Again, here this presumes the (common and useful) definition of “Consciousness” as “being conscious TO/OF something” whether that’s the natural or spiritual world, etc. That is not the way that witt was using the word, nor is it the way that I in my own posts use the word, and in fact the word “consciousness” is only being used for lack of a better word.
To be unconscious does not mean that you are suddenly no more “conscious” than a rock. It means that you no longer have anything of which to
be conscious (stimuli, which are normally generated through the brain–although in Heaven, pre-resurrection-day, it would seem that the souls have some other means of being conscious of things).
Again, it’s the same way that in a dark room you might be described as “blind” because there is no light to enter your eyes, but that doesn’t mean that your eyes have stopped working or that your sense of sight is “nonexistent” at that moment. We understand if you say a person in a pitch black room is [effectively] blind, you do not meant that his sight isn’t
working, but rather that in the absence of stimuli (in this case, light) his sight has nothing to
behold.
That is what I mean by saying that “consciousness” is permanent…like the person’s sense of sight in a pitch black room, the consciousness hasn’t “ceased to be” but has rather ceased to have anything to “
behold” during brain-death or dreamless sleep. Just as we might say that a person in a dark room is “blind”, but without meaning that his sense of sight has actually “ceased to exist” (as is proven by the fact that as soon as the lights are turned on, he will again see, which he wouldn’t if his sense of sight had truly failed him) so too when a brain-dead person, or a person dreamlessly sleeping, is said to be “unconscious” it does not inherently indicate that his/her “consciousness” has “ceased to be” (temporarily or otherwise), just that it currently lacks any stimuli to act as its object.
Again, though, I admit that “consciousness” is not the best word for this, due to the confusion it causes when compared to “unconsciousness” etc. The better word, perhaps, but one that is not so common, is “Qualia,”(
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia) which–if I were to paraphrase–might be described as “
potential consciousness” which is indeed constant in the same way that you might say a man in a pitch black room may not technically have “sight” in that darkness, but he constantly has “potential sight” the entire time, which never goes away just because the room happens to be totally dark, and which is why the moment he has light again, he sees…if his “potential sight” had ceased to be because the room was dark, then even when the light was turned on again, he wouldn’t see.
Just the same, a man’s Qualia (potential consciousness) hasn’t ceased to exist just because he is brain dead or literally dead…it just has no object upon which to act, just as a man’s “sight” has no object on which to act in a pitch dark room.
Qualia is permanent by the mere fact that it’s not something that can be accounted for by brainwaves and such, as those things are composed of matter, while qualia is not something that can be accounted for by being “made of parts.” And whatever is not “made of parts” cannot decompose (since decomposing means to come apart), and therefore must be constant/permanent. Therefore I believe that Qualia (which is what witt meant by Consciousness, I do believe, and is what I have meant by it) is indeed a constant/permanent thing. The soul will always have Qualia (the potential for consciousness) for as long as it exists, even when the body is braindead, even when actual death strikes. I believe that is what distinguishes a soul from being the spiritual equivalent of a rock or a grain of sand or otherwise dead matter. I go into more detail on the importance of Qualia to that distinction in Post# 172.
One more qualifier that must be made is that even “potential” consciousness doesn’t quite describe Qualia…because qualia is never “dormant” nor merely “potential”…it’s always there, as it does not “decompose”, and so in that sense the word “potential” is misleading. It’s simply the best word I can come up with to grant that sometimes there’s nothing of which to
be conscious; but even then (and I think this is an important exception), when there is nothing else of which to be conscious, there is still the pure, indescribable, wordless, thoughtless, emotionless, memory-free fact of one’s own existence. Consciousness of that fact always exists, I believe, and that’s why I believe that in that sense “consciousness always exists” and is not merely “potential consciousness.” But to ONLY be conscious of one’s own existence, without being conscious at the same time of ANY thoughts, words, emotions, memories, sensory perceptions, etc. to make
sense of it, is such an incomprehensible state to the human mind (which relies on those other things in order to communicate/conceive) that I understand why using the word “consciousness” for that state could be confusing. And indeed, it would be a different sort of “consciousness” than any we no how to explain or describe.
It’s hard to explain, because there aren’t many words for it. Even “qualia” fails to some extent if only because it’s not a familiar enough word to instantly conjure up that which it entails. But hopefully I’m not completely failing, despite the limits of language.
Blessings in Christ,
KindredSoul
