Is Consciousness Unique to Human Brains?

[Les Sleeth]

It's sad. When this thread was on the Mind and Brain Sciences board it was a reasonable discussion of various models of consciousness. Then it was moved here to philosophy and it has just been a magnet for evrybody's private theory.

Various PHYSICAL models. If you only allow physicalist theory, then when we are all being physicalist it is good; but if anyone doesn't want to limit themselves to physicalness, then it is not so good.

Let me be open-minded about this. Explain to me how you can claim objectivity SA if you have a physicalist filter in place when you evaluate? The place to question if science is the appropriate research tool for consciousness is right here in philosophy. What is it, can we not admit that science might not be able to evaluate everything that exists? And, if that is so, isn't it appropriate at a science forum to discuss the limitations of science?

 

[selfAdjoint]

Various PHYSICAL models. If you only allow physicalist theory, then when we are all being physicalist it is good; but if anyone doesn't want to limit themselves to physicalness, then it is not so good.

Let me be open-minded about this. Explain to me how you can claim objectivity SA if you have a physicalist filter in place when you evaluate? The place to question if science is the appropriate research tool for consciousness is right here in philosophy. What is it, can we not admit that science might not be able to evaluate everything that exists? And, if that is so, isn't it appropriate at a science forum to discuss the limitations of science?

I don't have any more of a filter in place than you do, Les. You assume that your experiences, which I firmly believe are real, are evidence for something about consciousness, the universe, and everything, and you won't seriously consider the opposite. You know there are what you call physicalist explanations for all these experiences. But you won't take that evidence seriously.

My filter is that evidence has to be sharable, not just its existence, but in principle the repetition of whatever experiment is concerned by the person requiring more or better evidence.

So I tried that experiment in meditation and as you predicted, got nowhere. And even if I devoted the twenty years to it that you thought might be necessary, there's no guarantee anything would happen; mysticism, as I refer to all this, doen't offer any guarantee. It's all about, some people can do it and others, going through the same motions, can't. Look at all those monk stories about the wise guru and the stupid chela.

So a thread where your standards of evidence prevail over "physicalist" ones is a thread open to everybody's pet notion. How can you rule out somebody else's interior insights when you regard your own as inviolable?

 

[loseyourname]

How did this become a thread about physicalist vs. non-physicalist models of consciousness? Heck, how did it become a thread about consciousness at all, at least in the general sense. We've had this discussion 8,000 times by now and this seemed to be a much more specific question. Is there a unitary "self" that is alone responsible for all conscious cognition? Or is it possible that what we experience as a single observer, a single decision-maker, a single speaker, are not necessarily unitary, but can rather be split under certain circumstances? Autophenomenology cannot even, in principle, help us to answer this question unless the practitioner of it has experienced a situation, such as the split-brain or some other form of lesion, that has been shown in medical settings to divide the self. I'm assuming that none of us has ever personally been in such a situation, so how could anything in our personal experience tell us about the possibility of this occurring?

 

[Les Sleeth]

I don't have any more of a filter in place than you do, Les. You assume that your experiences, which I firmly believe are real, are evidence for something about consciousness, the universe, and everything, and you won't seriously consider the opposite.

I give more weight to experience-based reports than theory. Doesn’t that place me in the realm of empiricism? And I take the “opposite” very seriously, which is why I challenge it. It doesn’t make sense!

You know there are what you call physicalist explanations for all these experiences. But you won't take that evidence seriously.

I am not sure why you say I won’t give due consideration to physicalism. If you review my posts, I have consistently rejected it on the basis of not making sense given the evidence.

And then there’s the problem that physicalist extrapolations from what evidence there is takes such unwarranted leaps between facts that a rational person has to protest. I don’t see how a thinker can make those kind of leaps unless they already believe in the theory. You can prove bias by collecting scientific objections to, say, creationist/ID leaps, and noticing physicalists demand a far more conservative standard for inference than they themselves abide by when expounding the probabilities of physicalism.

So what am I to conclude but that physicalists are reacting to religion’s communication tactics without proper regard for objectivity; that is, they are responding in ways they need to in order to keep religion from gaining a foothold with society and undermining science. It isn’t a negative thing to keep religion out of science, but that doesn’t excuse science exaggerations made to the public.

