The experience of consciousness is integral to understanding how it functions. Both experiencing and understanding are necessary to form a complete picture. For instance, during my surgery, I received an anesthetic block that left my left arm lifeless. What I experienced was the loss of my arm’s position in space and the disappearance of the mental map that the brain creates to represent it. This experience offered valuable insight and understanding into how the brain probably constructs these representations and reinforced the importance of these mental maps in navigating the world.
As the anesthetic began to wear off, the mental map of my arm returned—but it didn’t align with the arm’s actual position. I had the distinct sensation that my arm was stretched out in front of me, even though it was resting on my abdomen. This experience underscored the critical role of sensory input in shaping both our understanding of the body and the brain. These sensations are key to unraveling what is truly happening in the brain. Merely stating that a particular nerve was involved doesn’t capture the full complexity of what was actually happening.
As for how this ties into life and reality, it’s simple: everything we experience and understand is part of life and reality. Consciousness is woven into the very fabric of our existence, and understanding it—even in small, experiential moments like this one—helps illuminate the broader questions of life itself.
And, you have no way of deciding that life can be reduced to physical processes.
Axioms are something you get in mathematics, and they aren’t truths about the world; they’re statements that determine the structures of mathematics; other statements would determine different structures, as in the assumption that parallel lines never meet, or alternatively that they do meet. What axioms do you consider to be truths about the world? And how would you know if they were truths?
I’d encourage you to read my most recent response to John Harshman, as it may help clarify my position on the importance of combining both objective understanding and subjective experience.
Axioms are assumptions so basic that nothing else makes sense unless they are true. The Axiom of Identity for example, that all things (sets) are equivalent to themselves, is universally accepted. There are others like the Axiom of Choice that are not universally accepted, leading to a different basis for mathematics in which some things cannot be proven.
MOST people do not spend their days trying to pare everything down to the most basic axioms - they wouldn’t get anything useful done if they did. But it can be a good thought exercise to trying to work on a problem from First Principles (not quite the same as axioms, but close enough for most people).
There is IMO a sort of “Axiom of Faith”, that some people use in their thinking. It doesn’t pass the “nothing else makes sense” test, but it fits with how many people live their lives. (If it did pass this test there wouldn’t be any need to argue about it.) It functions as a shortcut to certain conclusions without all the tedious mucking about with Set Theory. That’s not a bad thing in itself, but it may cause conflicts when misused.
For this discussion I think we are considering a similar sort of “axiom”. The questions are: What are the conclusions this shortcut leads too? Are those conclusions useful in any sense? Can this assumption be pared down to an even simpler concept?
The answer seems to depend on the value a person assigns to this Axion of Faith in the first place.
That is not fun, and I wish you a speedy recovery!
The nervous system isn’t entirely in the brain, and there is “muscle memory” which helps us coordinate our physical activity without active thought. We also have a “kinesthetic” sense - not counted in the 5 basic senses everyone learns about - which enables that mental map of the body. We don’t normally register these as part of our mental activity.
The relevance here, is the something more you are seeking may already be a part of y(our) physical existence. Maybe there is still more in addition to that, but you need to separate parts that can be described by the physical from the parts that cannot.
Or not. This is getting down to personal views on the world, and I do not mean to intrude on your.
Again, entirely textual. IMO, you’re ignoring the massive complexity that continues to be compiled by science in favor of attacking straw men. I’m not seeing anything cohesive about your approach.
Nor does your experience. But if your experience is repeatable and generalizable, it might contribute, through science, to a better understanding of something going on in the brain. But that seems quite separate from an understanding of consciousness.
Not immediately, sure. But every time we observe something happening through physical processes, that decreases the space in which something else can hide. The fact that a physical anesthetic messes with your mental map, for example, suggests that the map is the result of a physical process.
But it can be a good thought exercise to trying to work on a problem from First Principles (not quite the same as axioms, but close enough for most people).
