🧵 View Thread
🧵 Thread (10 tweets)
in epistemic logic, people sometimes use the axiom "if you know A, then you know that you know A" this isn't really true when talking about humans, and i think it's this sort of mistake, but swapping "know" with "are aware of" that has fucked a lot of thinking on consciousness
summing up recent thought: X being in GNW is "experiencing X" / "being aware of X", and reflective awareness is when your map of what's happening in your head is fed through the GNW https://t.co/aRK83dVkyW
there's a discrete and incremental nature to this. you can only experience one thing at a time. in a given moment, you cannot both be aware of X, and be aware that you're aware of X. you could rapidly toggle between the two, but they don't happen as one
as you experience, some of that exp is recorded in your map of "what I'm experiencing" the map can note multiple levels "you felt X, you felt you felt X" and maybe all that can be quote in a form that can be experienced in one go
this seems VERY important for discussion on what happens when we *aren't* conscious "highway hypnosis, u ain't conscious then" "but if I was prompted to report on consciousness while driving, surely I could comment on what I was feeling in the moments before being prompted"
if you aren't prompted to reflection, none of the drive will have made it into your map of yourself, and you won't be able to report awareness of any of it but if prompted mid drive, you'll be able to pull your most recent exp into your map, and reflectively experience them
another frame: to report awareness of something, it must be the case that you are experiencing something other than the thing. what you can report experiencing of, or what you can experience experiencing, is always at least one off from what you are experiencing *in that moment*