Unconscious Human Beings?

[freezerman2000]

I remember you posted some stuff about this before and so have I. Here and here.

Its a topic that so many people seem to pass off as silly, but I find sleep to be a really bizarre and thought-provoking aspect of human existence (or non-existence).



To me, this is why a metaphysics is better off with a "soul". A sleeping person is not a person because they are unconscious. They are unaware. "They" don't "exist". Without some intangible and non-material aspect of personhood, you are left to conclude that killing a sleeping person is essentially equivalent to abortion. All the same arguments apply.



I would say no. "I think therefore I am". Or, alternatively, "I don't think, therefore I am not."



Depends how you define consciousness. If you poke a sleeping person, they might roll over, so a sleeping person can still respond to a stimulus. But so do plants and bacteria. A sleeping person is unconscious in that they do not perceive the passage of time nor do they have internal dialogue nor can they perform free will actions.

Have you never gone to sleep knowing that you needed to get up at a certain hour and did just that without any outside stimulus(alarm clock)?
That is known as an internal alarm clock..sleeping people do in a sense perceive the passage of time.

 

[Davian]

It looks like you addressed that to someone named Colter. What post is it?

Oops. My mistake.

 

[variant]

Was this meant to answer my question: Why do we need to demonstrate that self-awareness is more than natural law? That it is emergent?

If so, I don't get it. I realize a baseball isn't self-aware.

It was meant as my counter to the idea that the mind is 'just' reacting to physical stimuli in the way the baseball is.

The mind needs to have a sense of itself in a way the baseball can not. If that can emerge from physical phenomena there is no mind-body problem, but it is certainly not going to arise in all physical systems it is a specialized case regardless.

 

[Davian]

I know. So what was your purpose in asking?
1) To divert the thread into a gearhead conversation about cars?
2) To ask me to engage in further exploring the analogy between cars and people?
3) A rhetorical device that didn't need a direct answer to the question, but was rather trying to make the point that just as certain events in cars come to an end, so also certain human events come to an end during unconsciousness?
4) Something else?

What does my purpose matter? I ask philosophical questions in a philosophical forum to promote discussion. Are you afraid that your answer might entrap you or something?

Where does the flame go when the candle goes out?

Yes, I know. I assumed your purpose was #3 above. So I only meant to point out that the end of an event doesn't mean the end of a person. I'm sorry if it came across as some kind of attack.

More like evasion.

My understanding is that, at the end of the day, when I go to sleep, my phenomenal self ceases to exist. "I" am gone. Tomorrow, my body-brain will begin the process again, using the memories from today as a template. However, during that entire time, I will be - legally, at least, a person.

Are you sure? You make absolutely no assumptions at all?

That is not what I wrote. I was only referring your assumption that I was "someone who a priori assumes that anything he can perceive is due to natural law." Would we not at least have to establish and agree upon what is meant by "natural law"? What other kinds of laws are there?

Since I said I wasn't making the claim you mentioned, what claim do you think I am making such that I need to "go for it"?

I was only offering the floor should you want to present the issues that you alluded to.

Do you not believe that "self-awareness" is more than natural law?

 

[Resha Caner]

It was meant as my counter to the idea that the mind is 'just' reacting to physical stimuli in the way the baseball is.

The mind needs to have a sense of itself in a way the baseball can not. If that can emerge from physical phenomena there is no mind-body problem, but it is certainly not going to arise in all physical systems it is a specialized case regardless.

I don't think we'll have a problem agreeing people and baseballs are different (Go Royals!).

But is it your view that those differences mean different reactions in accordance with natural law or that the person reacts differently because there is something else involved?

 

[Resha Caner]

What does my purpose matter?

It helps me answer your question. Am I not allowed to ask for clarification?

Are you afraid that your answer might entrap you or something?

No. Are you always this suspicious?

Where does the flame go when the candle goes out?

A flame is produced by an exothermic reaction whereby fuel molecules from some source combine with oxygen to give off heat. The flame is the visible light produced when atoms are excited to incandescence. When the reaction can no longer be sustained (for whatever reason), light ceases to be emitted. The flame ceases to exist.

My understanding is that, at the end of the day, when I go to sleep, my phenomenal self ceases to exist. "I" am gone. Tomorrow, my body-brain will begin the process again, using the memories from today as a template. However, during that entire time, I will be - legally, at least, a person.

OK. So your understanding of self only includes the events produced by your material body. We differ on that point.

That is not what I wrote. I was only referring your assumption that I was "someone who a priori assumes that anything he can perceive is due to natural law." Would we not at least have to establish and agree upon what is meant by "natural law"?

