Consciousness: Egnor on consciousness (General)

by David Turell , Tuesday, February 02, 2021, 18:10 (1388 days ago) @ dhw

Egnor:

"This is not just linguistic nitpicking. The concept of “consciousness” is much worse than useless.”

“'Consciousness” is a concept derived from a deeply mistaken view of man’s soul and mind — the view that man is a machine that can be switched on and off. This misunderstanding serves to conceal, not reveal, the true nature of man. We are not machines. We are never switched off — we are never unconscious — not in sleep, not under anesthesia, not in coma and not even after death.

"Millions of people have had near death experiences (NDE’s), in which awareness (usually heightened awareness) persists after complete cessation of brain function."

"While our mental powers can change — our vision, alertness, or memory can fail — we have no “off switch.” Most egregiously, the concept of “consciousness” perpetuates the lie that we are extinguished at death. There is every reason — philosophical and scientific — to infer that man has an immortal soul."

DAVID: NDE's, as reported, fit Egnor's comments. I do not find fault with this approach.

dhw: I’m sorry, but I find this sort of thing intensely irritating. Apparently “consciousness” is a useless concept because there are different levels of consciousness, and because when people are said to be unconscious (e.g. asleep, in a coma, during NDEs) in actual fact they are or may be conscious. How does this make the concept of “consciousness” worse than useless? Egnor uses it and thinks of it in exactly the same way as the rest of us! All his argument boils down to is the fact that he believes in an immortal soul, i.e. he does not believe that consciousness ends when the body dies (= the “machine” is switched off), and NDEs are his evidence. I agree with him and you about NDEs – they suggest that consciousness does not die when the brain dies. So how does that make “consciousness” a useless concept? This is not even “linguistic nitpicking” – it’s simply muddled thinking.

The issues he raised were not muddled. The comatose patient may well be thinking as studies have shown. Locked in syndrome as one example. I agree it is nitpicking to some extent, but it does act to clarify our thinking about the concept of overt and hidden consciousness