Experiences change things, thinking about the experiences does not change things.

Based on your answer, I am pretty sure you did not do the experiment, you just thought about it. This tells me you believe you can approach the issue intellectually.

According to many traditions that have a long experience in consciousness, it requires a practical approach and cannot be approached intellectually. In my experience this is true. The thinking is actually part of the problem, not part of the solution.

"Is someone with an inability to form memories just an automaton then? Their qualia are less qualiatic than your qualia?"

This question seems to be about a theoretical construct of a consciousness you think that I am having. You seem to think there is a hole in my construct.

There is a good reason to avoid such discussions, related to the fact that the analytical thinking is actually preventing people from understanding consciousness, and enganging in such discussions activates analytical thinking, instead of winding it down.

If you want to discuss in good faith, you first need to understand the basics of this traditional view of consciousness. For this, you need practical experiences. Only after understanding basics can we discuss advanced topics, such as the corner cases of definitions.

It seems as if you are using the word "automaton" as a diminutive. Having a strong emotional connection to a word may be conspiring with your analytical mind and preventing you from understanding the underlying concepts.

Automation is not a bad thing. We humans are trying to automate as much as possible all the time. Our home has lots of automation (dishwasher, oven, blender etc.) that save us work.

The nature works similarly, it works as if it had minimized the the energy consumption of living creatures. Brain requires lots of energy to run, so it is efficient to be conscious only when it is necessary.

Words do not have one true meaning. It is more practical to use the words in the same way others are using them.

If everybody uses the word "conciousness" in a way that person who cannot remember being conscious is not said to be conscious, it is better not to see it as "common fallacy", but just as the definition of the word. If you want to have a different meaning, it will be more helpful for clear communication if you just pick a different word.

The word "qualia" is so overloaded with meaning, I will avoid it here altogether.

In my experience there are many levels of consciousness. If you don't remember being conscious, you are running on autopilot. We can do extremely complex things when running on autopilot, such as driving a car successfully from place A to place B. Or write comments to HN. We could say that when running on autopilot, our level of consciousness is negative.

If I am conscious of my driving, and can later recall being conscious, when I am just on the edge of remembering being conscious, we can say that my level of consciousness is zero.

I don't need to talk about other people when referring to them as automatons. My level of consciousness is often below zero, meaning in such situations I am an "automaton".

It is also possible, through training, to experience levels of consciousness that are higher than the level zero.

There are some obvious changes in the experience when you reach these higher levels of conciousness. For example, I may experience the color red having more "red-ness".

So we can now reframe your question: does person A whose level of consciousness is below zero, experience red-ness of red less than person B whose level of consciousness is zero? I think you can see from this reframing that the question is a little bit absurd.

If you approach the issue experimentally and with an open mind, you can verify for yourself that your experience of red-ness of red can change. You will also learn that there is no direct way of knowing how you experience red-ness of red when your conciousness is below zero. But from your other experiences you can deduce that you probaby experience red having less red-ness when your level of conciousness is below zero than when it is zero.

First of all, thank you for the long and thoughtful response. My comment was mainly focused on the tie between memory and consciousness, which I think is generally over-stated. People who get "blackout drunk" at a party are still conscious during the party.

> According to many traditions that have a long experience in consciousness, it requires a practical approach and cannot be approached intellectually.

Many traditions had a long experience in looking up at the sun and moon and came to the shared understanding that they were gods. The intellectual approach is what allowed us to actually figure it out.

> analytical thinking is actually preventing people from understanding consciousness

I don't know what "understanding consciousness" could possibly mean if it doesn't mean understanding it at an intellectual, analytical level. If you ask someone to explain what effect produces a rainbow, they might reasonably say "shut up dude, just sit here and enjoy it with me." That's totally fine! You may claim to appreciate rainbows more than physicists. But you don't understand them better.

> If you want to discuss in good faith, you first need to understand the basics of this traditional view of consciousness.

