Is this supposed to be a higher-order theory of phenomenal consciousness, according to which there is no phenomenal consciousness without transitive, perceptual consciousness of (the experiential contents of) phenomenal consciousness?RJG wrote: ↑July 21st, 2021, 7:38 am Consciousness is the experience of recognition (the re-experiencing of a past learned sensory association held in memory), and in this sense "requires identification" (if this is what you are meaning?). Consciousness requires content (or "aboutness" as some would say). Without 'something' (some content) to be conscious of, there can be no consciousness. (...much like reading - without 'something' to read, there can be no reading).
Does consciousness require memory?
- Consul
- Posts: 6136
- Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
- Location: Germany
Re: Does consciousness require memory?
- RJG
- Posts: 2767
- Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm
Re: Does consciousness require memory?
RJG wrote:…Without 'something' (some content) to be conscious of, there can be no consciousness. (...much like reading - without 'something' to read, there can be no reading).
When we are conscious, we are only conscious of bodily experiences (e.g. thoughts, feelings, and sensory experiences), that's it, nothing more, which in turn are supposedly caused by real objects or events (within or outside the body). These bodily experiences are the content of our consciousness and are undeniably real, as there can be nothing more real in all of reality, than our own experiences. Whereas the objects that are represented in these experiences are not-certain; they may be real, or they may be not-real (fictitious; illusionary; imaginary; delusional; hallucinal; dream, etc.).Consul wrote:Above you're speaking of "content", and there is a relevant distinction between the experiential content and the perceptual/cognitional object of a hallucination. Both hallucinations (qua pseudoperceptions) and veridical perceptions are experientially contentful in the sense of including subjective sense-impressions; but, as opposed to veridical perceptions, hallucinations are perceptually/cognitionally objectless.
However, It has been argued against this that hallucinations lack external, physical objects, but they still have internal, mental objects; and the perceptual objects of hallucinations are the subjective sensations involved in them. Furthermore, it has been argued that even in cases of veridical perception, the objects of perception are always internal, mental objects. To say so is to generally equate the experiential contents of perception with its perceptual (or intentional) objects, with extrospection thereby being reduced to introspection of our own minds.
(I reject this internalist-mentalist theory of the objects of perception.)
For example, sitting at my desk in my room, when I look outside my window, I am conscious of the sight of a tree, and when I look inside around my room, I am conscious of the sight of a ghost flying about. Since I am only privy to my own bodily experiences and nothing more (i.e. not to the causal source of these experiences, nor to the actual objects that are represented in these experiences), the ghost himself may actually be real, and the tree herself may actually be not-real (or vice-versa, or other). In any case, both are not-certain. The certainty lies in the visual experience itself; it is the sight of the ghost and the sight of the tree that are undeniably real and certain, whereas the objects (ghost/tree) represented within these experiences are not-certain; i.e., they may be real or not-real.
Important Notes:
Without something to be conscious of, there can be no consciousness. One cannot be conscious of nothing. -- Much like with reading: without something to read, there can be no reading. One cannot be reading of nothing.
Without X, there can be no consciousness (-of-X).
Without words, there can be no reading (-of-words).
The "something" [X] that we are conscious of, are “bodily experiences”. Without pre-existing bodily experiences, there can be no consciousness [consciousness-of-X]. The consciousness of these bodily experiences naturally follows (comes after) the existence of these bodily experiences. -- Again, much like with reading: without pre-existing words there can be no reading. The reading of words naturally follows (comes after) the existence of these words.
Consciousness is contingent upon the pre-existence of bodily experiences, …as is reading is contingent upon the pre-existence of words.
Not so. There is no "relevant distinction". Remember, we can only consciously experience the experiential content itself, not the source of the content. We cannot logically know if the source of our experiential content is caused by an hallucination or a real object itself or other. We cannot know if the tree/ghost represented in the content of our experience is real or not. There is no logical/rational basis to assume that one is caused by an hallucination and the other is caused by something real.Consul wrote:...there is a relevant distinction between the experiential content and the perceptual/cognitional object of a hallucination. Both hallucinations (qua pseudoperceptions) and veridical perceptions are experientially contentful in the sense of including subjective sense-impressions; but, as opposed to veridical perceptions, hallucinations are perceptually/cognitionally objectless.
We are only conscious of our experiences (bodily reactions/sensations) themselves, and not to the causal sources of these experiences.
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8380
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: Does consciousness require memory?
We're self-aware too. We are aware of our own minds, and of the thoughts & stuff that we entertain therein.
"Who cares, wins"
- RJG
- Posts: 2767
- Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm
Re: Does consciousness require memory?
RJG wrote:When we are conscious, we are only conscious of bodily experiences (e.g. thoughts, feelings, and sensory experiences), that's it, nothing more, which in turn are supposedly caused by real objects or events (within or outside the body).
Yes, but technically we can't be aware of anything without consciousness (recognition) of our bodily experiences/reactions. Without consciousness (recognition), we are blank slates, ...if we recognize nothing, then there is nothing there to be aware of; no awareness.Pattern-chaser wrote:We're self-aware too. We are aware of our own minds, and of the thoughts & stuff that we entertain therein.
