No.1 problem with conciousness discussions is the lack of precise, razor sharp definition of 'conciousness'. Without good definition, all arguments go past one another. Next time observe, how arguments appear to be going back and forth, but they're talking about two very different definitions of 'conciousness'.
Under anesthesia, where do our minds go?
51–60 of 311 posts
Re: Under anesthesia, where do our minds go?
#52How to approach loss of consciousness is one of the problems I have with non-materialist theories of consciousness like dualism and panpsychism. If consciousness is not generated by my physical brain, how come physical chemicals can manipulate my conscious state? If the brain is a receiver for consciousness, surely my consciousness should exist independently of my brain? Interfering with a radio doesn’t change what’s…
Mind-body dualism strikes me as possibly the least elegant and magic-leap-proof alternative to physicalism, so it’s unfortunate that people who explore this question get stuck on it.
In fact, non-material monist views exist! See, for example, Kant and Schrödinger. Some of Wolfram’s ideas[0] at first approach seem to be interpretable from this angle.
I’m not going to do the entirety of monism justice in a paragraph, but as one take: perhaps interacting with other conscious entities involves changes in yours and tends to manifest itself as physical changes within time-space, a lossy map constructed as a shortcut/interface to the otherwise overwhelming underlying territory? This does not require conjuring an entire universe, with its arbitrary laws and constants, to explain perception supplied by consciousness (the only thing we have direct access to, that physicalists nevertheless tend to treat as a magic side-effect of magically existing reality).
[0] https://writings.stephenwolfram.com/2022/06/alien-intelligen...
Re: Under anesthesia, where do our minds go?
#53I've overdosed on heroin before and when I woke up in hospital I had no feeling that time had passed, it was like I time travelled to a point in the future without experiencing the intervening points. Is it the same under anaesthesia or is it more like being asleep in that when you wake up and come to your senses again you are aware of it being later? Because my overdose felt like I just didn't exist for a couple of…
It depends, I guess. I had dreams while under, at least once.
Re: Under anesthesia, where do our minds go?
#54Earlier quoted context omitted.
I had my first full anesthesia experience as an adult - emergency but minor surgery, so not an extremely scary ordeal. I was very distinctly trying to pay attention to the process of going under, as in: do i feel it fade? etc. I remember doing the countdown thing and also trying to see if i could notice it at all like going to sleep. but, just like an off switch, no state change, just a full stop (but without somethi…
If reality has always existed and will continue to exist for eternity, cyclical or not, it is probably inevitable that the configuration of phenomena called "you" will come back together after your death. It's forever afterall.
Maybe, but would that be the same you, or as though someone had made a copy of you?
Re: Under anesthesia, where do our minds go?
#55How to approach loss of consciousness is one of the problems I have with non-materialist theories of consciousness like dualism and panpsychism. If consciousness is not generated by my physical brain, how come physical chemicals can manipulate my conscious state? If the brain is a receiver for consciousness, surely my consciousness should exist independently of my brain? Interfering with a radio doesn’t change what’s…
You're close to the fundamental problem here but don't go far enough.
All one needs to do is look at Oliver Sack's books to understand that either of these must be true:
1. Consciousness is a physical system. This is the simplest explanation and accounts for all observed phenomenon.
2. Consciousness (or "soul") is metaphysical but is such a blank slate or so dependent on the physical state of the brain that we can exclude all consideration of it. Memory is clearly physical otherwise brain damage wouldn't ruin only some memories or the ability to comprehend certain things (such as right-left agnosias where someone loses the concept of the left side of the world both currently and in recalled memories). Brain chemistry very _obviously_ influences mood. Mind-altering drugs can induce temporary personality changes. It goes way beyond simple "radio receiver" analogies like alcohol inducing distortions. Your ability to understand anything at all, your ability to remember anything at all, even your personality can be dramatically affected by brain chemistry and physical state.
There are just so very many examples of real situations involving the brain that require extremely complicated hoop-jumping to maintain the idea that "you" are anything beyond the physical process happening in your brain. They all devolve into claims that the metaphysical essence is so dependent on and influenced by physical brain processes you can just cut out the metaphysical part with no loss.
If a stroke or dementia can make me a much angrier or violent person then what need is there for a soul?
Re: Under anesthesia, where do our minds go?
#56How to approach loss of consciousness is one of the problems I have with non-materialist theories of consciousness like dualism and panpsychism. If consciousness is not generated by my physical brain, how come physical chemicals can manipulate my conscious state? If the brain is a receiver for consciousness, surely my consciousness should exist independently of my brain? Interfering with a radio doesn’t change what’s…
Mind-body dualism strikes me as possibly the least elegant and magic-leap-proof alternative to physicalism, so it’s unfortunate that people who explore this question get stuck on it. In fact, non-material monist views exist! See, for example, Kant and Schrödinger. Some of Wolfram’s ideas[0] at first approach seem to be interpretable from this angle. I’m not going to do the entirety of monism justice in a paragraph, b…
> In fact, non-material monist views exist!
