Could any two moments in consciousness be the same?

Some people claim a 'deja vu' about thoughts and experiences but I have heard that they probably really did experience that thing and it was hidden in the sub conscious. It gets brought back up when repeated.

The only thing I believe in is constant motion forward. We never stand still.

I am not clear just what a moment of consciousness is. But if we assume that it means something like a thought about something, it would depend on what the thought was about. So if at T I was thinking about the loveliness of Natalie Porter, and if at T1 I was also thinking about the loveliness of Natalie Porter, then those two thoughts would be two tokens of the same type.

I indeed think this way. I can say that the "experience" or "feel" of consciousness if we put it in terms of moment to moment, is irreplaceable, however the "nature" or "workings" of actual consciousness I do not know, neither do I think we could grasp it either way.



This is how you experience consciousness? This sounds less like an "experience" and more like a robot's logical computation, this sounds like two different experiences in consciousness are as equal as 01 is to 01 and 00 is to 00.
When is consciousness in any way like this? Why would our logical mathematical concepts derived from the property and nature of the physical universe apply to the nature of the existence of consciousness?

Consciousness is much more than that, as you would expect from the one thing science cannot grasp.

"Consciousness is much more than that, as you would expect from the one thing science cannot grasp. "

Assuming this statement is in its own way true, then it would seem a major step to pose a question about whether two moments in (or OF) consciousness could be the same. We seem to mean, when we examine the notion , many different kinds of things, or activities when we talk about consciousness, and many of these appear to be beyond a scientific explanation. If one took the time to make a list of events that could be considered "moments of consciousness," wouldn't one discern many different layers and types?

How does science, again, establish the link between certain physical activities (say electrical impulses) of the brain and "consciousness" except by asking a person whether or not they experiencing it at the very moment the activities are recorded or recognised?

Moreover, isn't it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to provide a test for determining whether two "moments of consciousness" are the same or not. We could not do it from "outside" the consciousness of a person, and short of relying on memory of both moments---something hardly reliable---not internally.

Hello jgweed. What do you mean by "Assuming this statement is in its own way true"? is it not? (I am genuinely curious). And what do you mean by "then it would seem a major step to pose a question about whether two moments in (or OF) consciousness could be the same"



I do agree that this would most likely be correct. However, how are we to know that these "categorizations" of layers and types of consciousness are not simply abstract notions that we conceptualize as a tool to make sense of things as we do with face, mouth, nose, etc. How can we assert that this categorization is truly a fundamental aspect?



This of course I cannot say, as neither can the scientists them selves. I think it is clear that consciousness is a very bizarre and amazing thing, even spooky, Einstein spoke of QM as being spooky but I think this could easily (if not more suitably) apply to consciousness, I mean how does a condensation of atoms have an experience? I have NEVER accepted "experience" as a normal thing or phenomena, and certainly not something that one does not question or go by as if it is an ordinary day to day thing just because it is there day to day. Also I think it is interesting to note the fact that science cannot explain consciousness, yet consciousness can have effects on scientific outcomes.



Indeed. not only is it extremely difficult (if not impossible) to adequately determine the likeness of two moments, but the basis upon which this observation would be made relies as you said on our own system of memory, which is extremely unreliable. Either how, I think the problem comes down to the way in which we are trying to approach it. Much the same way in which one's dreams are based upon they're foundation building blocks (our senses and thoughts), our ways of logic, reasoning and thinking are due to the nature of the physical universe ( which is explained by science), but who is to say that consciousness is bound by these (physical) ways of reasoning? after all consciousness shows no sign of being something physical at all. Could it not be that consciousness operates in an unfamiliar manner? one that our intrinsically physical based form of reasoning cannot comprehend? This is what I mean when I say that we probably would not be able to come to grips with the nature or workings of consciousness, it is like a computer trying to make sense of a program or command written in a different computer language, ultimately an "error" message will appear, but this need not mean that because you do not speak that language therefore cannot make sense of it, than that material is nonsense.