Non-Cartesian Substance Dualism

Maybe you and Valmar are right that a person's experience never ceases, even temporarily. I just don't see a good reason to accept that though given what we know.

It's a complicated question, as you say we don't really know. I do wish Psi Encylcopedia had provided more details on what they meant by OOBEs under anesthesia, will try and see what I can find.

Sometimes it feels I may have gone somewhere or communicated with someone after waking from normal sleep, sometimes I think I just "konked out".

Even when I say experience doesn't cease during sleep I mean bodily feelings - or a loud noise - can wake someone up. People say we always dream during regular sleep because of REM cycles, but I am unsure if that has to be the case especially if what is observed in merely correlative rather than causative. There could be bodily functions that happen without dreams maybe?

[Laird]

Even when I say experience doesn't cease during sleep I mean bodily feelings - or a loud noise - can wake someone up.

Yep, which is compatible with lack of literal experience by the person, right? By that I mean in that it would be one's body (including brain) that triggers the non-experiencing (or dream-experiencing) person to begin experiencing again, perhaps due to potential threat or other need for alertness. Or am I misunderstanding you?

There could be bodily functions that happen without dreams maybe?

Yes, that seems very likely to me.

Yep, which is compatible with lack of literal experience by the person, right? By that I mean in that it would be one's body (including brain) that triggers the non-experiencing (or dream-experiencing) person to begin experiencing again, perhaps due to potential threat or other need for alertness. Or am I misunderstanding you?

Yeah it gets tricky here, because what awakens me is experiential.

So given the Hard Problem I am not sure what it means. Is some sensory register, like a motion sensor, what is triggered and then translated into experience?

This gets into questions like the Design argument via Psycho-Physical Harmony, or why experience would be necessary at all. I actually do think a lot of what happens with the body is localizing consciousness. Without feeling hunger we might be malnourished at the least, without feeling the need for sleep how many of us might exert ourselves until we die....which then leads to why sleep? Why dreams?

So all to say you're not misinterpreting because I am not saying anything too specific...If nothing else it seems to me the basic Materialist picture makes less and less sense the more we think about it...

[Laird]

Is some sensory register, like a motion sensor, what is triggered and then translated into experience?

That's what I'd suggest, yep. The boundary between physical senses and personal experience is probably fuzzy, and perhaps sensory experiences can be sort of reconstructed from the immediate past during which one was technically not experiencing, much like one can be daydreaming while somebody talks, yet somehow manage to recall the most recent few words when one's attention is pulled back to the speech (maybe not a great example, but I think you know the sort of thing I'm talking about).

[Laird]

P.S. I neglected to even try to answer these questions because I simply don't know!

why sleep? Why dreams?

That's what I'd suggest, yep. The boundary between physical senses and personal experience is probably fuzzy, and perhaps sensory experiences can be sort of reconstructed from the immediate past during which one was technically not experiencing, much like one can be daydreaming while somebody talks, yet somehow manage to recall the most recent few words when one's attention is pulled back to the speech (maybe not a great example, but I think you know the sort of thing I'm talking about).

Doesn't this run into the Hard Problem though? Why does there need to be experience involved at all?

Again, I hate to be crude, but being awakened by the need to relieve one's self seems necessary to prevent infection and possibly unwanted diverticulum in the bladder developing. Otherwise I think most people would prefer to just sleep through the night, especially as they get older.

A lot of bodily experience seems to demand we act in a localized way.

Makes me think of Beischel's article "You’re Not Even in There Now: The Tenuous Tether Holding the Self in the Body"

So the body is impermanent and only partially you. Moreover, research in the area of body ownership confirms a tenuous and easily disrupted tether between self and body throughout physical life. Body ownership includes the sense of “mineness” (that this body is mine), the sense of agency (that I am initiating and controlling the actions of this body), and the sense of self-location (the experience of where I am in space) (e.g., Braun et al., 2018). The continuous, integrated stream of sensory, interoceptive, proprioceptive, vestibular, visceral, and motor signals indicates to you that you are in your body. This intermodal perceptual correspondence also allows for the body to be distinguished from other objects as belonging to the self. Only through this constant and extensive multimodal feedback are you locally situated in your body.

[Laird]

Doesn't this run into the Hard Problem though?

I don't see why it would. If we accept in the first place that sensory experiences are initiated by the (physical) body, then why wouldn't we accept the possibility of their being reconstructed slightly after the (sensory) fact?

Why does there need to be experience involved at all?

You go on to provide good reasons of your own! In the case of potential threat, obviously a consciously alert, quick-thinking person is more likely to evade a threat than an inert, dull, sleeping one.

Makes me think of Beischel's article "You’re Not Even in There Now: The Tenuous Tether Holding the Self in the Body"

Sounds interesting. I might give it a read.

I don't see why it would. If we accept in the first place that sensory experiences are initiated by the (physical) body, then why wouldn't we accept the possibility of their being reconstructed slightly after the (sensory) fact?

You go on to provide good reasons of your own! In the case of potential threat, obviously a consciously alert, quick-thinking person is more likely to evade a threat than an inert, dull, sleeping one.

What I mean is if the initial trigger to induce experience is itself non-experiential, do we need there to be experience or could the whole task be accomplished on "p-zombie" mode.

But I think I better see what you mean, that it's precisely because of the mental/physical distinction of Dualism that experiential persuasion is required....if I understand you correctly?

[Laird]

What I mean is if the initial trigger to induce experience is itself non-experiential, do we need there to be experience or could the whole task be accomplished on "p-zombie" mode.

But I think I better see what you mean, that it's precisely because of the mental/physical distinction of Dualism that experiential persuasion is required....if I understand you correctly?

Unfortunately, I'm not sure I understand your attempt to paraphrase me, mostly because I'm not sure what you mean by "persuasion" in this context, but if you mean by it that the body "persuades" the person to return from inertness to experiencing, giving him/her experiential access to the sensory event which required the "persuasion" so that (s)he has enough information to deal consciously with any potential threat, then, yes, that's the sort of thing I mean.

Unfortunately, I'm not sure I understand your attempt to paraphrase me, mostly because I'm not sure what you mean by "persuasion" in this context, but if you mean by it that the body "persuades" the person to return from inertness to experiencing, giving him/her experiential access to the sensory event which required the "persuasion" so that (s)he has enough information to deal consciously with any potential threat, then, yes, that's the sort of thing I mean.

I was thinking more generally than just the inducing of wakefulness, but it seems we're in agreement here?

Hunger is a quale that makes me want to eat, with the addition that I seek out foods that are tasty - sometimes to my own detriment due to my sweet tooth...

Add in [other survival oriented] desires, and the desire to avoid suffering, and we have a strong localization. Getting a bit "blue sky" in my thinking it seems like there's a reason we're supposed to be persuaded to stay localized.

Even the Psych-Physical Harmony of this universe, itself an argument for Design, seems to exist in such a way that we could have evolved to be focused on this life. After all if eating was less enjoyable, and hunger less pronounced, our ancestors may have starved to death...

Makes me wonder, yet again, why we're here. Which is probably too big a question to solve on a Sunday afternoon.