> If individual consciousness does not persist over time, how does one explain existence from one day to the next? Or learning from one situation to the next?
That's easy: consciousness piggybacks on memory, which is what really creates persistence over time. But an amnesiac can be conscious in the moment and not "learn from one situation to the next". Plenty of philosophers (including Western philosophers such as David Hume) have looked into this, and the account of individual persisting consciousness as a kind of misconception or illusion (or at least, a very rough "folk" theory of personal identity) is one that elegantly explains the data. That's before you get into the kind of deep inquiry into phenomenology that Eastern meditation practitioners would be deeply familiar with.
>> If individual consciousness does not persist over time, how does one explain existence from one day to the next? Or learning from one situation to the next?
> That's easy: consciousness piggybacks on memory, which is what really creates persistence over time.
One could just as easily say memory is a component of consciousness, be it short or long term versions.
> But an amnesiac can be conscious in the moment and not "learn from one situation to the next".
Amnesia is not the inability to "learn from one situation to the next." It is instead a condition affecting the ability of memory recall. Furthermore, I am unaware of any credible research claiming there exists amnesia such that all memory is blocked.
It is apparent to me you have a firm belief in your position regarding consciousness. I disagree with this position while respecting your right to have it.
Memory is definitely a key component of our thinking processes, but "consciousness" in a philosophical sense is usually taken to refer to the so-called "hard problem" of the phenomenal character of awareness and experience, at its most basic level. The insight that this basic phenomenal character can be impersonal and even momentary in a way that nonetheless fully explains our ordinary experience is quite a substantial simplification! It does seem to make the "hard" problem just a little bit easier, if only by potentially restricting its scope.
Amnesia is not the inability to "learn from one situation
to the next." It is instead a condition affecting the
ability of memory recall.
Someone having "both temporal lobes removed" is separate and apart from amnesia AFAIK.
Now as to the case you quoted - I was unaware of it until you kindly shared it. IMHO, this supports the plausibility of having consciousness while being unable to learn anything new (as you summarized). The implications of this are fascinating to me in a detached objective sense.
>> Furthermore, I am unaware of any credible research claiming there exists amnesia such that all memory is blocked.
> But others are aware of same.
Hence my clear declaration of "I am unaware".
>> It is apparent to me you have a firm belief in your position regarding consciousness.
> ad hominem.
My statement in no way qualifies as an ad hominem. It is simply a recognition of what I understand the person to whom I replied has expressed, without judgement.
> One can easily say things that aren't true.
Now this could reasonably be interpreted as an ad hominem, as you wrote the above in direct reply to my post.
>> It is apparent to me you have a firm belief in your position regarding consciousness. I disagree with this position while respecting your right to have it.
> It's a textbook ad hominem ...
This has been shown to be false elsewhere in this thread.
> there's no reason to make the statement other than to undermine the credibility of the person's claims.
Nowhere did I assail the credibility, validity, nor intent of the person with whom I disagreed. All I did was identify the disagreement, acknowledge the position communicated is held with conviction (my interpretation), and convey my respect of their right to have a differing opinion.
It is difficult for me to interpret your post as being anything other than a form of projection[0].
I have a degree in Philosophy. I'm pretty sure I understand what an ad hominem is.
"It is apparent to me you have a firm belief in your position regarding consciousness" Is a statement about the target's level of belief in their position. It does not state that the position is wrong because of the person who made the statement.
That's easy: consciousness piggybacks on memory, which is what really creates persistence over time. But an amnesiac can be conscious in the moment and not "learn from one situation to the next". Plenty of philosophers (including Western philosophers such as David Hume) have looked into this, and the account of individual persisting consciousness as a kind of misconception or illusion (or at least, a very rough "folk" theory of personal identity) is one that elegantly explains the data. That's before you get into the kind of deep inquiry into phenomenology that Eastern meditation practitioners would be deeply familiar with.