[stcredzero]

You didn't answer the question. So the consciousness of the illusion is real? One of my girlfriends was a voracious reader, but couldn't for the life of her recall anything out of them. She used to joke that I was "functionally illiterate" because I'd take six months to read something like Kavalier and Klay, but I could remember certain scenes in great detail. Is my ex-girlfriends' experience of her reading books real? Reading gives her great pleasure, so she must experience such pleasure. Her experience seems to be like mine when I recall having a dream where I felt certain emotions, but the contents of the dream fade out of my memory. Is her experience of reading and my experience of dreaming real?

If one deeply introspects about the nature of one's experience of experience, one may come to realize there's a certain fragmentary nature to consciousness.

Have you ever had episodes of behavior, for which you have no memory? "Blackouts?" I have. What if consciousness is simply an interesting epiphenomenon, unnecessary for thought and decision making? If all we have are people's reports of it, why should we accord any more epistemological significance to it than we do to religious experiences?

[wildmusings]

You’re conflating memory with consciousness.

As for the illusion question, it’s missing the point.

It doesn’t make sense to call it an illusion. Your conscious experience may accurately reflect reality, but that doesn’t change the fact that you are experiencing the phenomenon of consciousness. That our consciousness is more fragmented than we at first think is similarly irrelevant to the hard problem; fragmented or not, the subjective experience lacks explanation.

It’s very well possible that consciousness is unnecessary for thought. I strongly doubt that it is totally useless altogether, but that’s certainly possible too.

Even if you believe it is probably useless, we investigate things of dubious utility all the time, often discovering unforeseen uses along the way.

So the question remains: why are you so eager to dismiss the defining feature of the human experience?

[stcredzero]

You’re conflating memory with consciousness.

Am I? If consciousness were a phenomenon no one had a memory of, would we even know it to exist? We certainly wouldn't be having this discussion. I can imagine a consciousness without memory, but I can also imagine a fantasy unicorn in real life. This doesn't mean either exists.

As for the illusion question, it’s missing the point. P

I don't think so. I think it's very significant that there's little difference between the consciousness of real sensory information and consciousness of illusion.

Even if you believe it is probably useless, we investigate things of dubious utility all the time, often discovering unforeseen uses along the way.

So you have no proof for your assertion. Only a suspicion. Perhaps a well founded one, I could even grant that.

[KingMob]

If consciousness were a phenomenon no one had a memory of, would we even know it to exist?

Absolutely. We have awareness in the current moment. Memory is not required. In fact, if you think about what memory is, it's a current, internal experience that we associate with a concept called the past. All memories are actually experienced in the present, making awareness more fundamental than memory.

Without memory, the contents of awareness would be very different, sure, but it's not a prerequisite for awareness itself.

[stcredzero]

Memory is not required.

Since when? (Not just a joke. Also a serious question.)

In fact, if you think about what memory is, it's a current, internal experience that we associate with a concept called the past.

Uh, no. I can remember what I had for dinner last night without having a flashback where I re-experience last night as in some kind of dream.

Without memory, the contents of awareness would be very different, sure, but it's not a prerequisite for awareness itself.

How do you know? There are people who can't move short term memories into long term storage, but they can remember enough to be able to play Tic-Tac-Toe, for example.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anterograde_amnesia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_memory

Do we have any verifiable examples of consciousness where there is absolutely no memory? I very much doubt it.

[KingMob]

> Uh, no. I can remember what I had for dinner last night without having a flashback where I re-experience last night as in some kind of dream.

Just because a memory is not as vivid as sight or a dream, doesn't mean it's not currently in consciousness. Think about it, when you're remembering, you're aware of something: the memory. It could be a fact you're aware of, or a diminished sensory experience playing in the mind's eye, but you're still aware of it.

> How do you know? There are people who can't move short term memories into long term storage, but they can remember enough to be able to play Tic-Tac-Toe, for example.

That example is about memory and behavior, not awareness. A complete anterograde and retrograde amnesic would still have an experience of seeing (some odd shapes) and emotion (being confused, stressed, etc). And in fact, this is what we think the consciousness of pre-long-term-memory infants is. To quote William James: "blooming, buzzing confusion".

> Do we have any verifiable examples of consciousness where there is absolutely no memory? I very much doubt it.

That's true only because 99.99999999999999% of humans have no memory deficits. It's correlated but there's no causal relationship needed. The only thing an amnesic can't be aware of is a memory they can't access or that was never formed.