Consciousness as the bodily experience of recognition, made possible by memory?

Discuss any topics related to metaphysics (the philosophical study of the principles of reality) or epistemology (the philosophical study of knowledge) in this forum.
User avatar
Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
The admin formerly known as Scott
Posts: 5765
Joined: January 20th, 2007, 6:24 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
Contact:

Consciousness as the bodily experience of recognition, made possible by memory?

Post by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes »

In another post, the following definition of consciousness was proposed by RJG:
RJG wrote: July 15th, 2021, 12:19 pm Consciousness is the bodily (brain) experience of 'recognition', made possible by memory.

Is that an accurate definition of consciousness and/or assertion of what consciousness is?

Would accepting that claim as true thereby solve the hard problem of consciousnesss? In other words, is the above assertion a proposed answer/solution to the hard problem of consciousness?
My entire political philosophy summed up in one tweet.

"The mind is a wonderful servant but a terrible master."

I believe spiritual freedom (a.k.a. self-discipline) manifests as bravery, confidence, grace, honesty, love, and inner peace.
User avatar
RJG
Posts: 2767
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

Re: Consciousness as the bodily experience of recognition, made possible by memory?

Post by RJG »

RJG wrote:Consciousness is the bodily (brain) experience of 'recognition', made possible by memory.
Scott wrote:Is that an accurate definition of consciousness and/or assertion of what consciousness is?
Yes. This is an accurate and very succinct definition of consciousness (IMHO). -- To be even more succinct we could say -- "Consciousness is Memory".

Scott wrote:Would accepting that claim as true thereby solve the hard problem of consciousnesss? In other words, is the above assertion a proposed answer/solution to the hard problem of consciousness?
Yes, I think so. If we envision "consciousness" as nothing more than another physical bodily reaction (i.e. the specific bodily experience/reaction of 'recognition') made possible by those entities that possess memory functionality (i.e. the replay of past bodily experiences/reactions), then this seemingly explains this phenomenon from a physical viewpoint.

Many entities can 'physically' experience bodily reactions (and auto-react accordingly). But only those entities that can experience the bodily reaction of 'recognition' can "know" (recognize; be conscious of) their 'physical' bodily experiences/reactions. These entities that experience 'recognition' are those that are said to be "conscious" beings.

For example, a worm can certainly 'physically' experience bodily experiences such as pain, and will auto-react accordingly (...put a worm on hook to see this in action). But the worm doesn't "know" he is experiencing pain (but his non-conscious physical body does, as it reacts accordingly to the applied stimuli); he doesn't experience 'recognition' of his bodily reactions and therefore is not considered "conscious". Worms and all creatures (including humans) auto-react accordingly to the applied stimuli (response-to-stimuli; cause and effect). The "knowing" of these reactions is limited to only those certain creatures who possess certain memory function (capable of creating the bodily reaction of 'recognition').

Furthermore, when we are conscious, we are only conscious of bodily experiences/reactions. That's it. Nothing more. Therefore, consciousness is passive (an after-effect; akin to an "echo" or a "shadow"), and therefore cannot 'cause' or 'do' anything autonomously.

When we are conscious, we are conscious-of-'something' (not nothing!). Being conscious of 'nothing' is not being conscious. Without the 'something' (the physical bodily reaction) there is no consciousness. The bodily reaction is the content (or the "aboutness") of the conscious event.

We cannot consciously DO anything. We can only be conscious of what we've already DONE! Everything we are conscious of has already happened in reality (real-time). Refer to my OP on "The Logical Implication of CTD" to better understand.
User avatar
Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
The admin formerly known as Scott
Posts: 5765
Joined: January 20th, 2007, 6:24 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
Contact:

Re: Consciousness as the bodily experience of recognition, made possible by memory?

Post by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes »

Scott wrote:Would accepting that claim as true thereby solve the hard problem of consciousness? In other words, is the above assertion a proposed answer/solution to the hard problem of consciousness?
RJG wrote: July 15th, 2021, 12:46 pm Yes, I think so.
Thank you for clarifying.

