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

by dhw, Wednesday, June 24, 2015, 21:10 (3228 days ago) @ David Turell
edited by dhw, Thursday, June 25, 2015, 07:56

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-But what is not obvious is the composition of “I/me”. Where are “you” when your consciousness has gone? If you are not conscious of your memories, your emotions, your perceptions, your reasoning, your ideas etc., what is left of “you”? All of these elements combine to make “you”, and consciousness of them is also “you”. And what do you think “uses” your consciousness? Even if you believe in dualism, your consciousness must still be a part of the immaterial “you” if you are to be you: not something you use, and not something that uses you, but actually you. 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. The rest of the article seems to me to skate over the all-important problem of what constitutes “you”.-My apologies to you and Romansh for jumping in!