My filter is that evidence has to be sharable, not just its existence, but in principle the repetition of whatever experiment is concerned by the person requiring more or better evidence.

I agree with that standard, but you don’t just require evidence to be sharable and repeatable, you also require it to be externalizable. That requirement basically dismisses the 3000 years of evidence accumulated by inner researchers. What justifies that particular filter? Are we saying that unless one can externalize one’s love for someone, or one’s joy over a beautiful piece of music, or one’s desire to protect nature, etc. . . . it isn’t to be trusted? Why can’t the inner world have its rules, and the outer world have its rules?

So I tried that experiment in meditation and as you predicted, got nowhere. And even if I devoted the twenty years to it that you thought might be necessary, there's no guarantee anything would happen; mysticism, as I refer to all this, doesn't offer any guarantee. It's all about, some people can do it and others, going through the same motions, can't. Look at all those monk stories about the wise guru and the stupid chela.

If I tried studying physics for a couple of weeks, would you be impressed with my conclusions about it? If you devoted 20 years of your time and energy to practicing correctly (practicing incorrectly won’t do it), with true devotion (no different than how one must be truly devoted to anything one hopes to master), then I say it is virtually guaranteed that you will make progress. IMO, the monk/guru stories are more about dedication (or lack of) than anything else.

So a thread where your standards of evidence prevail over "physicalist" ones is a thread open to everybody's pet notion. How can you rule out somebody else's interior insights when you regard your own as inviolable?

I challenge you to show me criticizing physicalism on any other basis than its lack of evidence, and its exaggerations of the significance of the evidence they have. When one observes, for instance, a few amino acids self-organizing, and then extrapolates from that tiny bit of structure it’s the basis of self organization for the origin of life, that is logically ludicrous to every competent thinker except the physicalist believer. And if one judges things based on a priori beliefs and then calls it science to the public, the public’s trust in science has been betrayed by “believers” who feel it is more important to win the religion-science battle than it is to report absolutely, 100% accurately what the facts are, and what the significance of those facts are.

How can you rule out somebody else's interior insights when you regard your own as inviolable?

But I haven’t ruled out anything. I am open to whatever makes sense and is supported by evidence. It isn’t me who is maintaining strong opinions without proper evidence. The only strong opinion I have is that propositions be reported with the degree of certainty that evidence and logic support. And I don’t regard my insights as inviolable. I simply object to inner practitioners’ reports being dismissed out of hand by people who openly admit they won’t accept anything that can’t be externalized.

 

[Les Sleeth]

How did this become a thread about physicalist vs. non-physicalist models of consciousness? Heck, how did it become a thread about consciousness at all, at least in the general sense. We've had this discussion 8,000 times by now and this seemed to be a much more specific question.

It became about physicalist-nonphysicalist because those are the two main positions in this debate. It became about consciousness because the observer aspect is what many claim defines consciousness. We might have had this dialogue here many times, but new members or older members who never saw it before bring up the subject again. Should we tell people we aren’t going to discuss any subject we’ve previously talked about?

Philosophical discussions aren’t necessarily for the purpose of reaching conclusions; they help people learn to think critically. Should a topic be criticized simply because it’s been debated many times?

 

[RVBuckeye]

Les or SA, I want to get your take on an article I read. I will admit it is old and I haven't been able to see where it has been talked about before on PF without going through thousands of threads. I stumbled on it while I was looking for another paper about rats going through mazes and then repeating with different sections of the brain removed. The one I found is relevant to this discussion, imo, because it might show some sort of an observer at a cellular level. I don't know what to make of it yet.

Scientists at the university of Florida taught the 'brain', which was grown from 25,000 neural cells extracted from a rat embryo, to pilot an F-22 jet simulator. It was taught to control the flight path, even in mock hurricane-strength winds.

"When we first hooked them up, the plane 'crashed' all the time," Dr Thomas DeMarse, an assistant professor of biomedical engineering at the University of Florida, said. "But over time, the neural network slowly adapts as the brain learns to control the pitch and roll of the aircraft. After a while, it produces a nice straight and level trajectory."