In the current state of human science and human technology, I look at proposed resolutions to the hard problem of consciousness as essentially being religious claims, or at least religious-like, and thus I remain strictly agnostic about them. In analogy, the same goes for interpretations of quantum mechanics; I remain strictly agnostic about what the accurate interpretation of quantum mechanics is.

Much like how there are some popular proposed possible interpretations/explanations of quantum mechanics (e.g. Many Worlds vs Pilot Wave vs Copenhagen etc.), there are many popular proposed possible resolutions to the hard problem of consciousness. For instance, Wikipedia lists the following proposed resolutions:

  • Weak reductionism
  • Dualism
  • Panpsychism and neutral monism
  • Objective Idealism and Cosmopsychism
  • Strong reductionism
  • Eliminative materialism
  • New mysterianism

On each and every one of those, and on your proposed resolution ("Consciousness is the bodily (brain) experience of 'recognition', made possible by memory."), I remain strictly agnostic. One of the above proposed resolutions or yours may be the true resolution, or some other entirely different solution may turn out to be the true one.

For me to strongly believe any one of them with the current evidence of which I am aware would be an act of religion, or at least an act of religious-like faith, so I don't and won't make such a leap. (Granted, others may have different evidence available to them than I do, so I am not asserting that anyone who does make that leap is doing so with religious-like faith rather than convincing evidence. I can only speak for myself on that.)

In analogy, if I was to say that I am certain that Many Worlds Interpretation is the accurate interpretation of quantum mechanics, or in contrast if I was to say that Pilot Wave Interpretation is the accurate interpretation of quantum mechanics, either way it would be an act of religion or religious-like faith. Thus, instead, I remain agnostic about it.

I do not accept any proposed interpretation of quantum mechanics. I do no accept any proposed solution to the hard problem of consciousness. I remain agnostic.
My entire political philosophy summed up in one tweet.

"The mind is a wonderful servant but a terrible master."

I believe spiritual freedom (a.k.a. self-discipline) manifests as bravery, confidence, grace, honesty, love, and inner peace.
User avatar
RJG
Posts: 2767
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

Re: Consciousness as the bodily experience of recognition, made possible by memory?

Post by RJG »

Scott wrote:On each and every one of those, and on your proposed resolution ("Consciousness is the bodily (brain) experience of 'recognition', made possible by memory."), I remain strictly agnostic. One of the above proposed resolutions or yours may be the true resolution, or some other entirely different solution may turn out to be the true one.

For me to strongly believe any one of them with the current evidence of which I am aware would be an act of religion, or at least an act of religious-like faith, so I don't and won't make such a leap. (Granted, others may have different evidence available to them than I do, so I am not asserting that anyone who does make that leap is doing so with religious-like faith rather than convincing evidence. I can only speak for myself on that.)
Scott, you don't need "blind faith" to understand/accept my definition of consciousness. Simple logic will suffice.

***************
Consciousness is the experience of 'recognition', made possible by memory.
***************

P1. Consciousness requires the capability to experience 'recognition'.
P2. Recognition requires memory.
C1. Therefore, consciousness requires memory.

Q. When we are conscious, what is it that we are actually conscious of?
A. We are ONLY conscious of physical bodily reactions (sensory, feelings, *thoughts). That's it. Nothing more. *Note: thoughts are actually just sensory reactions; just a compilation of many bits of sensory reactions (arranged by the rules of our learned language) emanating from memory.

Many entities can 'physically' experience bodily reactions (and auto-react accordingly). But only those entities that possess memory and can experience 'recognition' are those that can "know" (recognize; be conscious) of their 'physical' bodily experiences/reactions. These entities that experience 'recognition' are those that are said to be "conscious" beings.