Sure.

What other kinds of laws are there?

I can't really answer that until we have a definition of natural law. I could throw out something like civil law, but I don't think that is what you're after.

Do you not believe that "self-awareness" is more than natural law?

No, not really. But I don't want to mislead you, so what types of things do you think "self-awareness:" entails? Maybe you're including something I don't.

 

[Davian]

It helps me answer your question. Am I not allowed to ask for clarification?

Of course. However, my intent was to gather your answer and then elucidate.

No. Are you always this suspicious?

...says the person avoiding the questions...

A flame is produced by an exothermic reaction whereby fuel molecules from some source combine with oxygen to give off heat. The flame is the visible light produced when atoms are excited to incandescence. When the reaction can no longer be sustained (for whatever reason), light ceases to be emitted. The flame ceases to exist.

As does the phenomenal self when the brain can no longer sustain it.

OK. So your understanding of self only includes the events produced by your material body. We differ on that point.

Please elucidate.

I can't really answer that until we have a definition of natural law. I could throw out something like civil law, but I don't think that is what you're after.

No, not really. But I don't want to mislead you, so what types of things do you think "self-awareness:" entails? Maybe you're including something I don't.

The term "self-awareness" to me is just the capacity for introspection and the ability to recognize oneself as an individual, particularly in a mirror, etc. I am thinking of the test they do with primates where they put the red dot of paint on their face, and show them a mirror. I try to stick to how these terms are used in current nueroscience.

What do you mean by "No, not really"? By your own definitions of the words, do you not believe that "self-awareness" is more than natural law?

 

[BL2KTN]

Instead of wasting my time on another irrelevant video (especially from Mr. Kaku), I'll just post a selection of some of the comments on the page you linked:

"Kaku appears to be a media seeker (wants to be famous), and often says things that are not based in science or fact. He'll say things like, "in the future, humans will _______". He has no idea and it's certainly not a fact-based conclusion. IMO, he has zero credibility."
　
"Btw, welcome to the Sausage Factory of creative endeavors."
　
"I agree. I tried reading one of his pop physics books but couldn't get past the 1st chapter."

"This is the most arrogant thing I've ever seen. And that might be excusable if he had even the slightest idea what he was talking about, which he doesn't."
​

That you think random comments from internet strangers are impressive rebuttals to a New York Times bestselling theoretical physisist and pioneer in string theory shows that you aren't a serious person to talk to.

 

[Tree of Life]

Is there such thing as an unconscious human being? For example if people are fully unconscious in sleep or a coma.

If someone is unconscious, in what sense are they a 'being'... in what sense do they (the person) exist?

You could say that the ability to express a conscious Self is still retained by the brain, so they still exist in the brain in some sense.

On the other hand, the brain, without consciousness, is just a bunch of atoms; like a rock. Does it really make sense to say a lump of unconscious material is a person/ being?

If it were possible to save the personality of someone on a hard-drive (which could become conscious with the flip of a switch) would it make sense to say that unconscious hard-drive is a person/ being?

(It may be that the brain is never fully unconscious until death, but assume for the sake of this that it can be).

An unconscious human being ceases to be a person. This is why it's perfectly acceptable to take people's stuff when they're asleep. How can they own it if they don't exist am I right?!

 

[Chesterton]

That you think random comments from internet strangers are impressive rebuttals to a New York Times bestselling theoretical physisist and pioneer in string theory shows that you aren't a serious person to talk to.

Okay.

 

[variant]

But is it your view that those differences mean different reactions in accordance with natural law or that the person reacts differently because there is something else involved?

Those aren't the only options.

How the physical system is set up could be the difference in the reactions.

It would react differently if it were alive.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

Slap a sleeping person and see if they respond. If they do, it is obvious they were conscious. A common misunderstanding of sleep does not equate a good reason for pretending we have intangible, invisible, non-physical, undetectable ghost/soul/spirits.

The unconscious human being can still respond to stimuli. And certain stimuli lead back to consciousness.

Slapping a sleeping person and having them wake up doesn't mean they were conscious before you slapped them…it means that you woke them up from an unconscious state.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

Have you never gone to sleep knowing that you needed to get up at a certain hour and did just that without any outside stimulus(alarm clock)?
That is known as an internal alarm clock..sleeping people do in a sense perceive the passage of time.

No, we don't perceive the passage of the time while asleep in the exact same way that an alarm clock does not perceive the passage of time.