I honestly don't believe that I do. If I were required to understand what the Ancient Greeks and Siddhartha Gautama and Confucius all said about the tides before I learned about the moon's gravity, then I'd never learn anything at all! It's OK to reject incorrect ideas.

> It seems as if you are using the word "automaton" as a diminutive ... Automation is not a bad thing.

This is a great point and something I had not considered well. Thank you.

> It is more practical to use the words in the same way others are using them.

And I think I am; I think you're the one changing the word consciousness if you don't believe someone in the middle of partying hard is conscious, or someone with the inability to form long-term memories is conscious. That's not the common use of the word.

> The word "qualia" is so overloaded with meaning, I will avoid it here altogether.

The word "qualia" is devoid of meaning, which is why I used it as a parody of the (what I view is a) fallacy of accusing other people of not having consciousness, or accusing your past self of that simply because you can't remember having been conscious.

> In my experience there are many levels of consciousness.

Absolutely, and that makes these kinds of discussions hard. This is a great thing to keep in mind when discussing it.

> If you don't remember being conscious, you are running on autopilot

See that's where I completely disagree. If I don't remember having a stomach ache, does that mean I was never in pain? People forget things! You can also forget the experience of having been conscious! Our memories are very efficient at selectively forgetting the mundane; we are so highly conscious all the time that it is mundane. If I asked you to rate your level of consciousness yesterday, you'd probably rate it lower (more baseline/auto) than you would if I started showing you videos of everything you were doing yesterday. Suddenly you'd remember: oh yeah, I actually was conscious!

Substitute consciousness for "pain" or "love" or "happy" -- ask a bitter divorcee how in love he was on his wedding day. Ask someone who was the victim of an accident 10 years ago how painful it was. Ask a teenager how happy they were when they went to Disney World when they were 6. All of them will dramatically understate how intense the feeling was. Come on! People just forget things!

You are effectively accusing other people of not being as conscious as you because they don't meditate. I'm sorry, but an astrophysicist who is out on a walk pondering the intricacies of the λCDM model is not less conscious than you sitting there focusing on your nose. Both of you are at risk of getting smacked in the face with a stray soccer ball.

By the way, the kid playing soccer is not less conscious than you either. He might even be more so, since he's not only living in the moment, but also actually aware of what's going on around him.

> Discussion of "red-ness"

I agree that your own experience of "redness" can change. I don't agree that it correlates with memory.

Three people are on a street near some stark red flowers. The first is mentally rehearsing the important presentation he's heading to and barely registers the presence of the flowers. The second is out for a jog and appreciates the flowers' beauty in passing. The third is on LSD and has been staring at the flowers for twenty minutes. I'd argue the third person is experiencing the most "redness". Oh, except the LSD was laced with nasty stuff and he forgot the experience later. Sike! He was unconscious the whole time! Oh, and the 2nd person got a head injury 17 years later and forgot that entire year. Sike! He was retroactively unconscious the whole time too! And the first person died, so he doesn't remember anything, and therefore his whole life was retroactively unconscious!

"Three people are on a street near some stark red flowers. The first is mentally rehearsing the important presentation he's heading to and barely registers the presence of the flowers. The second is out for a jog and appreciates the flowers' beauty in passing. The third is on LSD and has been staring at the flowers for twenty minutes. I'd argue the third person is experiencing the most "redness". Oh, except the LSD was laced with nasty stuff and he forgot the experience later. Sike! He was unconscious the whole time! Oh, and the 2nd person got a head injury 17 years later and forgot that entire year. Sike! He was retroactively unconscious the whole time too! And the first person died, so he doesn't remember anything, and therefore his whole life was retroactively unconscious!"

These are contrived examples where you are arguing about the semantics of the concept of consciousness. I will make it a little bit more practical.

Practically, the first man is probably not very conscious, if he is completely occupied by the presentation. It is possible to be conscious and simultaneously have lots of thoughts, but it is improbable, because higher consciousness quiets down your analytical mind.

The second might be conscious or might not be. The description cannot be used to figure it out. If they are completely occupied by the smell or beauty of the flowers, the buddhists would say that they become the flower, because you are where your attention is. If your attention is 100% on the flower, you are not conscious, because consciousness means that at least some of your attention is left for being aware of yourself.

