Consciousness is not memory though it may comprise in part, memories. I think it is reasonable to stipulate that the subconscious is also a part of what consciousness is in the way that the water below the surface of the ocean supports the upsurge into being of the surface.
Consider the fundamental problem of existence such as Descartes described in his Meditations concurrently with Godel's incompleteness theorem...and toss in the dismissive ideas about the anthropic principle that regard it as invalid for existential tautology. Existence and consciousness is the first principle of being; cogito ergo sum It is natural to want to create a list of proofs that consciousness exists, yet it cannot really be proven in the abstract while experiencing it is basic.
With the limitations on certainty given for epistemology in regard to ultimate things, is it logically necessary to deny that existence or consciousness can be proven to exist while personal experience is in disagreement? Is it in some way logically necessary to deny that existence can be proven if some proof not reliant upon existence need be made to avoid a circular argument?
Consciousness exists embedded within a steady state force field that is the material phase of the quantum mass that is regarded as the Universe. Living people seem to have it...the sum total of what is while existing, and proving what it is with reductionist devices would seem to produce and incomplete list---in the same way that Godel's incompleteness theorem presents limitations to making definitions about ultimate sets.
If one were to use a quantum computer to return unique values for calculations in real time it would be challenging to associate it with consciousness as memory. If one lets a computer start an infinite series and lets it return with abbreviations unique very large, unfamiliar values as one watches the numbers appear how could they be regarded as memories from the past?
Consider the fundamental problem of existence such as Descartes described in his Meditations concurrently with Godel's incompleteness theorem...and toss in the dismissive ideas about the anthropic principle that regard it as invalid for existential tautology. Existence and consciousness is the first principle of being; cogito ergo sum It is natural to want to create a list of proofs that consciousness exists, yet it cannot really be proven in the abstract while experiencing it is basic.
With the limitations on certainty given for epistemology in regard to ultimate things, is it logically necessary to deny that existence or consciousness can be proven to exist while personal experience is in disagreement? Is it in some way logically necessary to deny that existence can be proven if some proof not reliant upon existence need be made to avoid a circular argument?
Consciousness exists embedded within a steady state force field that is the material phase of the quantum mass that is regarded as the Universe. Living people seem to have it...the sum total of what is while existing, and proving what it is with reductionist devices would seem to produce and incomplete list---in the same way that Godel's incompleteness theorem presents limitations to making definitions about ultimate sets.
If one were to use a quantum computer to return unique values for calculations in real time it would be challenging to associate it with consciousness as memory. If one lets a computer start an infinite series and lets it return with abbreviations unique very large, unfamiliar values as one watches the numbers appear how could they be regarded as memories from the past?