164
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 30 Jul 2026
164 points (96.1% liked)
Showerthoughts
43143 readers
134 users here now
A "Showerthought" is a simple term used to describe the thoughts that pop into your head while you're doing everyday things like taking a shower, driving, or just daydreaming. The most popular seem to be lighthearted clever little truths, hidden in daily life.
Here are some examples to inspire your own showerthoughts:
- Both “200” and “160” are 2 minutes in microwave math
- When you’re a kid, you don’t realize you’re also watching your mom and dad grow up.
- More dreams have been destroyed by alarm clocks than anything else
Rules
- All posts must be showerthoughts
- The entire showerthought must be in the title
- No politics
- If your topic is in a grey area, please phrase it to emphasize the fascinating aspects, not the dramatic aspects. You can do this by avoiding overly politicized terms such as "capitalism" and "communism". If you must make comparisons, you can say something is different without saying something is better/worse.
- A good place for politics is c/politicaldiscussion
- Posts must be original/unique
- Adhere to Lemmy's Code of Conduct and the TOS
If you made it this far, showerthoughts is accepting new mods. This community is generally tame so its not a lot of work, but having a few more mods would help reports get addressed a little sooner.
Whats it like to be a mod? Reports just show up as messages in your Lemmy inbox, and if a different mod has already addressed the report, the message goes away and you never worry about it.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Cool. What about consciousness?
What is your definition of consciousness?
A word that is just nonsensical enough to mean whatever you want it to mean, while still sounding adequately serious enough for serious discussion among serious people.
See also: freedom.
Well you can define a construct.
In science we often use terms that are open. So we first define what we mean before discussing the construct.
That way everyone is talking about the same thing. Otherwise it's just arguing semantics.
Okay. Consciousness is the awareness of the passage of time.
Perception of time is your definition of consciousness?
Do you instead mean memory of autobiographical events ?
Patient H.M lost his ability to form new memories of his experiences. (Starting after a brain surgery removed part of his memory centers as a kid). Would that count as losing "consciousness"?
People with dementia also lose their ability to form new memories. Though the complete loss of this ability is after the disease has progressed to severe levels.
People with Korsokoff disease. Sometimes called "locked in time" is also a disorder where new memory is disrupted so the individual often has no understanding that many years have passed. But they also suffer from a loss of time. Possibly because the amnesia is so extreme and complete.
This is why I say that time perception is part of memory.
People with Korsokoff are often distressed when they see their aged face in a mirror. Because to them, they have aged 20 years without experiencing the passage of 20 years.
Would you say these people are not conscious ?
You get why even defining consciousness is not particularly easy.
But we can't develop explanations without a specific defined phenomenon that can be measured or identified in some way.
Nope. Just awareness that time passes. Memory is irrelevant.
How can you have awareness of time if you have no memory of 1 second ago?
Perception of time is part of memory that "now" is different than it was 1 second ago.
Time, as experienced by a human is a product of sensory processing and memory. Short term and working memory. There is bit of research on manipulating the perception of time by different tasks and events.
https://www.popsci.com/how-time-seems-to-stop/
It's the experience of change.
This is why the speed of time can be altered based on tasks and attention.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronostasis
Time , as defined by physics , is its own thing independent of an animal's perception of time.
Like how vision is from light. But light is not vision.
We do have a circadian rhythm. So do all animals.
This is an internal clock that regulates the body.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_perception
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circadian_rhythm
Likewise , basic small time tracking appears to be largely done by the brain stem, limbic system, but probably the cerebellum. But not the cortex (higher function brain regions)
It is generally believed "consciousness" is a process of the cortex as this is where complex cognitive tasks are done.
"Experiments have shown that rats can successfully estimate a time interval of approximately 40 seconds, despite having their cortex entirely removed.[25] This suggests that time estimation may be a low-level process.[26]"
There is also a human disorder where the loss of time estimate ability can occur. Not completely independent of memory disorders. Short term memory is impaired.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyschronometria
Yep. Like you said/contradicted yourself. You don't need memory to perceive time.
Two forms of time perception.
But my point was memory is impaired in all forms except the one only measuring tracking estimates. Because you won't have any higher brain function with a cortex removed so they can't evaluate autobiographical memory because it won't exist.
And making short time estimates is done by the brain stem.
Even with no cortex. Likely because circadian rhythm is somewhat controlled from brain stem.
No cortex makes one essentially brain dead in many ways. No language. No sensory processing. No vision hearing or touch perception. No internal thoughts. Nothing. (Look up "default mode network, and why internal thoughts won't exist without a cortex).
Brain stem mostly regulates things like heart beat and breathing.
I understand your point, and I consider it irrelevant. One of those fun side effects of having me define consciousness twice, and never contesting either definition directly....only indirectly implying that consciousness requires a human brain.
Okay but my point was you would say someone has consciousness when they are without any higher brain function and lacking a cortex.
And, someone with their higher cortex but a damaged cerebellum, who is no longer able to track time, would not be conscious, by your definition.
I mean if that's your definition then you are welcome to it.
I don't know of any theories of consciousness that consider the tracking of time to be what counts. 🤷. Because of the two examples I give.
Yep.
Like I said at the beginning. My first definition of consciousness is "a word meaningless enough to mean what you want, while still sounding like a serious person having a serious conversation".
Here is a list of your mistakes:
On the other hand, you don't seem stupid. Try joining a debate club at the local college, learn some fundamentals of rhetoric, and things will go much better for you in the future.
Edit: theories of consciousness are just as BS as theories of teapots orbiting Uranus, as they are unfalsifiable without arbitrary constraints.
Edit2: also, I should point out that having defined consciousness as 'awareness of the passage of time' after mentioning stimulus-response, I was pretty clearly setting up an argument that literally everything is conscious. That's why you should not have let me define the terms, and brought your own definition that I would have had to argue against.
There are definitions that actually fit with modern neuroscience and can be evaluated.
Your choice to choose a definition that doesn't align with modern knowledge is not evidence that it's undefinable.
The two most popular ones are a sense of self as separate from the environment.
Another is the ability to be able to predict the environment and plan or adjust plans accordingly.
Another is sensory binding to experience a unified perception.
All of these can be evaluated objectively and investigated for mechanisms. They all have a ton of research on them.
Your definition was something you came up with on the fly to see what I would say. And that's fine.
But I explained why this definition is flawed.
Even so. It can also be objectively measured and has been extensively researched as to its mechanisms.
So even if that was what consciousness is, we do have theories and research , at present, to explain how it works.