The third case is a little bit different, because in my understanding mind-altering chemical substances can produce states that are similar to higher consciousness, and can leave a strong imprint, like people who use LSD say (I don't have personal experience, I have used only some mild psychedelics 30 years ago, but still remember those experiences deeply.) But there are no shortcuts to higher consciousness. You have to pay the price some way or the other. I don't know enough about the subject to know what the price would be.

If any one of them later forgot about their experiences although they had a higher level of consciousness at the time, that does not take away the consciousness. Memory does not equal consciousness. Memory can inform us about our level of consciousness, but it can also lie.

"My comment was mainly focused on the tie between memory and consciousness, which I think is generally over-stated. People who get "blackout drunk" at a party are still conscious during the party."

This is just about semantics of the word. I am not engaging in discussions about semantics. I am interested in the phenomenon.

Also, you are misrepresenting my understanding of the relationship between memory and consciousness.

"Many traditions had a long experience in looking up at the sun and moon and came to the shared understanding that they were gods. The intellectual approach is what allowed us to actually figure it out."

Just this week I read how somebody figured out that "waterfall method" was a straw man, and practically nobody was actually developing software like that. This is how it goes. I used to think like you. But after really learning about it, I realized that there have been people that have been very wise in the history. Sometimes they discuss things allegorically, because it is necessary for effective communication.

"I don't know what "understanding consciousness" could possibly mean if it doesn't mean understanding it at an intellectual, analytical level. If you ask someone to explain what effect produces a rainbow, they might reasonably say "shut up dude, just sit here and enjoy it with me." That's totally fine! You may claim to appreciate rainbows more than physicists. But you don't understand them better."

In software, we have architecture astronauts that have an analytical understanding of the architecture. But then come the developers who actually implement things, and they will come to understand the limitations of the architecture when the architecture meets reality. If the architect has their head in the clouds and refuses to accept the new understanding from this clash with reality, his architecture may be intellectually satisfying, but it will not be succesful. This is one example how analytical mind is quite limited. Understanding requires both knowledge and experience.

"I honestly don't believe that I do. If I were required to understand what the Ancient Greeks and Siddhartha Gautama and Confucius all said about the tides before I learned about the moon's gravity, then I'd never learn anything at all! It's OK to reject incorrect ideas."

What they said is not important. You need to have an experience tasting strawberry if you want to have a meaningful discussion with me about the taste of strawberry.

"See that's where I completely disagree. If I don't remember having a stomach ache, does that mean I was never in pain? People forget things! You can also forget the experience of having been conscious! Our memories are very efficient at selectively forgetting the mundane; we are so highly conscious all the time that it is mundane. If I asked you to rate your level of consciousness yesterday, you'd probably rate it lower (more baseline/auto) than you would if I started showing you videos of everything you were doing yesterday. Suddenly you'd remember: oh yeah, I actually was conscious!"

This argument is mostly about the semantics of the word consciousness. I am not going to argue about that.

I would not reassess my thought whether I was conscious if I was shown videos about myself even if it helped me to remember what I did yesterday.

For me the consciousness means I am aware of myself in the moment. Higher consciousness means the experience is stronger, hence it is more difficult to forget the experience. That does not mean that memory is the same thing as the consciousness.

The memory imprint you are talking about is very different from the memory imprint I am talking about.

People forget things, but if you are blessed with an experience of being more conscious, you will understand how such an experience will be more difficult to forget.

Wedding day or an accident might not leave a stronger than usual imprint although we think it is something great we ought to remember. They also might.

"You are effectively accusing other people of not being as conscious as you because they don't meditate."

I am not more conscious than anybody else. If I thought I was more conscious than anybody else, this would actually be hubris and I would be less conscious than everybody else. I have been blessed with a few experiences of being conscious, but that does not make me a better person in any way and does not help me being more conscious right now. I just happen to have tasted the strawberry so I know what it tastes like.