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/12/07/rat_brain_flies_jet/

I don't want to jump to any conclusions, or even assert that this proves anything. However, if neurons can organise themselves in order to repeat a task, isn't that hinting at an observer being required?

 

[selfAdjoint]

am not sure why you say I won’t give due consideration to physicalism. If you review my posts, I have consistently rejected it on the basis of not making sense given the evidence.

I have read your posts, and I think your "doesn't make sense" is just purely defensive, that you don't really couple to the cognitive science research or to zooby's explanations in terms of micro seizure, but just hand wave them away. I remain open to anything you may have to say on this issue, because apart from name-calling, it's all that stands between us.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Les or SA, I want to get your take on an article I read. I will admit it is old and I haven't been able to see where it has been talked about before on PF without going through thousands of threads. I stumbled on it while I was looking for another paper about rats going through mazes and then repeating with different sections of the brain removed. The one I found is relevant to this discussion, imo, because it might show some sort of an observer at a cellular level. I don't know what to make of it yet.


http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/12/07/rat_brain_flies_jet/

I don't want to jump to any conclusions, or even assert that this proves anything. However, if neurons can organise themselves in order to repeat a task, isn't that hinting at an observer being required?

Sure, they did this, and it shows that natural neuron networks can learn complex realtime tasks; it's been known for decades that the AI models of neural networks, which are way simpler than natural ones, can learn complex tasks, that's the basis of neural net computing.

In another experiment, these Florida scientists wired a living rat's visual cortex up to a display, and then they could see "what the rat sees" (Hello-o-o Nagel!). They did a bunch of experiments with this setup to show that what they were seeing matched what the conscious rat was seeing. Then they continued wiring the brain up to a robot arm, and taught the rat to move the arm, still with the rat's visual field on their display. The living rat learned to control the arm. So I suppose this is their followup, to see how little "life force" is necessary to do complicated things.

Rat brains are not trivial; this isn't some worm running trick, they are within strikining distance (ethical considerations apart) of doing this kind of thing with human brains.

 

[loseyourname]

It became about physicalist-nonphysicalist because those are the two main positions in this debate.

How are those the two positions when the question is do we have a single, unitary, indivisible self? The two positions are yes and no.

It became about consciousness because the observer aspect is what many claim defines consciousness. We might have had this dialogue here many times, but new members or older members who never saw it before bring up the subject again. Should we tell people we aren’t going to discuss any subject we’ve previously talked about?

We can discuss any topic that is philosophical in nature, no matter how many times it has been discussed in the past. That doesn't justify bringing exactly the same focus to many different threads that are not all asking the same question.

Philosophical discussions aren’t necessarily for the purpose of reaching conclusions; they help people learn to think critically. Should a topic be criticized simply because it’s been debated many times?

Do you honestly think I don't know what a philosophical discussion is for? The topic isn't being criticized. I happen to have quite a keen interest in this topic. The straying from the topic is what is being criticized.

I fully recognize the position that there exists a non-material observer, not bound to the body or brain, that is responsible for our sense of self, as a possible hypothesis. That's fine; go ahead and argue for it. What bothers me is that every time something of this nature gets brought up, either you come in with your wholesale dismissal of physical theory, or someone else comes with a wholesale dismissal of meditational learning, and we end up in a discussion of methodology and bias. That seems to be all we discuss.

 

[dgoodpasture2005]

I think there is a question that needs to be answered here. Maybe we should all work in unison instead of arguing everytime, to try and find the truth within it so that it never comes up again. What I am witnessing seems to be two sides both claiming that they have the truth about a subject, but no one can completely prove their point with 100% factual evidence. So in turn we have arguments break out because no one wants to work together and see what can be achieved. Find the truth guys, it's not about winning an argument. Get somewhere. I think you guys should all give each other a big PF hug and start over :P

 

[RVBuckeye]

For the record, I try my best to remove any filter. I am as sceptical of science as I am of religion. I will say that doing research on rat brains provides some beneficial data on the subject. Maybe a little more than meditation could provide alone.

Sure, they did this, and it shows that natural neuron networks can learn complex realtime tasks; it's been known for decades that the AI models of neural networks, which are way simpler than natural ones, can learn complex tasks, that's the basis of neural net computing.

