I have been losing consciousness nightly for 75 years, and yet my Self is still living. That's because Consciousness is not the same thing as Self or Life. All of those are ongoing processes, not material substances that evaporate. I was also non-conscious for billions of years before my birth, and suffered no serious complications from that prolonged non-life. Death is merely the end of the process of Living, and incidentally the end of all other related processes such a Consciousness. After death you are not likely to be conscious of anything. So why lose sleep over it?Is unconsciousness during sleep something that a person should realistically fear? — AJ88
The OP was asking if, when Consciousness stops during sleep, we are in-effect dead for the duration. But that notion is based on a poor understanding of Consciousness. By far, the majority of brain functions are Sub-Conscious, and awareness is a small percentage of our total mental operations.Our identity is constituted by all those processes, and when they stop, we no longer have a unitary identity, or at least much less of one. — bert1
After having read it, I have some very rough nights, with the concept that if a person falls asleep they die in the most intimate way possible, what ever happens to the body, making it hard to fall asleep. — AJ88
So you are becoming more "you" in a sense. — apokrisis
My view is the exact inverse of Gnomon's (if I have read them correctly). Our identity is constituted by all those processes, and when they stop, we no longer have a unitary identity, or at least much less of one. Consciousness, a bit like the total quantity of matter, is unaffected. I think this is a more coherent fit with the concepts of identity (vague and mutable) with consciousness (sharp and unchanging). — bert1
Imagine you had a brain cancer tumour that is huge. A big mass. Maybe even dwarfing the brain itself. Would that add anything to your "consciousness". — apokrisis
Panpsychism is an argument that piggybacks on conventional materialistic reductionism. — apokrisis
The problem with this panpsychism is that the weight of neurobiological evidence suggests that the processes are everything. — apokrisis
The current dominant model of the brain says that it consists of an array of "modules" with specialized functions. But no-one has come up with a plausible theory of how those independent modules work together to produce the unique singular perspective we call the Self. Perhaps the best hypothesis comes from Holism, that integrated collections of parts naturally unite into a whole system with new functions & properties that are not found in the components. One physical example of that phenomenon is Phase Transition. Another hypothetical example, that is not accepted by reductionist scientists, is the notion of Panpsychism, in which all minds in the universe work together as a Global Mind. Unfortunately, there is currently no means to communicate with such a god-like mind, other than those of Mysticism. :smile:So the claim that the brain is "constituted" of processes is actually the much larger claim that the process itself has a holistic unity of its parts. — apokrisis
I agree that most notions of Panpsychism are Mystical rather than Empirical. Yet, modern concepts of Process Philosophy, sound panpsychic, but try to incorporate the latest findings of Neuro-Science into a realistic theory. Ironically, their blend of Physical and Meta-physical (mental, rational) evidence typically concludes with some notions of Panpsychism and a god-like Mind. :nerd:That is what makes any panpsychic talk flawed. Panpsychism is an argument that piggybacks on conventional materialistic reductionism. And neurobiology has already moved on from that with its holistic notions of "process". — apokrisis
But no-one has come up with a plausible theory of how those independent modules work together to produce the unique singular perspective we call the Self. — Gnomon
One physical example of that phenomenon is Phase Transition. Another hypothetical example, that is not accepted by reductionist scientists, is the notion of Panpsychism, in which all minds in the universe work together as a Global Mind. Unfortunately, there is currently no means to communicate with such a god-like mind, other than those of Mysticism. — Gnomon
I agree that most notions of Panpsychism are Mystical rather than Empirical. Yet, modern concepts of Process Philosophy, sound panpsychic, but try to incorporate the latest findings of Neuro-Science into a realistic theory. Ironically, their blend of Physical and Meta-physical (mental, rational) evidence typically concludes with some notions of Panpsychism and a god-like Mind. :nerd: — Gnomon
That's merely a superficial observation of a mystery, not a theory of "how it works". Scientists know a lot about Phase Change, but still can't say for sure what "embedded" intermediate steps transform one physical state into another, with novel physical properties. Likewise, it's obvious that there is some connection between neural substrates and mental consciousness, but they can't say exactly what the physical-to-metaphysical link is. I have my own personal layman's hypothesis, and it seems pretty straightforward, but I'm not about to submit it to a Neuroscience Journal.So you say. But I wouldn’t agree. It seems pretty straightforward that the whole of the brain is simply embedded in the business of constructing a self vs world relation. . . . Phase transitions are well understood. — apokrisis
That assertion seems rather harsh, but I too have reservations about the traditional notions of Panpsychism. Something similar is going-on in the world, but I have a different concept of how the process works. And that worldview is based in part on Natural Holism, as described by Jan Smuts in Holism and Evolution.Panpsychism simply apes the failings of material reductionism. So it is a failure to in fact understand the holism of nature. — apokrisis
I'm not familiar with Pansemiosis. But, if it's like most of Peirce's writing, it would go right over my pointy little head anyway. However, as I get time, I'll look into it. Peirce's "signs" may be similar to my own "Enformation". But I wouldn't say that its "primary mission is to communicate divine glory". :smile:Instead of Panpsychism, the general philosophical stance here would be Pansemiotic. That is, a pragmatic physicalist account in the tradition of Peircean semiosis. — apokrisis
On level of intuition, for me survival of both the body, brain, and memories seems important — AJ88
My position is that consciousness is the result of nervous systems being in a modelling relation with the world. So I am talking specifically about that kind of process. One where there is mental modelling going on. — apokrisis
This allows for degree, perhaps. A nervous system that models the world in a very useful and detailed way so that it can respond effectively to a wide variety of circumstances is, perhaps, more conscious than a nervous system that models the world in a much simpler (but still useful) way. — bert1
as I cannot imagine anyone surviving the transporter, I suddenly find myself unsure if we can survive periods of unconsciousness — AJ88
Out of curiosity what are the competing thoeries on conciousness now? — AJ88
The only one I have had an email exchange with about this that was less then certain was Chalmers Who answered my question of us surviving sleep with "I think we do. I hope we do. But I cant be sure." — AJ88
i ment regarding surviving sleep. To use a computer as a metaphore, I see myself as a whole comprised of hardware and software and the survival of both is important for my survival. Through sleep or otherwise. — AJ88
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.