Does consciousness require memory?

[Nick_A]

RJG

Consciousness is the experience of recognition, made possible by memory. -- without memory, there could be no recognition, and without recognition there could be no consciousness.

If the earth and all life on it were destroyed by a collision with a giant asteroid, what would happen to memory? Would consciousness still exist in our universe even if no man remembers it? Lacking memory, Is the universe just a large nothing using nothing to create everything?

[Sy Borg]

RJG

Consciousness is the experience of recognition, made possible by memory. -- without memory, there could be no recognition, and without recognition there could be no consciousness.

If the earth and all life on it were destroyed by a collision with a giant asteroid, what would happen to memory? Would consciousness still exist in our universe even if no man remembers it? Lacking memory, Is the universe just a large nothing using nothing to create everything?

The universe seems to retain most information. Aside from special conditions in black holes, theoretically a sufficiently advanced technology could unravel all past events from current configurations. The information is all still there, just scrambled.

Without modern technology, humans would have only been able to store or decipher a small fraction of the body of knowledge that makes modern life possible. Oral storytelling leaves many gaps and is famously unreliable, and stone tablets don't hold much info. Much that humans have remembered from history and prehistory would not have been accessed or recalled without technology. The difference is not just memory, it is being - the capacity to access and retain information for a while.

If Earth was struck by a "planet killer" asteroid, then I suppose it would be left to other intelligent life in the universe to carry on the baton, so to speak. There is no reason to believe that ours is the only sprouting of lucid consciousness in the universe, past, present and future. The idea that humans today are the most advanced entities that a universe of such unfathomable proportions can produce is comical.

So the razing of the Earth would be the end of mind in at least our part of the Milky Way, like an octopus having a leg go necrotic.

[mystery]

P1. Without memory there could be no recognition.
P2. Without recognition, there could be no consciousness (nothing to know).
C1. Therefore, without memory, there could be no consciousness
C2. Therefore, consciousness requires memory.

Why is P2 true?

P2 is true because if we recognize nothing (i.e. are incapable of recognition) then we know nothing; are conscious of nothing. We are blank slates.

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.


**************

The consensus of opinion is that Man creates consciousness through memory.

I think it more accurate to say that Man "experiences" consciousness (aka "recognition"), through memory.

Consciousness is the experience of recognition, made possible by memory. -- without memory, there could be no recognition, and without recognition there could be no consciousness.

I agree. I was looking for a way to spin this but memory is really required.

[stevie]

Does consciousness require memory?

Depends on whether you understand consciousness to necessarily be consciousness of this or that.

How does amnesia and/or severe short-term memory loss (e.g. as depicted in the movie Memento) affect consciousness and the ability for a creature to be or become conscious?

Might be that there is a basic reflex of becoming undeterminably conscious. E.g. as soon as light enters the eye this might cause basic intuitive consciousness without there being awareness of any visible object or any sense of self.

[Consul]

Does consciousness require memory?

The answer is YES.

Q. Without memory, how can you know anything? How can you know that you are experiencing something?
A. Without memory, there can be no consciousness. No memory = no recognition = no consciousness.

The answer can't be any more obvious.

Knowing that one is having an experience requires memory, but does having an experience require memory too?

[RJG]

Consciousness is the experience of recognition, made possible by memory. -- without memory, there could be no recognition, and without recognition there could be no consciousness.

If the earth and all life on it were destroyed by a collision with a giant asteroid, what would happen to memory? Would consciousness still exist in our universe even if no man remembers it? Lacking memory, Is the universe just a large nothing using nothing to create everything?

I suppose that if life on earth were completely destroyed there would be other creatures on other planets who possess memory function, and therefore can potentially experience recognition (aka consciousness).

Consciousness (recognition) is just a bodily 'experience' (made possible by memory function). It is not something that floats around the universe independent of a non-experiential creature/subject (IMHO).


***************

Q. Without memory, how can you know anything? How can you know that you are experiencing something?

A. Without memory, there can be no consciousness. No memory = no recognition = no consciousness.

Knowing that one is having an experience requires memory, but does having an experience require memory too?

No, not at all. We have many physical bodily experiences/reactions that we are not conscious of (not knowing of). Only the ones that we are conscious of (knowing of; aware of) are actually considered 'conscious' experiences.

Note: We can ONLY be conscious of our own physical bodily experiences (bodily reactions). That's it. Nothing more. We can't be conscious of anything else.

[AverageBozo]

Once again, I must cry foul.

If it is stipulated that recognition is a necessary element of consciousness, then clearly memory is a necessary component of consciousness for memory is a necessary component of recognition.

But recognition is actually re-cognition, or repeat cognition. Of course repeat cognition cannot occur without memory of a prior cognition.

Awareness does not require re-cognition. Repeat cognition enables identification of an experience as a recurrent incidence of a previous experience, however repeated cognition is not necessary for the awareness of an experience.