Those entities who possess eyes have the capability to see.
Those entities who possess ears have the capability to hear.
Those entities who possess memory have the capability to know (to recognize; to be conscious).
User avatar
Leontiskos
Posts: 695
Joined: July 20th, 2021, 11:27 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Aristotle and Aquinas

Re: Consciousness as the bodily experience of recognition, made possible by memory?

Post by Leontiskos »

Thanks RJG. If I may, allow me offer a few objections to your view.
RJG wrote: July 16th, 2021, 7:10 amP1. Consciousness requires the capability to experience 'recognition'.
First, a clarification. Would it be fair to say that on your view we are conscious if and only if we are recognizing (i.e. performing an act of recognition)? And we possess consciousness insofar as we are able to recognize things, even if we are not currently doing so? For example, when we are in a dreamless sleep we possess consciousness even though we are not currently engaging in consciousness/recognition?
RJG wrote: July 16th, 2021, 7:10 amThose entities who possess memory have the capability to know (to recognize; to be conscious).
Objection 1: Non-human animals are not conscious.

I assume you would hold to the common view that animals are sentient but not conscious, and not capable of consciousness? You say that recognition is a form of knowledge, but presumably you do not believe that animals have knowledge. If this is true then this sentence would need to be amended. Out of curiosity, do you believe that a dog recognizes his master, or the scent of his mate?
RJG wrote: July 16th, 2021, 7:10 amA. We are ONLY conscious of physical bodily reactions (sensory, feelings, *thoughts). That's it. Nothing more. *Note: thoughts are actually just sensory reactions; just a compilation of many bits of sensory reactions (arranged by the rules of our learned language) emanating from memory.
RJG wrote: July 15th, 2021, 12:46 pmWhen we are conscious, we are conscious-of-'something' (not nothing!). Being conscious of 'nothing' is not being conscious. Without the 'something' (the physical bodily reaction) there is no consciousness. The bodily reaction is the content (or the "aboutness") of the conscious event.

We cannot consciously DO anything. We can only be conscious of what we've already DONE! Everything we are conscious of has already happened in reality (real-time). Refer to my OP on "The Logical Implication of CTD" to better understand.
Objection 2: Consciousness involves activity, and not only passivity.

It seems to me that we are doing something when we are conscious. In the first place, we consciously direct our consciousness. I first direct my consciousness to the speed limit sign, and after recognizing the sign I direct my consciousness to my speedometer. I am conscious of what I am conscious of, and therefore (actively) direct my consciousness according to my will. This form of action is part and parcel of consciousness.

Secondly, the simple act of consciousness is an act. Even the apprehension, perception, and recognition of the speed limit sign involves an act of consciousness. It is something I do that requires mental effort on my part. When that effort is no longer possible I fall asleep and lose consciousness. For both of these reasons consciousness cannot be fully explained by physical bodily reactions which we undergo passively.
RJG wrote: July 16th, 2021, 7:10 am P1. Consciousness requires the capability to experience 'recognition'.
P2. Recognition requires memory.
C1. Therefore, consciousness requires memory.
Objection 3: Socrates' Remembering (Meno)

I believe it is in Plato's Meno where Socrates demonstrates through geometrical instruction that his student learns only by remembering previous knowledge. The same phenomenon is built in to the word recognition: to re-cognize. This is another active-passive puzzle, but in a different form. It is the chicken and the egg question with respect to memories and recognition. You say that consciousness cannot exist without recognition, and recognition cannot exist without memory. But can a new memory be formed without recognition? We would be apt to suppose that memories precede recognition, but does not memory also presuppose recognition? That is, does not the memory formation process involve a necessary element of recognition? For even at the most fundamental level, color, shape, and pattern recognition is required for, say, visual memory.

Best,
Leontiskos
User avatar
RJG
Posts: 2767
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

Re: Consciousness as the bodily experience of recognition, made possible by memory?

