True. But then again, there is nothing that persists over time. Entities with enduring identities - of any kind - are just abstractions that we superimpose on experience.
> Consciousness is just something that living beings do
To my eyes, you're switching over to another meaning of "consciousness" here. Sure there's no enduring self, but that doesn't mean consciousness (the capacity for experience, rather than mere behavior) is just something we do. We can understand feelings, thoughts, emotions etc as fundamentally "impersonal", yes, but that doesn't mean that they are not states of being. To me such states are about as real as anything. Again, it's two separate issues: 1) the nature of a persistent self, 2) the nature of mental states, not taken as "possessions" of such a self.
(Still, psychologically speaking, the sense of self is baked into even our most basic acts of cognition. When you see an apple, there is always an implicit "you" in relation to the apple. In practical terms, it takes a lot of effort to separate one from the other - yet another topic!)
I'm not sure what distinction you're making
If individual consciousness does not persist over time, how does one explain existence from one day to the next? Or learning from one situation to the next?
And how is consciousness "a misconception and an illusion?"
> Consciousness is just something that living beings do, not something that they "are".
This implies a lack of awareness of self, which is fundamental to the definition of consciousness. And if a being is aware of itself, then they "are".
> It's an impersonal phenomenon ... not a state of being.
If individual consciousness does not qualify as "a state of being", then whatever could?
That's easy: consciousness piggybacks on memory, which is what really creates persistence over time. But an amnesiac can be conscious in the moment and not "learn from one situation to the next". Plenty of philosophers (including Western philosophers such as David Hume) have looked into this, and the account of individual persisting consciousness as a kind of misconception or illusion (or at least, a very rough "folk" theory of personal identity) is one that elegantly explains the data. That's before you get into the kind of deep inquiry into phenomenology that Eastern meditation practitioners would be deeply familiar with.
> That's easy: consciousness piggybacks on memory, which is what really creates persistence over time.
One could just as easily say memory is a component of consciousness, be it short or long term versions.
> But an amnesiac can be conscious in the moment and not "learn from one situation to the next".
Amnesia is not the inability to "learn from one situation to the next." It is instead a condition affecting the ability of memory recall. Furthermore, I am unaware of any credible research claiming there exists amnesia such that all memory is blocked.
It is apparent to me you have a firm belief in your position regarding consciousness. I disagree with this position while respecting your right to have it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Molaison
What are you saying? I don't get it.
What I said was:
Amnesia is not the inability to "learn from one situation
to the next." It is instead a condition affecting the
ability of memory recall.
Now as to the case you quoted - I was unaware of it until you kindly shared it. IMHO, this supports the plausibility of having consciousness while being unable to learn anything new (as you summarized). The implications of this are fascinating to me in a detached objective sense.
> Furthermore, I am unaware of any credible research claiming there exists amnesia such that all memory is blocked.
But others are aware of same.
> It is apparent to me you have a firm belief in your position regarding consciousness.
ad hominem.
> But others are aware of same.
Hence my clear declaration of "I am unaware".
>> It is apparent to me you have a firm belief in your position regarding consciousness.
> ad hominem.
My statement in no way qualifies as an ad hominem. It is simply a recognition of what I understand the person to whom I replied has expressed, without judgement.
> One can easily say things that aren't true.
Now this could reasonably be interpreted as an ad hominem, as you wrote the above in direct reply to my post.
"It is apparent to me you have a firm belief in your position regarding consciousness" Is a statement about the target's level of belief in their position. It does not state that the position is wrong because of the person who made the statement.
> It's a textbook ad hominem ...
This has been shown to be false elsewhere in this thread.
> there's no reason to make the statement other than to undermine the credibility of the person's claims.
Nowhere did I assail the credibility, validity, nor intent of the person with whom I disagreed. All I did was identify the disagreement, acknowledge the position communicated is held with conviction (my interpretation), and convey my respect of their right to have a differing opinion.
It is difficult for me to interpret your post as being anything other than a form of projection[0].
That's hilarious. New Age has such a bad rep that the universe itself is repelled by it.
A modern analogy: New Age is to spirituality what using an LLM is to reading a book in search of knowledge.
Get back to us when loads of actual scientists agree.