To be sure, to be aware that an experience is a recurrence of a previous experience is to recognize that experience—and that requires a memory of the experience.

So, if consciousness requires recognition, then consciousness solipsisticly requires memory. Without that stipulation, consciousness requires awareness but does not require memory.

It comes to this: does consciousness require identification or not?

[Sy Borg]

So, if consciousness requires recognition, then consciousness solipsisticly requires memory. Without that stipulation, consciousness requires awareness but does not require memory.

It comes to this: does consciousness require identification or not?

I see no reason to exclude aware organisms from the list of conscious ones, just because they don't consciously recall the past.

Simple organisms seem to be conscious of the present, but not of the the past and future.

[RJG]

But recognition is actually re-cognition, or repeat cognition. Of course repeat cognition cannot occur without memory of a prior cognition.

I don't think the "re" in front of "cognition" necessarily means "repeat cognition" anymore than "remember" means a "repeat member" or "remove" means a "repeat move", etc etc.

It comes to this: does consciousness require identification or not?

I'm not sure I follow. 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).

In effect, recognition is the means/mechanism by which physical 'non-conscious' bodily reactions become 'conscious' bodily experiences, that we then call "conscious experiences" or simply, "consciousness".

[AverageBozo]

But recognition is actually re-cognition, or repeat cognition. Of course repeat cognition cannot occur without memory of a prior cognition.

I don't think the "re" in front of "cognition" necessarily means "repeat cognition" anymore than "remember" means a "repeat member" or "remove" means a "repeat move", etc etc.

It comes to this: does consciousness require identification or not?

I'm not sure I follow. 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).

In effect, recognition is the means/mechanism by which physical 'non-conscious' bodily reactions become 'conscious' bodily experiences, that we then call "conscious experiences" or simply, "consciousness".

As I said elsewhere, I “yield” to your line of thinking.

BTW, I noticed that you object to the term “re-cognition” yet you employ the term “re-experience”

[Nick_A]

Consciousness is the experience of recognition, made possible by memory. -- without memory, there could be no recognition, and without recognition there could be no consciousness.

If the earth and all life on it were destroyed by a collision with a giant asteroid, what would happen to memory? Would consciousness still exist in our universe even if no man remembers it? Lacking memory, Is the universe just a large nothing using nothing to create everything?

I suppose that if life on earth were completely destroyed there would be other creatures on other planets who possess memory function, and therefore can potentially experience recognition (aka consciousness).

Consciousness (recognition) is just a bodily 'experience' (made possible by memory function). It is not something that floats around the universe independent of a non-experiential creature/subject (IMHO).


***************

Q. Without memory, how can you know anything? How can you know that you are experiencing something?

A. Without memory, there can be no consciousness. No memory = no recognition = no consciousness.

Knowing that one is having an experience requires memory, but does having an experience require memory too?

No, not at all. We have many physical bodily experiences/reactions that we are not conscious of (not knowing of). Only the ones that we are conscious of (knowing of; aware of) are actually considered 'conscious' experiences.

Note: We can ONLY be conscious of our own physical bodily experiences (bodily reactions). That's it. Nothing more. We can't be conscious of anything else.

RJG, Though I doubt if there is a universal record that exists to prove I took out the garbage last night, it may exist. Are you familiar with the Akashic records. From Wiki:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akashic_records

In theosophy and anthroposophy, the Akashic records are a compendium of all universal events, thoughts, words, emotions, and intent ever to have occurred in the past, present, or future in terms of all entities and life forms, not just human. They are believed by theosophists to be encoded in a non-physical plane of existence known as the mental plane. There are anecdotal accounts but there is no scientific evidence for the existence of the Akashic records.[1][2][3]

Of course living as we do in Plato's Cave, who has access to the mental plane? it really doesn't concern me

[AverageBozo]

RJG

Consciousness is the experience of recognition, made possible by memory. -- without memory, there could be no recognition, and without recognition there could be no consciousness.

If the earth and all life on it were destroyed by a collision with a giant asteroid, what would happen to memory? Would consciousness still exist in our universe even if no man remembers it? Lacking memory, Is the universe just a large nothing using nothing to create everything?

Interesting. Assuming there’s no life elsewhere in the universe, there would be no consciousness throughout.

Assuming the dirt and rocks are incapable of consciousness, there would be none throughout the universe.

In order for there to be consciousness, there must be at least one existant with memory and recognition.

The post-destruction-of-Earth would consist of sterile matter incapable of creating anything.

[Consul]

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

Which kind of memory?

[Consul]

…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).

What are subjects undergoing a hallucination conscious of?

Consciousness-of or transitive consciousness is perception or cognition; but to hallucinate a mouse is not to perceive or cognize a mouse, since there is no mouse to perceive or cognize.

[Consul]

…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).

What are subjects undergoing a hallucination conscious of?

Consciousness-of or transitive consciousness is perception or cognition; but to hallucinate a mouse is not to perceive or cognize a mouse, since there is no mouse to perceive or cognize.

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.)