Also see Buddhist philosophy such as Yogacara
Re: Under anesthesia, where do our minds go?
#57How to approach loss of consciousness is one of the problems I have with non-materialist theories of consciousness like dualism and panpsychism. If consciousness is not generated by my physical brain, how come physical chemicals can manipulate my conscious state? If the brain is a receiver for consciousness, surely my consciousness should exist independently of my brain? Interfering with a radio doesn’t change what’s…
How do we know there is a "loss" of consciousness? I had some dreams when I was anesthesized once. I do no longer clearly remember them, but I do remember telling the medical people there, that I did dream something. How could I dream without consciousness?
The article discusses this. Some people who are given low doses of anaesthetic, usually due to potential risks, do report some awareness. On the flip side, even though during normal sleep we experience some semi-conscious dream states, there are other phases of sleep that are a complete blank. So conciseness seems to exist on a continuum from full alertness all the way down to nothing.
Re: Under anesthesia, where do our minds go?
#58It is garbage collected and a new mind is constructed on wakeup.
Re: Under anesthesia, where do our minds go?
#59Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't panpsychism orthogonal to materialism? Isn't the trivial solution in the non-material case just regular mumbo jumbo? Ie. the connection between the consciousness and the body is severed by propofol while it's active, and so memories are not formed to keep you sane, or whatever? It stops when it gets to Nirvana, etc? All the attempts to explain it with non-materialism seems to very bluntly fail Ockham's razor. S…
Occam's razor = the theory with the fewest parameters should be preferred, or often interpreted as the simplest theory. Do you think that humans universally or even have historically interpreted physicalism as a simpler theory than a non-materialist one? I don't think so I think you speak from an already materialist perspective, in that you accept the physical world as something that really exists out there, and that…
> Occam's razor = the theory with the fewest parameters should be preferred, or often interpreted as the simplest theory.
> Do you think that humans universally or even have historically interpreted physicalism as a simpler theory than a non-materialist one? I don't think so
Backtracking a bit from that little word "theory", it's foremost about being able to formulate predictions about the real world. So, designing a suspension bridge over there, how much steel do use per cable? 1 ton? 2 tons? 42? Use the eight consciousnesses, sure, but get the answer, build the bridge, and be the first one to cross it.
If you don't have two competing theories that offer a prediction, there is nothing to apply the Occam's razor to.
A theory which is a mix of physics (for steel bridges, etc.) and Buddhism (for this or that domain) does work for many predictions. It is also inherently much more complex than "only use physics".
Re: Under anesthesia, where do our minds go?
#60Am I the only one who thinks we are asking the wrong questions here?
Our consciousness is restored when we wake up. But this consciousness can only be considered as such when we are aware of it. Can there be consciousness without self-awareness? Is a deer conscious if not self-aware of its own consciousness? Is an organism with a primitive nervous system conscious? One that purely interacts with its world through simple stimuli?
If you sleep and wake up, does it matter if it's you or not? If we think that our consciousness is purely manifested through our physical, neural connections, than are we ever different, original, born or dead? A physical phenomena such as consciousness is infinitely malleable just like matter.
Being born and then when dead, do you stop existing? Since you're physical, what prevents those same physical patterns emerging again and making you exist once again? Just like when you're asleep, or under anesthesia. Your consciousness, your awareness of time and space stops existing, and once you wake up, you can proclaim that you're still you, because your memories and sense of self are still intact. But what if they weren't? You'd believe you're somewhere else, right? What if you simply died and woke up in another body? But what does that mean? Reincarnation is possible? But wait, if reincarnation is possible, does that mean that everyone who was born and died, will exist once again? Is there a queue for this stuff? N amount of people born out of nothing, are now on a queue to be reborn as something else? Doesn't make sense. But ask, did you ever truly exist? You became out of nothing, rather we consider it "nothing", but again, it's just matter, and now you're something, and then you think you'll either go nowhere, or somewhere else? Another universe? Another body? If two clones exist, do both of them experience reality, does consciousness switch between those bodies rapidly like it's something that exists independently, or do both of them exist at the same time? If one of them dies, does the other consciousness merge into the other? Or dies it go into nonexistence, or does it get reborn? Seriously, it just does not make sense. The questions don't either. We need to approach this differently.
What prevents someone from "not existing". What shackles are there to keep your consciousness to be entirely unique and never reproducible? If we consider it's physical, there are none.
I don't know if all of these rambles made sense, but this reply may sink with the ship, so I just had to get it out.