>> If individual consciousness does not persist over time, how does one explain existence from one day to the next? Or learning from one situation to the next?
> That's easy: consciousness piggybacks on memory, which is what really creates persistence over time.
One could just as easily say memory is a component of consciousness, be it short or long term versions.
> But an amnesiac can be conscious in the moment and not "learn from one situation to the next".
Amnesia is not the inability to "learn from one situation to the next." It is instead a condition affecting the ability of memory recall. Furthermore, I am unaware of any credible research claiming there exists amnesia such that all memory is blocked.
It is apparent to me you have a firm belief in your position regarding consciousness. I disagree with this position while respecting your right to have it.
Henry Molaison had both temporal lobes removed in 1953 and was unable to learn anything new, but was still conscious.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Molaison
What are you saying? I don't get it.
One can easily say things that aren't true.
> Furthermore, I am unaware of any credible research claiming there exists amnesia such that all memory is blocked.
But others are aware of same.
> It is apparent to me you have a firm belief in your position regarding consciousness.
ad hominem.
Memory is definitely a key component of our thinking processes, but "consciousness" in a philosophical sense is usually taken to refer to the so-called "hard problem" of the phenomenal character of awareness and experience, at its most basic level. The insight that this basic phenomenal character can be impersonal and even momentary in a way that nonetheless fully explains our ordinary experience is quite a substantial simplification! It does seem to make the "hard" problem just a little bit easier, if only by potentially restricting its scope.