Post by RJG »

*********************
Firstly, Leontiskos welcome. I see that you are new here.

Secondly, I think most of your questions/objections are answered/addressed in some of the recent responses here in the similar topics, and also in my OP "The Logical Implication of CTD" viewtopic.php?f=2&t=17102. I recommend you read this OP to better understand (in more detail) my particular view/understanding of consciousness, if you are interested.

RJG wrote:Consciousness is the experience of recognition made possible by memory
Leontiskos wrote:Would it be fair to say that on your view we are conscious if and only if we are recognizing (i.e. performing an act of recognition)?
Yes, if we are "experiencing" recognition, then we are conscious.

Leontiskos wrote:And we possess consciousness insofar as we are able to recognize things, even if we are not currently doing so? For example, when we are in a dreamless sleep we possess consciousness even though we are not currently engaging in consciousness/recognition?
Without 'something' to be conscious of, there can be no consciousness. (akin to - without something to read, there can be no reading).

RJG wrote:Those entities who possess memory have the capability to know (to recognize; to be conscious).
Leontiskos wrote:Objection 1: Non-human animals are not conscious.

I assume you would hold to the common view that animals are sentient but not conscious, and not capable of consciousness?
Not so. Many entities/physical bodies can (non-consciously) experience physical bodily reactions (and then auto-react accordingly), but not many can “know” they experience these bodily reactions. The ones that “know”, are the ones that are considered “conscious beings”. The ones that "know" are the ones that experience "recognition", and are the ones that are considered "conscious beings".

In effect, recognition converts the non-conscious into the conscious; converts the non-conscious physical bodily reactions into conscious experiences (aka "consciousness").

RJG wrote:We are ONLY conscious of physical bodily reactions (sensory, feelings, *thoughts). That's it. Nothing more. *Note: thoughts are actually just sensory reactions; just a compilation of many bits of sensory reactions (arranged by the rules of our learned language) emanating from memory.

When we are conscious, we are conscious-of-'something' (not nothing!). Being conscious of 'nothing' is not being conscious. Without the 'something' (the physical bodily reaction) there is no consciousness. The bodily reaction is the content (or the "aboutness") of the conscious event.

We cannot consciously DO anything. We can only be conscious of what we've already DONE! Everything we are conscious of has already happened in reality (real-time). Refer to my OP on "The Logical Implication of CTD" to better understand.
Leontiskos wrote:Objection 2: Consciousness involves activity, and not only passivity.

It seems to me that we are doing something when we are conscious.
We cannot logically "consciously do" anything. We can only be conscious of what we have already "done". -- Again, refer to my OP entitled "The Logical Implication of CTD" to better understand the logical impossibility of consciously "doing" anything.

Leontiskos wrote:In the first place, we consciously direct our consciousness.
Again, this [X<X] is not logically possible. For how do you consciously direct anything?

Mustn't you 'first' experience the desire/urge/thought to do so in the first place? ...and if so, then did you also direct this desire/urge/thought that directed your consciousness? ...and if so, then how did you direct this desire/urge/thought? ...mustn't you 'first' experience the desire/urge/thought to do so in the 'first' place? etc etc etc -- As you can see - if we can't choose our desires/urges/thoughts that do our directing, then we direct nothing. [X<X is logically impossible].

This (above) is just another of the impossibilities of "consciously doing" anything. I think the CTD argument is the most direct and straightforward proof.
User avatar
Leontiskos
Posts: 695
Joined: July 20th, 2021, 11:27 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Aristotle and Aquinas

Re: Consciousness as the bodily experience of recognition, made possible by memory?

Post by Leontiskos »

RJG wrote: July 22nd, 2021, 8:19 amFirstly, Leontiskos welcome. I see that you are new here.
Thanks!
RJG wrote: July 22nd, 2021, 8:19 amSecondly, I think most of your questions/objections are answered/addressed in some of the recent responses here in the similar topics, and also in my OP "The Logical Implication of CTD" viewtopic.php?f=2&t=17102. I recommend you read this OP to better understand (in more detail) my particular view/understanding of consciousness, if you are interested.
Okay, sure. I will keep this in mind if I desire a comprehensive understanding of your view. I haven't read it yet since it is so long.