In another experiment, these Florida scientists wired a living rat's visual cortex up to a display, and then they could see "what the rat sees" (Hello-o-o Nagel!). They did a bunch of experiments with this setup to show that what they were seeing matched what the conscious rat was seeing. Then they continued wiring the brain up to a robot arm, and taught the rat to move the arm, still with the rat's visual field on their display. The living rat learned to control the arm. So I suppose this is their followup, to see how little "life force" is necessary to do complicated things.

Rat brains are not trivial; this isn't some worm running trick, they are within strikining distance (ethical considerations apart) of doing this kind of thing with human brains.

So what do you suppose this research is pointing to. Is there a correlation of number of neurons to conciousness? Is there a correlation to brain size? At what point does conciousness begin?

What input do you think the boy in this article would have on this discussion?

http://www.mind-energy.net/archives/53-Another-update-on-meditating-boy-in-Nepal.html

 

[PIT2]

This story appeared a few days ago:

Are patients in a coma conscious? No one knows, but Damasio thinks not. Consciousness, he explained, includes not only brain activity but a sense of self. So even though stimulation can activate parts of the brain of comatose patients, they probably do not have a sense of self.

When people talk in their sleep, are they conscious? Probably to some degree, Damasio speculated, because consciousness seems to be necessary for speaking. And the same holds for sleepwalking, he reasoned. "But I'm not sure," he confessed. "All I know about consciousness and sleepwalking comes from Lady MacBeth."

And how about people who assume more than one personality? Do they have more than one consciousness? Damasio believes not because he has never heard of anyone simultaneously engaging in multiple personalities. Yet an analyst in the audience challenged his conclusion: "I have worked with patients who have exhibited more than one personality at one time."
http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/41/5/13?etoc

I wonder what that last guy in the audience meant with his remark because i have difficulty imagining it. Was this person with multiple simultaneous personalities having conversations with himself?

 

[selfAdjoint]

This story appeared a few days ago:

----skip---

I wonder what that last guy in the audience meant with his remark because i have difficulty imagining it. Was this person with multiple simultaneous personalities having conversations with himself?

Multiple Personality Disorder is a well-known deficit. In the typical case the different personalities "inhabit" the patient at different times, may have different given names, and may or may not be aware of each other.

A famous case produced the book and movie "The Three Faces of Eve".

 

[-Job-]

But does it imply multiple consciousnesses? Maybe a personality is like a suit and a consciousness the body. You can wear many suits, more than one at the same time even, without having more than two bodies.

 

[clouded.perception]

Oops, you slipped up. Collection of data is one thing, and then having something else observe that collecting process is another. You are simply describing the physical ability to sense or detect. As of now, there is no known way to prove what or who is aware of what is sensed. That is why this subject is controversial.


Just to clarify, my point is that the collection and use of data is the same thing as observation. That's what we're doing, when we see and think. We observe.


Well, computing (thinking) is also something different than the thinker. You are still one step away from accounting for the "self" of consciousness.


Again, my whole point: where's the difference? What "self"?



Are you familiar with the zombie analogy? We don't need an observer aspect of consciousness to function in ways beneficial to survival. We could go through the motions, like a zombie, and never need to know we did, or have a sense of self. So why is there a self? Of course, one explain the observer aspect away by insisting it's an illusion.[/QUOTE]

What makes people assume that we're more 'conscious' than a zombie. The whole idea is this: we think. We think in ways beneficial to our own survival; that is, we think in terms of 'self'. This is consciousness, isn't it?

 

[clouded.perception]

dgood, here's something I think is right up your alley --
Look up something called "Gaia Hypothesis" (it is also occasionally referred to as "Gaia Theory", though it is not technically a theory or a hypothesis). It's basically a way of looking at the world (or universe, or society, or whatever level you like) as a single, living creature.

 

[PIT2]

Multiple Personality Disorder is a well-known deficit. In the typical case the different personalities "inhabit" the patient at different times, may have different given names, and may or may not be aware of each other.

A famous case produced the book and movie "The Three Faces of Eve".

Ive heard about MPD and seen it in movies and documentaries, but its always been 1 personality at a time, where another personality can be triggered by events and take over. But I've never seen anything about multiple personalities at the same time, like that audience member claims.

