Imagine there were drugs that could remove the sensation of consciousness. However, that’s all they do. They don’t knock you unconscious like an anaesthetic; you still maintain motor functions, memory, sensory, and decision-making capabilities. So you can still drive a car safely, people can still talk to you coherently, and after the drugs wear off you’ll remember what things you said and did.
Can anyone explain concretely what the effect and experience of taking such a drug would be?
If so, that might go a long way toward nailing down what the essential part of consciousness is (ie, what people really mean when they claim to be conscious). If not, it might show that consciousness is inseparable from sensory, memory, and/or decision-making functions.
For example, I can imagine an answer like “such a drug is contradictory; if it really took away what I mean by ‘consciousness’, then by definition I couldn’t remember in detail what had happened while it was in effect”. Or “If it really took away what I mean by consciousness, then I would act like I were hypnotized; maybe I could talk to people, but it would be in a flat, emotionless, robotic way, and I wouldn’t trust myself to drive in that state because I would become careless”.
Implicit memories—motor habits and recognition still work. Semantic and episodic memories are pretty separate things. You can answer some factual questions without involving your more visceral kind of memory about the experience later. Planning couldn’t be totally gone, but it would operate at a much lower level so I wouldn’t recommend driving...
Imagine there were drugs that could remove the sensation of consciousness. However, that’s all they do. They don’t knock you unconscious like an anaesthetic; you still maintain motor functions, memory, sensory, and decision-making capabilities. So you can still drive a car safely, people can still talk to you coherently, and after the drugs wear off you’ll remember what things you said and did.
That doesn’t make any sense to me. If you were on that drug and I asked you “how do you feel?” and you said “I feel angry” or “I feel sad” ,,, that would be a conscious experience. I don’t think the setup makes any sense. If you are going about your day doing your daily things, you are conscious. And this has nothing to do with remembering what happened—as I said in a different reply, you are also conscious in the grandparent’s sense when you are dreaming, even if you don’t remember the dream when you wake up.
Jbay didn’t specify that the drug has to leave people able to answer questions about their own emotional state. And in fact there are some people who can’t do that, even though they’re otherwise functional.
I wasn’t limiting it to just emotional state. If there is someone experiencing something, that someone is conscious, whether or not they are self-aware enough to describe that feeling of existing.
Yes. Really to be completely unconscious you’d have to be dead. But I do acknowledge that this is degrees on a spectrum, and probably the closest drug to what you want is whatever they use in general anesthesia.
Maybe you’re on to something...
Imagine there were drugs that could remove the sensation of consciousness. However, that’s all they do. They don’t knock you unconscious like an anaesthetic; you still maintain motor functions, memory, sensory, and decision-making capabilities. So you can still drive a car safely, people can still talk to you coherently, and after the drugs wear off you’ll remember what things you said and did.
Can anyone explain concretely what the effect and experience of taking such a drug would be?
If so, that might go a long way toward nailing down what the essential part of consciousness is (ie, what people really mean when they claim to be conscious). If not, it might show that consciousness is inseparable from sensory, memory, and/or decision-making functions.
For example, I can imagine an answer like “such a drug is contradictory; if it really took away what I mean by ‘consciousness’, then by definition I couldn’t remember in detail what had happened while it was in effect”. Or “If it really took away what I mean by consciousness, then I would act like I were hypnotized; maybe I could talk to people, but it would be in a flat, emotionless, robotic way, and I wouldn’t trust myself to drive in that state because I would become careless”.
I can almost picture it.
Implicit memories—motor habits and recognition still work. Semantic and episodic memories are pretty separate things. You can answer some factual questions without involving your more visceral kind of memory about the experience later. Planning couldn’t be totally gone, but it would operate at a much lower level so I wouldn’t recommend driving...
That doesn’t make any sense to me. If you were on that drug and I asked you “how do you feel?” and you said “I feel angry” or “I feel sad” ,,, that would be a conscious experience. I don’t think the setup makes any sense. If you are going about your day doing your daily things, you are conscious. And this has nothing to do with remembering what happened—as I said in a different reply, you are also conscious in the grandparent’s sense when you are dreaming, even if you don’t remember the dream when you wake up.
Jbay didn’t specify that the drug has to leave people able to answer questions about their own emotional state. And in fact there are some people who can’t do that, even though they’re otherwise functional.
I wasn’t limiting it to just emotional state. If there is someone experiencing something, that someone is conscious, whether or not they are self-aware enough to describe that feeling of existing.
Good! I’m glad to hear an answer like this.
So does that mean that, in your view, a drug that removes consciousness must necessarily be a drug that impairs the ability to process information?
Yes. Really to be completely unconscious you’d have to be dead. But I do acknowledge that this is degrees on a spectrum, and probably the closest drug to what you want is whatever they use in general anesthesia.
I think my opinion is the same as yours, but I’m curious about whether anybody else has different answers.