For now let me just reply regarding my simplest objection, objection 1. The deeper objections can be postponed until after I read your CTD OP.
RJG wrote: July 22nd, 2021, 8:19 am
RJG wrote:Those entities who possess memory have the capability to know (to recognize; to be conscious).
Leontiskos wrote:Objection 1: Non-human animals are not conscious.

I assume you would hold to the common view that animals are sentient but not conscious, and not capable of consciousness?
Not so. Many entities/physical bodies can (non-consciously) experience physical bodily reactions (and then auto-react accordingly), but not many can “know” they experience these bodily reactions. The ones that “know”, are the ones that are considered “conscious beings”. The ones that "know" are the ones that experience "recognition", and are the ones that are considered "conscious beings".

In effect, recognition converts the non-conscious into the conscious; converts the non-conscious physical bodily reactions into conscious experiences (aka "consciousness").
I still don't understand how your view relates to non-human animals. You say that entities which possess memory have the ability to know and to be conscious. Supposing that animals do possess memory, are you then claiming that they have the ability to know and to be conscious? Alternatively, supposing that animals do not have the ability to know, wouldn't it then follow that they do not have memory? Thus it seems that animals must either have knowledge & consciousness, or else not have memory. Both positions strike me as difficult. Which of them do you accept?

Thanks,
Leontiskos
Wrestling with Philosophy since 456 BC

Socrates: He's like that, Hippias, not refined. He's garbage, he cares about nothing but the truth.
User avatar
RJG
Posts: 2767
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

Re: Consciousness as the bodily experience of recognition, made possible by memory?

Post by RJG »

RJG wrote:Many entities/physical bodies can (non-consciously) experience physical bodily reactions (and then auto-react accordingly), but not many can “know” they experience these bodily reactions. The ones that “know”, are the ones that are considered “conscious beings”. The ones that "know" are the ones that experience "recognition", and are the ones that are considered "conscious beings".

In effect, recognition converts the non-conscious into the conscious; converts the non-conscious physical bodily reactions into conscious experiences (aka "consciousness").
Leontiskos wrote:I still don't understand how your view relates to non-human animals. You say that entities which possess memory have the ability to know and to be conscious.
I'm simply saying -- that without memory there can be no recognition; no consciousness (e.g. without apples there can be no apple-pie). Memory is a necessary requirement of recognition (aka consciousness).

Memory is a requirement of consciousness, but consciousness is not a requirement of memory.

Leontiskos wrote:Supposing that animals do possess memory, are you then claiming that they have the ability to know and to be conscious?
Possessing memory does not necessarily mean one can experience recognition/consciousness (e.g. having apples does not necessarily mean that one also has apple-pie).

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).

Having apples, gives the capability of having apple-pie.

Leontiskos wrote:Alternatively, supposing that animals do not have the ability to know, wouldn't it then follow that they do not have memory?
No. If animals do not possess consciousness it does not logically follow that they also do not possess memory. (e.g. if we do not possess apple-pie, it does not logically follow that we also do not possess apples).

Again, memory is a requirement of consciousness, but consciousness is not a requirement of memory.

We can have apples without apple-pie, but we can’t have apple-pie without apples.
User avatar
Consul
Posts: 6036
Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
Location: Germany

Re: Consciousness as the bodily experience of recognition, made possible by memory?