 

[dgoodpasture2005]

dgood, here's something I think is right up your alley --
Look up something called "Gaia Hypothesis" (it is also occasionally referred to as "Gaia Theory", though it is not technically a theory or a hypothesis). It's basically a way of looking at the world (or universe, or society, or whatever level you like) as a single, living creature.

Thank you, I'll make note of that, and hopefully I'll have some time one of these days between music and my self teaching ways of philosophy to fit it in... I wish I could stop time, it'd be so much easier :P Hmm... *idea* j/k

 

[munky99999]

i think this is rather interesting.

It's almost as if the old old version of how the brain works. where different parts control different parts of your personality.

I also like to point out the whole devil on one shoulder, and angel on the other, both whispering in your ear. This would be similar to how the brain would be working. How one part of your brain being completely for agression being it's own and it essentially be talking in your ear telling you how to be aggressive.

I also like to point out how this is also rather related to multiple personality disorders. That perhaps the wall between them whispering in your ear and actually becoming that personallity.

I don't know this is kinda interesting. However. I really don't give it much credence. It mostly sounds like its using old science.

Note: i haven't read anything of the thread, except a couple of the first posts. and I am going to mexico tommorrow. so won't be home in awhile.

 

[loseyourname]

Ive heard about MPD and seen it in movies and documentaries, but its always been 1 personality at a time, where another personality can be triggered by events and take over. But I've never seen anything about multiple personalities at the same time, like that audience member claims.

Disassociative disorder, depicted in the film Fight Club, would be an example of two personalities simultaneously inhabiting the same body. Only one is aware it is in that body at a time, however, and thinks the other is in a separate body.

 

[munky99999]

Disassociative disorder, depicted in the film Fight Club, would be an example of two personalities simultaneously inhabiting the same body. Only one is aware it is in that body at a time, however, and thinks the other is in a separate body.

there have been a lot of these. but your right fight club was a good example.

Ive read a few cases which people have 5-10 different personalities. Moreso emotional type characteristcs and not other personalities. Where they are somewhat bi-polar. where they take those 10 personalities and they randomly mix together depending on the situations around them.

there has been a lot of different ones. Like xfiles had a good one. Which they used an actual person to base off of. But the person was essentially a normal kind of person. But sometimes if certain situations come together. An alternative personality which tends to be a completely different person. Though xfiles had a story about how this alternative personality actually was like a reincarnation of a previous life of the soul. But that's just a story.

Know what would be interesting. If animals like mice or dogs. also have disorders like this. Bi-polar dog. It would definitely be pretty good thing as for scientist learning how to diagnose and cure and such the disorders. Only problem i could see. How exactly do you figure out if a dog is bi-polar?

Hell I've had dogs all my life and I've seen them in a very playful mood. and a little later be completely bored of me. But i doubt they were bi-polar, they just got bored of me

 

[kant]

Maybe the question is, if you wanted to make something be conscious, how would you go about it? Like, write a computer program that thinks it is conscious. I think what i would do is start by having some simple data input to the program. The program reads this data input, but it also must be aware that it is reading the data input. That seems to be fundamental. So, interestingly, if you think about it, the program doesn't only have data as input, it also receives itself as input, because it must be aware of itself reading the data input. It sounds like a recursive function.
If i had to bet i'd say one of the things that leads to consciousness is the fact that our outputs are also our inputs. We can hear our own words and see our own movements, but also, most importantly, we can read our own thoughts.
So our minds start with some data, modify it into output, then read it as input along with some other data, and this process continues.
Say the initial data is data0, then, if our mind is represented by function Mind(data), then:
data1 = Mind(data0) + externalData0
data2 = Mind(data1) + externalData1
data3 = Mind(data2) + externalData2

Which can be rewritten as:
Mind(Mind(Mind(Mind(Mind(data0, externalData0)), externalData1), externalData2)

So it would be recursive function, which is basically a loop. This seems reasonable because in my experience at least, consciousness seems to be the product of a loop. It's like what you get when you place two mirrors facing each other, except in this case, it's more like a mirror facing itself.
If you want a picture showing recursion, then take a look at this one:
http://www.teezeh.info/wp-content/recursive.jpg
Or this animation, kind of creepy:
http://www.mantasoft.co.uk/_stuff/Recursive.htm
Notice that this establishes a timeline. Our perception of time could be based on the recursive nature of consciousness.
It's also interesting to note that, assuming that the function Mind() stays the same, the only thing that determine the next output is the previous input and the current external input. What this means is that there must be some versions of the function Mind() that would be able to "intentionally" produce certain outputs, effectively telling the function where to go next (read: tell itself what to do).