Everything you consciously do to prepare for what time you get up the next morning must be done before you go to bed. You can't consciously set your alarm while you're asleep. Even if you believe that "thinking" about what time to get up actually makes you get up at that time, it still assumes that you think about itbefore you go to sleep. You can't think about what time to get up while you're asleep because you don't think while you're asleep.

Your body can respond to a stimulus while asleep, but that is not the same as being conscious.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

An unconscious human being ceases to be a person. This is why it's perfectly acceptable to take people's stuff when they're asleep. How can they own it if they don't exist am I right?!

The problem with this line of reasoning is that it implies that they will at some point return to consciousness and realize their stuff is missing.

If you kill them while they're asleep on the other hand…they'll never know it.

 

[quatona]

Is there such thing as an unconscious human being? For example if people are fully unconscious in sleep or a coma.

If someone is unconscious, in what sense are they a 'being'... in what sense do they (the person) exist?

In the same way a car that´s sitting in the carport over night is still considered a car?

On the other hand, the brain, without consciousness, is just a bunch of atoms; like a rock. Does it really make sense to say a lump of unconscious material is a person/ being?

Well, we could certainly come up with a different and more precise terminology: when asleep or temporarily unconscious the "being/person" ceases to be a person and becomes an object.
Following from there we would also have to change our terminology with respect to the fact that a person isn´t the same person anymore that it was one second ago.
Apparently, though, the idea of a continuous personhood (which even survives stages of temporary unconsciousness) is very important to us.

If it were possible to save the personality of someone on a hard-drive (which could become conscious with the flip of a switch) would it make sense to say that unconscious hard-drive is a person/ being?

Likewise: Is a hard drive that is switched off (and doesn´t function as a hard drive for that period of time) still a hard drive?

 

[BL2KTN]

The unconscious human being can still respond to stimuli. And certain stimuli lead back to consciousness.

Slapping a sleeping person and having them wake up doesn't mean they were conscious before you slapped them…it means that you woke them up from an unconscious state.

You cannot wake an unconscious creature. If it responds, it has some degree of consciousness. During sleep, memory-retention is greatly repressed in the hippocampus, resulting in a lack of knowledge of thought processes during sleep.

 

[BL2KTN]

Likewise: Is a hard drive that is switched off (and doesn´t function as a hard drive for that period of time) still a hard drive?

Just remember, the brain is never turned off until brain death.

 

[Resha Caner]

Those aren't the only options.

How the physical system is set up could be the difference in the reactions.

It would react differently if it were alive.

I was trying to cover that possibility in the way I phrased my post. Yes, different systems will act differently, but I assume you think those differing responses are still in accordance with natural law.

 

[Armoured]

IMHO, if you have achieved consciousness in the past, a break in that consciousness does not render you a non-being. Merely a being on hiatus, if you will.

Being a "being" occurs from the point of first moment of consciousness to the last moment at which consciousness is possible, and all moments in between, for practical purposes.

Just don't ask about the Chinese room.

 

[Resha Caner]

...says the person avoiding the questions...

Maybe you could explain what it is you think I'm avoiding. Then we would both know.

As does the phenomenal self when the brain can no longer sustain it.

Yes, I got that several posts back. Events end.

Please elucidate.

A cause is more than its symptoms. A person is more than an event.

Combustion was not part of my example. That was yours. My example was that a car doesn't stop being a car because you turn it off. The combustion event ends (the flame ceases to exist), but the car remains. The same is true of a person. When this "phenomenal self" of yours ends, the person continues because the brain is not dead and it retains the ability to produce those symptoms - that phenomenal self.

The term "self-awareness" to me is just the capacity for introspection and the ability to recognize oneself as an individual, particularly in a mirror, etc. I am thinking of the test they do with primates where they put the red dot of paint on their face, and show them a mirror. I try to stick to how these terms are used in current nueroscience.

I would consider introspection and self-recognition 2 different things. The mirror test only captures one of them. Communication is required to know an "other" performs introspection ... and that's where it gets tricky. If one wants to be an extreme skeptic, it can be claimed that one only knows one's own introspection. A slightly less skeptical position allows that if I can do it, it's reasonable to assume others of my species can do it. One must be even more forgiving to allow that others species who must be taught (programmed?) to communicate an introspection they did not themselves develop are actually performing that task. Maybe they are.

What do you mean by "No, not really"? By your own definitions of the words, do you not believe that "self-awareness" is more than natural law?

Unless one starts to include spiritual matters in the definition of "self-awareness", I don't see why it would need to be anything other than in accordance with material laws.