Post by Consul »

RJG wrote: July 15th, 2021, 12:46 pm
RJG wrote:Consciousness is the bodily (brain) experience of 'recognition', made possible by memory.
Scott wrote:Is that an accurate definition of consciousness and/or assertion of what consciousness is?
Yes. This is an accurate and very succinct definition of consciousness (IMHO). -- To be even more succinct we could say -- "Consciousness is Memory".
"Experience of recognition"? Is recognizing something/somebody a kind of subjective experience? For example, when I see my mother I recognize her. I perceive the person I see as my mother, but the recognition as the cognitive or supersensory factor involved in my visual perception of my mother isn't intrinsically part of my perceptual experience. If my mind doesn't work well, I can have the same visual sense-impressions of my mother without recognizing her, which means the recognizing is extrinsic to the sensory experiencing, and is therefore not a kind of experience itself.
("extrinsic" in the sense of "not part of the essential nature of someone or something; coming or operating from outside" – Oxford Dictionary)
"We may philosophize well or ill, but we must philosophize." – Wilfrid Sellars
User avatar
Consul
Posts: 6036
Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
Location: Germany

Re: Consciousness as the bodily experience of recognition, made possible by memory?

Post by Consul »

Consul wrote: July 24th, 2021, 11:16 am"Experience of recognition"? Is recognizing something/somebody a kind of subjective experience? For example, when I see my mother I recognize her. I perceive the person I see as my mother, but the recognition as the cognitive or supersensory factor involved in my visual perception of my mother isn't intrinsically part of my perceptual experience. If my mind doesn't work well, I can have the same visual sense-impressions of my mother without recognizing her, which means the recognizing is extrinsic to the sensory experiencing, and is therefore not a kind of experience itself.
("extrinsic" in the sense of "not part of the essential nature of someone or something; coming or operating from outside" – Oxford Dictionary)
Note that even if I couldn't "have the same visual sense-impressions of my mother without recognizing her," my explanation would be that recognition modifies the phenomenal character of my visual experience extrinsically, i.e. without being a constitutive element in and of the experience itself. Even if recognition causes an experiential/phenomenal modification of my visual sensations, it is not itself a kind of experience. Influencing an experience isn't the same as being an experience!
"We may philosophize well or ill, but we must philosophize." – Wilfrid Sellars
User avatar
Leontiskos
Posts: 695
Joined: July 20th, 2021, 11:27 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Aristotle and Aquinas

Re: Consciousness as the bodily experience of recognition, made possible by memory?

Post by Leontiskos »

RJG wrote: July 24th, 2021, 8:52 am
Leontiskos wrote:Alternatively, supposing that animals do not have the ability to know, wouldn't it then follow that they do not have memory?
No. If animals do not possess consciousness it does not logically follow that they also do not possess memory.
But I didn't ask about possession, I asked about ability. Above you talked about "capability," not possession. I have been following that language (although I tend to use "ability" rather than "capability").
RJG wrote: July 24th, 2021, 8:52 amMemory is a necessary requirement of recognition (aka consciousness).
Okay, that is helpful.
RJG wrote: July 24th, 2021, 8:52 amThose 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).

Having apples, gives the capability of having apple-pie.
But the problem arises again here. Eyes are not to sight as apples are to apple pie.

In Aristotelian terms you are conflating first and second act. For example:
  • Richard has the ability to speak French.
This could mean two different things:
  • Richard currently has the ability to speak French. (first act)
  • Richard cannot currently speak French, but he has the ability to learn French and therefore to speak French sometime in the future. (second act)
Above you wrote:
RJG wrote: July 16th, 2021, 7:10 amThose entities who possess eyes have the capability to see.
Those entities who possess ears have the capability to hear.
Those entities who possess memory have the capability to know (to recognize; to be conscious).
It would seem that you are equivocating on the word "capability." In the first two examples you are referring to first act, and in the third example you are referring to second act. If you were not referring to second act and were not equivocating, then the dilemma I outlined here would stand. (It would strain the English language to interpret the first two examples as second act.)

The analysis along the lines of sufficient and necessary conditions is slightly different from the analysis of first and second act. Nevertheless, when you talk about eyes and ears it would be very strange to say, "Those who possess eyes have the capability to see," and mean, "Those who can see possess eyes" (eyes are a necessary condition for sight). Generally speaking, that move would be the mistake of affirming the consequent, for capability is commonly interpreted as first act (i.e. something we are currently able to do as opposed to something we may or may not be able to do at some point in the future).

