So consciousness is memory and sensory stimuli? Could there be consciousness without memory?
IIRC there’s a name for that condition, caused by brain damage, but I can’t recall it. Although it’s only an assumption that they are still capable of consciousness, they act like it. The victim relentlessly confabulates for a time, making up a false past that changes from moment to moment apparently trying to fill the void. They eventually fall silent and passive if I (vaguely) recall correctly.
Isn’t everyone born without memory?
That consciousness is an emergent property of the brain does mean it’s not transferable - that’s part of the definition of “property” (in this context).
So everyone has the same consciousness?
Yes.
No.
But isn’t everyone born without memory?
What a silly and pointless question, for a host of reasons, the biggest being the fact that I have never seen you explain anything. Never. Doesn’t mean you haven’t, of course, but I’ve never seen it. You just declare things. Completely different.
And you seriously need to stop using terms you don’t understand. not that you will, but you should.
Exactly. Thank you.
Prove it. If what you say is true, then you can find a cite to back it up.
And she was not providing ad hominem. She was making a logical inference–you are basing your claim on your own reasoning–a reasoning that has been shown to be faulty in the past. Therefore, logically, we cannot assume that your reasoning is valid. Back it up, or there’s no reason to agree with you.
And, really, how does your absolute black-and-white morality allow you to make ad hominem attacks on her, but she can’t on you?
No, the opposite - it will be as unique as the individual brain.
One thing follows from the other. If it is agreed that consciousness is a physical property of the brain, then it’s agreed that it dies with the brain. What exactly do you think you need proof of? Do you dispute that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain? Do you also dispute that you see with your eyes and hear with your ears?
yes she was.
I have not made any attacks on her whatsoever.
I already said that perhaps consciousness could be “transferred” by technological means, but it does not and cannot occur by any natural means.
If you could build an identical brain to one that exists, and transfer the memories, then an identical consciousness would emerge. Strictly, the consciousness isn’t transfered, but the effect would be the same. I don’t know whether the brain would have to be physically identical or only functionally identical, though (assuming the two are in fact different).
If physicalism is true you wouldn’t have to transfer anything.
Physicality informs function, so it’s essentially the same thing.
I’m not entirely sure that identical memories alone would comprise an identical consciousness, though. The other physical elements would have to be the same as well (sensory input and other ongoing physical processes and circumstances). It might initially be very close, but then all the other variables would immediately begin to corrupt the original files into something else.
This is something that does not occur naturally, of course, so it doesn’t cosntitute an argument for an “afterlife” as such, just for a theoretical technological transferance of biochemical information from the brain to another medium. This is not what is typically meant by an “afterlife,” and not something can or has occurred (or perhaps ever will occur) without technology. So far, no individual consciousness has ever survived brain death.
Why wouldn’t you?
If the memories are physically part of the brain, an identical brain would necessarily already contain the memories.
Your other post, I agree entirely with. This is an hypothetical eternal life, not an afterlife.
Well, that’s true, I guess.