" is an entirely artificial construction that our minds engage in, and subjective experience at its most basic can exist without it. This is the arahant's perception: "In the seeing, there is only the seen; in the hearing, there is only the heard; in the sensing, there is only the sensed; in the cognizing, there is only the cognized. Thus you should see that – indeed there is no thing here; this, Bahiya, is how you should train yourself. ... As you see that there is no thing there, you will see that – you are therefore located neither in the world of this, nor in the world of that, nor in any place – betwixt the two. This alone is the end of suffering." (Gautama Buddha's teaching of Bahiya, as recorded in the Udana.)
As a very rough and basic intuition of this, think about how your basic perceptions might work when you're in the "zone" or in "flow" or a deep hyperfocus state, where the ordinary "default mode network" is temporarily made inactive. Do you ever think then about some clumsy intermediating "observer" that your "seeing, hearing, sensing, cognizing" must all be passing through? Of course not; that would instantly snap you out of your intense focus. Yet you're undeniably conscious, not a "zombie" of any sort! Your qualia are unaltered; if anything, they're perhaps being more intensely experienced.
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.