If you are really talking about necessary conditions and second act, that's fine. It makes sense in that case. But the language is rather confusing. Generally speaking the analogy between eyes and sight is significantly different from the analogy between memory and consciousness. This is because all creatures with functioning eyes can see, but not all creatures with a functioning memory are conscious.

I hope that helps clarify Objection 1,
Leontiskos
Wrestling with Philosophy since 456 BC

Socrates: He's like that, Hippias, not refined. He's garbage, he cares about nothing but the truth.
User avatar
Consul
Posts: 6036
Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
Location: Germany

Re: Consciousness as the bodily experience of recognition, made possible by memory?

Post by Consul »

RJG wrote: July 24th, 2021, 8:52 amThose animals with eyes, have the capability to experience seeing.
Those animals with ears, have the capability to experience hearing.
Visual or auditory perception isn't the same as visual or auditory experience, because the former can take place without the latter. 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).
"We may philosophize well or ill, but we must philosophize." – Wilfrid Sellars
User avatar
RJG
Posts: 2767
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

Re: Consciousness as the bodily experience of recognition, made possible by memory?

Post by RJG »

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.
User avatar
Leontiskos
Posts: 695
Joined: July 20th, 2021, 11:27 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Aristotle and Aquinas

Re: Consciousness as the bodily experience of recognition, made possible by memory?

Post by Leontiskos »

RJG wrote: July 25th, 2021, 8:52 am 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".
No, I am not missing the point. I referenced logical relationships all throughout my last reply. Now you are shifting the logical relationship. Here are the three options:
  1. "Those entities who possess eyes have the capability to see." {Your original formulation}
  2. "Without eyes there can be no seeing." {Your new formulation}
  3. "Those who can see possess eyes." {My formulation of your necessary-condition claim}
Here is what each of them means logically:

E(x) = "x Possesses Eyes"
S(x) = "x Can See"
  1. x(E(x) -> S(x))
  2. x(~E(x) -> ~S(x))
  3. x(S(x) -> E(x))
(2) and (3) are logically equivalent via the valid inference of modus tollens. Movement from (1) to (2) is the logical fallacy of denying the antecedent. Movement from (1) to (3) is the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent. Any way you look at it, you are committing a logical fallacy, because you started with (1). I explain this in more detail in my last post, including reference to English usage.

Best,
Leontiskos
Wrestling with Philosophy since 456 BC

Socrates: He's like that, Hippias, not refined. He's garbage, he cares about nothing but the truth.
User avatar
RJG
Posts: 2767
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

Re: Consciousness as the bodily experience of recognition, made possible by memory?

Post by RJG »

Leontiskos wrote: No, I am not missing the point. I referenced logical relationships all throughout my last reply. Now you are shifting the logical relationship. Here are the three options:

"Those entities who possess eyes have the capability to see." {Your original formulation}
"Without eyes there can be no seeing." {Your new formulation}
"Those who can see possess eyes." {My formulation of your necessary-condition claim}

Here is what each of them means logically:

E(x) = "x Possesses Eyes"
S(x) = "x Can See"

∀x(E(x) -> S(x))
∀x(~E(x) -> ~S(x))
∀x(S(x) -> E(x))

(2) and (3) are logically equivalent via the valid inference of modus tollens. Movement from (1) to (2) is the logical fallacy of denying the antecedent. Movement from (1) to (3) is the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent. Any way you look at it, you are committing a logical fallacy, because you started with (1). I explain this in more detail in my last post, including reference to English usage.
Huh? Leon, this is a "strawman" argument here; this is not our argument!

Our argument (your objection #1) is based on my claim/statement that memory is required for consciousness. And your assertion that this means that animals without consciousness must not have memory. (...which is a logical error ["converse error"; "affirming the consequent"]).
Post Reply

Return to “Epistemology and Metaphysics”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021