Reply
Thu 10 Dec, 2015 11:11 pm
" Thus, sweeping changes in our experience do not, in principle, detract from the unity of consciousness"?
If "detract from" means "eclipse" or "damage", then I failed to get the logic of the sentence.
Because, "the unity of consciousness" makes us think consistently and logically. In dreams, the unity should be damaged temporarily, which is why dreams are so ridiculous.
What do you think?
Context:
The experience of dreaming is instructive here. Each night we lie down to sleep, only to be stoleen from our beds and plunged into a realm where our personal histories and the laws of nature no longer apply. Generally, we don not retain enough of a purchase on reality to even notice that anything out of the ordinary has happened. The most astonishing quality of dreams is surely our lack of astonishment when they arise. The sleeping brain seems to have no expectation of continuity from one moent to the next. (This is probably owing to the diminished activity in the frontal lobes that occurs during REM sleep.) Thus, sweeping changes in our experience do not, in principle, detract from the unity of consciousness. Left to its own devices, consciousness seems happy to just experience on thing after the next.
-Sam Harris
@oristarA,
The author appears to be defining "unity of consciousness" as what is colloquially called "identity." Even while dreaming, I am still me, and not fragments of me. But I agree with you that the argument you quoted is not entirely coherent and logical. Incoherence is not inconsistent with either a unified Cartesian consciousness or a fragmented one. Neither necessitates the other. And not everyone agrees with his apparent assumption that the Cartesian approach to "I" is the correct one.
@nobhdy,
nobhdy wrote:
The author appears to be defining "unity of consciousness" as what is colloquially called "identity." Even while dreaming, I am still me, and not fragments of me. But I agree with you that the argument you quoted is not entirely coherent and logical. Incoherence is not inconsistent with either a unified Cartesian consciousness or a fragmented one. Neither necessitates the other. And not everyone agrees with his apparent assumption that the Cartesian approach to "I" is the correct one.
Cool.
The author continues to speak as follows, can you get any clue there?
Quote:If my brain harbors only one conscious point of view-if all that is remembered, intended, and perceived is known by a single "subject"-then I enjoy unity of mind. The evidence is overwhelming, however, that such unity, if it ever exists in a human being, depends upon some humble tracts of white matter crossng the midline of the brain.
@oristarA,
oristarA wrote:
" Thus, sweeping changes in our experience do not, in principle, detract from the unity of consciousness"?
If "detract from" means "eclipse" or "damage", then I failed to get the logic of the sentence.
Because, "the unity of consciousness" makes us think consistently and logically. In dreams, the unity should be damaged temporarily, which is why dreams are so ridiculous.
What do you think?
...
I think he means that our consciousness is actually continuous even during REM sleep, even though we can't (usually) recall it as such. He suspects that this is the result of the diminished activity of the frontal lobes. So, while we may wake up with the feeling/memory of a discontinuous consciousness during sleep, the mental activity was actually continuous.
@FBM,
FBM wrote:
I think he means that our consciousness is actually continuous even during REM sleep, even though we can't (usually) recall it as such. He suspects that this is the result of the diminished activity of the frontal lobes. So, while we may wake up with the feeling/memory of a discontinuous consciousness during sleep, the mental activity was actually continuous.
If the activity of the frontal lobes is diminished, how can mental activity be actually continuous? Supposed 99.9% of the activity of the frontal lobes is stopped, we would undoubtedly say the mental activity would be discontinuous.
@oristarA,
Diminished doesn't mean stopped. It just means reduced. The
perception of continuity can be reduced or even stopped, but that doesn't mean that consciousness itself is stopped. Maybe it's like turning down the volume of a radio without turning it off. Diminished, not stopped.
@FBM,
FBM wrote:
Diminished doesn't mean stopped. It just means reduced. The perception of continuity can be reduced or even stopped, but that doesn't mean that consciousness itself is stopped. Maybe it's like turning down the volume of a radio without turning it off. Diminished, not stopped.
Good point.
Being diminished leads to a feeling/memory of a discontinuous consciousness?
@oristarA,
That's my understanding of the text, but I'm not familiar with the topic specifically. Maybe someone else more familiar with it will wander by and chime in.
Selected Answer
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace