- you suffer from an oversimplified cause-effect distortion in thinking.
Example: Can humans change the flow of rivers?
Answer: Yes, they can.
But, one might argue do humans control the rain that falls that fill up the rivers? If they do not control the rain that falls, how can they say they’ve changed the flow of the river? After all, if you cut off the rain, you don’t have a river.
Neurons are a fundamental part of the ecosystem of the neurological system, just as raindrops could be considered a “source of water”. (you can go further back in the process if you like).
But even though you cannot control individual neurons, NEITHER DO THOSE INDIVIDUAL NEURONS CONTROL HIGHER LEVEL PROCESSES.
Access and retrieval of memories (grammatically conscious or faster than n400 mark (400ms)) could arguably be a “source of consciousness”, which could also account for states of experience that overwhelm with novelty faster / more intense than we can process into words (faster than n400). “pure experience”, “in the zone”, “flow”.
Going all the way down to individual neurons is ridiculous.
Our systems have “backups” as it were. Brain plasticity allows for “rewiring” of the brain and the matter of the brain changes shape, size and form throughout our lives.
Like the Ship of Theseus, you are BOTH who you were and _also_ entirely new.
Sure there are. Find me a human that exists separate from some form of interaction from the outside from birth. You can’t.
But it’s not. Physical therapy, effortful training, these things do guide and shape the processes. You don’t just sit there as it “just happens”.
You talk as if the consciousness is formed and shapes solely through its interaction with itself.
Sure you do. Pinpoint precision control? No. But tried and true methods to modify brain plasticity are in use daily by millions for years and they work.
u can be locked in a prison hole with no interference from the outside, and your brain will still fire neurons and change in ways outside of your control.”
Once formed? Sure. But babies physically die without social interaction.
I learned about the babies that died without affection in Psych 101. Might be “science apocryphal”, the stuff that gets told and retold to prove a point, although I remember seeing a film from the 1930s documenting it in the. Yet, looking around, I see it attributed to something in the US in 1944 or the 1930s German, other times with other names attached.
Still, I don’t think feral children is a counterpoint to it because they lack of a history. WHEN they became separate makes a huge difference.
Is it prior to ego development? 3 months? 6 months? 9 months? If it’s 2 yrs or beyond, I’m sure they could survive somehow.