Leontiskos wrote:Alternatively, supposing that animals do not have the ability to know, wouldn't it then follow that they do not have memory?
RJG wrote:No. If animals do not possess consciousness it does not logically follow that they also do not possess memory.
Leontiskos wrote:But I didn't ask about possession, I asked about ability.
The answer is still no. If animals do not have the "ability to know" (or the "ability to possess consciousness"), then it does not logically follow that they also do not have memory. Consciousness requires memory, but memory does not require consciousness. Apple-pie requires apples, but apples don't require apple-pie. X requires Y, but Y does not require X. "If X, then Y" does NOT mean "If Y, then X" [...converse error fallacy; affirming the consequent].
RJG wrote:Those animals with eyes, have the capability to experience seeing.
Those animals with ears, have the capability to experience hearing.
Those animals with memory, have the capability to experience knowing; recognition; consciousness.
This does not mean that animals with eyes/ears/memory can necessarily see/hear/know. (e.g. for one can have apples, but have no apple-pie).
Leontiskos wrote:But the problem arises again here. Eyes are not to sight as apples are to apple pie.
You are missing the point. I am referring to the
logical relationship between these terms.
Without X, there can be no Y.
Without eyes there can be no seeing.
Without ears there can be no hearing.
Without apples there can be no apple-pie.
Without memory there can be no knowing.
And "Without X, there can be no Y" does NOT conversely mean, "Without Y, there can be no X".
************
Consul wrote:Visual or auditory perception isn't the same as visual or auditory experience, because the former can take place without the latter.
The word "perception" here seems confusing as most people associate this word as a "conscious" event. I think it more accurate and simpler to just say we that have TWO different types of "experiences"; one is the
non-conscious physical bodily reaction [X] and the other is the
conscious experience (recognition) of said bodily reaction [Consciousness-of-X]. We have X, and we have the Consciousness-of-X.
When we are conscious, we are only conscious of X (our own physical bodily reactions/sensations).
That's it. Nothing more. It is through recognition (itself being a bodily reaction/experience) that the non-conscious bodily reaction [X] is recognized and becomes a "conscious experience" [Consciousness-of-X].
In effect, it is
recognition that brings about consciousness (i.e. converts the non-conscious bodily experience into the conscious experience). -- Therefore,
Consciousness is the experience of
recognition made possible by
memory.
Consul wrote:There are both phenomenally conscious and phenomenally nonconscious forms of perception, so having eyes and being able to see, or having ears and being able to hear aren't sufficient conditions of phenomenal consciousness (aka subjective experience).
Again, to me, this is confusing language as most people associate "perception" as a "conscious" event. -- But, if by "perception" you were to mean the actual physical
non-conscious bodily reaction (that I refer to as "X") and if by "experience" you mean the
consciousness-of-this bodily reaction (that I refer to as the "consciousness-of-X"), then I am in total agreement with you!
And I further agree, that non-conscious bodily experiences (bodily reactions) can and do take place without the consciousness of said bodily experience.