**************
Without recognition, we would have no thoughts (...i.e. if we did, we wouldn't know it). -- not only could we not know/recognize that thoughts (monologues) were playing out in our head, but we also could not know/recognize the language in which these thoughts were speaking.
Without recognition, we would have no sensory experiences (...i.e. if we did, we wouldn't know it). -- not only could we not know/recognize that we were having bodily experiences (sensory experiences; physical bodily reactions), but we also could not know/recognize the different types of sensations.
Without recognition, we are blank slates; unable to know anything; conscious of nothing; aware of nothing.
-
- Posts: 3364
- Joined: April 19th, 2009, 11:45 pm
Re: Does consciousness require memory?
The only thing then which can exist for us is consciousness since as blank slates we no longer experience contents of consciousness but can "feel" our connection to it. Consciousness and contents of consciousness are not the same. The universal source outside of time and space is a blank slate but has all lawful things within it as conscious potentialsWithout recognition, we are blank slates; unable to know anything; conscious of nothing; aware of nothing.
No-thing as a blank slate has no conscious potential. It is dead.
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8380
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: Does consciousness require memory?
...except perhaps awareness of being aware (i.e. self-awareness) ... and maybe even wondering why we are experiencing nothing we recognise?
"Who cares, wins"
- RJG
- Posts: 2767
- Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm
Re: Does consciousness require memory?
I don't necessarily disagree, but this brings up an interesting question -- if we don't "know" that we feel, then do we actually feel?Nick_A wrote:The only thing then which can exist for us is consciousness since as blank slates we no longer experience contents of consciousness but can "feel" our connection to it.
******
For example, when putting a docile (calm) worm on a fishing hook, we notice it violently squirms when we puncture its body on the hook, seemingly giving the appearance that it is "feeling" pain. But does it really "feel" pain? ...and is it this pain that causes the violent squirming? ...or is the violent squirming a natural and automatic bodily reaction/response (to the applied stimuli)? Does the worm really feel pain if it has no means to know it feels pain?
...sorry I digress here.
- RJG
- Posts: 2767
- Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm
Re: Does consciousness require memory?
RJG wrote:...if we recognize nothing, then there is nothing there to be aware of; no awareness.
To me, this is not logically possible [X<X].Pattern-chaser wrote:...except perhaps awareness of being aware (i.e. self-awareness)
I don't think we could experience "wonder", if we were experiencing nothing (i.e. recognizing nothing). We could have no thoughts (to wonder with) without recognition.Pattern-chaser wrote:...and maybe even wondering why we are experiencing nothing we recognise?
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8380
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: Does consciousness require memory?
Pattern-chaser wrote:...and maybe even wondering why we are experiencing nothing we recognise?
So, in the absence of some sort of event that we "recognise", we become unconscious? We are entirely reactive creatures, then, incapable of any action that is not the result of recognition?
"Who cares, wins"
-
- Posts: 502
- Joined: May 11th, 2021, 11:20 am
Re: Does consciousness require memory?
Incapable of conscious action that is not the result of recognition. Nobody can mean that a heart wouldn’t beat or intestines wouldn’t digest.Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑July 27th, 2021, 7:28 amPattern-chaser wrote:...and maybe even wondering why we are experiencing nothing we recognise?So, in the absence of some sort of event that we "recognise", we become unconscious? We are entirely reactive creatures, then, incapable of any action that is not the result of recognition?
- RJG
- Posts: 2767
- Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm
Re: Does consciousness require memory?
Correct. We are non-conscious creatures without 'something' to be conscious of (to recognize). Note: we can only recognize (be conscious of) our own bodily experiences (physical bodily reactions). That's it. Nothing more.Pattern-chaser wrote:So, in the absence of some sort of event that we "recognise", we become unconscious?
Correct. We are like everything else in this universe. We are all purely reactive creatures (...we all react accordingly to applied stimuli). But only those of us creatures that can recognize our bodily reactions are said to be "conscious" creatures. Only those of us creatures that possess a memory function and thusly the ability to experience 'recognition' (itself another bodily reaction/experience) are said to be "conscious" creatures.Pattern-chaser wrote:We are entirely reactive creatures…
Correct. But we can only recognize (not cause!) action/reaction, (i.e. recognition cannot cause anything that it recognizes, for it (that which has been recognized) has already happened; been caused).Pattern-chaser wrote:...then, incapable of any action that is not the result of recognition?
Therefore, contrary to popular indoctrination, we cannot consciously do anything, we can only be conscious of what we have already done. For everything we are conscious of has already happened (are of past events).
The logic is very clear and simple. We can’t cause, control, or change a past event; after it has already happened; after it has already been caused. What is done is done!
- P1. EVERYTHING we are conscious of, are of past events.
P2. Past events are unchangeable.
C1. Therefore, EVERYTHING we are conscious of, is unchangeable.
- “The important thing to understand about the moment NOW is that it is actually the moment THEN. You can only experience something that has already happened, so essentially you're living in the wake of your own past.” --- Obvious Leo
- We can only view the past. The reality that we are conscious of, is long gone by the time we become conscious of it. --- RJG
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
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
by Chet Shupe
March 2023