Consciousness; a radically new theory. Romansh? (Introduction)

by dhw, Thursday, June 25, 2015, 15:36 (3438 days ago) @ romansh

DAVID: The implication is consciousness is something we use and direct. It does not control. To me this is obvious. I use my consciousness, it does not use me. -http://medicalxpress.com/news/2015-06-consciousness-believed-theory.html-dhw: But what is not obvious is the composition of “I/me”. Where are “you” when your consciousness has gone?
DAVID: This is where the research of NDE's comes into play. Consciousness is not gone with temporary death of the brain. So it must exist somehow apart from the brain.-But your dualism still doesn't answer the question of what constitutes “I/me” in your sentence: “I use my consciousness, it does not use me.”
 
dhw: Perhaps that is why people whose consciousness is affected by illness, drugs or alcohol sometimes do things which are not only said to be out of character, but which they cannot even recall to consciousness, because they weren't conscious of them at the time. They have lost their identity by losing their awareness.-DAVID: Amnesia is an interesting point. I think it is a loss of contact with consciousness for a period of time.-Yes, consciousness encompasses most facets of our identity, with the obvious exception of the unconscious (though even that can sometimes be brought within the range of our awareness). That is my point. We do not use it and are not used by it. We ARE our memories, our emotions, our reason, our ideas and our consciousness of them.-ROMANSH: If we think about it and if we believe in cause and effect then consciousness is simply a (limited) window on the brain's inner workings.-There are two approaches to this, as I see it: 1) the materialist view of consciousness, according to which your statement means the brain supplies a (limited) window on the brain's inner workings; 2) the dualist view, according to which an immaterial self supplies a (limited) window on its own inner workings, with the brain as the physical intermediary between thought and action. I wouldn't regard either of these as simple! And I would still argue that in terms of an individual's identity, consciousness - whatever its source and nature - cannot be separated from the attributes, perceptions and actions it is conscious of. -As for control, if 1) the brain, and/or 2) the immaterial self are “us”, we can hardly argue that “we” (all our attributes including our consciousness) do not direct our thoughts and actions. The question then is why we direct them in the way we do. Hence the controversy over free will.