So what is this "externalData" ? is it "experience"?

What is a "output"?

I am not convince.

 

[kant]

Every now and then I run across this idea that the human mind may not work in such a way that there is a single I. In fact, one day I caught a noted neuroscientist saying that there is no I, instead we only percieve the illusion of an I that results from an ensemble of separate minds working together.

This has always bothered me since it seems to ignore the question: Who is being fooled?

What is an "ensemble of separate minds working together" mean?

what do you mean by "I run across this idea that the human mind may not work in such a way that there is a single I"?

 

[kant]

Read http://med.fsu.edu/gsm/hp/program/section8/8ch15/s8c15_22.htm from the FSU medical school. In cases such as these patients with hemispheric separation, each half of the brain has its own "self" that is cut off from the other, as if two people occupied the same head. Although we'll likely privilege the half of the brain responsible for creating verbal responses as being the true "I," there really is no good reason I can think of to do so.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that the unity of subjective experience in normally functioning humans is a complete illusion, but it certainly is not a necessary aspect of human existence. The self you have now is fully contingent, and could be split at least in two, possibly moreso.

What do you mean by "self" in your first paragraphy? If each hemisphere represent their own unique self, then perhaps it is their combine interaction that produce the state of consciousness?

 

[loseyourname]

What do you mean by "self" in your first paragraphy? If each hemisphere represent their own unique self, then perhaps it is their combine interaction that produce the state of consciousness?

By "self," I mean a single, unified field of conscious experience, continuous over time. Prior to the excision of the corpus callosum, these patients experience a normal sense of self, in which all of the conscious experiences processed in the brain are present in a single, unified field. After the excision (which cuts off communication between the two hemispheres), there are two fields of conscious experience, one which contains all of the information processed by the right hemisphere, and one which contains all of the information processed by the left hemisphere.

The suggests that the brain is indefinitely divisible (although I'm sure there is a limit to how much division could be carried out). We could theoretically cut off communication between any number of brain sections responsible for the perception of different sense data, or from different parts of the body, and divide the consciousness into many selves, each of which experiences only a small portion of what is going on in the whole body.

And yes, in normal humans, we experience everything that is being perceived through out various sensory organs, which combine to create a single "self." I'm not saying these combine to create consciousness, as I think each divided part is still conscious; they simply combine to create the sense of being one person directing and sensing the entire body that normal humans experience. The implication is that this sense is contingent, and not necessary. In fact, if the hypothesis were true, we might even theoretically extend it in the other direction, and speculate that perhaps two brains joined together in the way the two hemispheres are would become one person.

 

[-Job-]

Do twins conjoined at the head share a single consciousness?

 

[loseyourname]

Do twins conjoined at the head share a single consciousness?

I don't think there has ever been a case in which two brains were physical connected in such a way that synaptic connections actually spanned both brains, even if two heads were physically joined and shared, say, common skin or bone material.

As far as I know, in cases where conjoined twins do actually share a common organ, it's only one organ, rather than two hooked together.

 

[-Job-]

In Wikipedia it says that:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conjoined_twins][/PLAIN]
In some cases, parts of the brain have been known to be shared between conjoined twins joined at the head.

 

[kant]

After the excision (which cuts off communication between the two hemispheres), there are two fields of conscious experience, one which contains all of the information processed by the right hemisphere, and one which contains all of the information processed by the left hemisphere.

I take it that you mean by "conscious experience" as to mean "conscious awearness". Well, there might be other measures/indicators of "conscious". For me, a "conscious" individual has the ability for a kind of self-reflection that leads to changes in his/her own behavior pattern. This process implies the ability to acquire new skills/knowledges, which each field hemisphere cannot do by itself. Perhaps, after the excision, a person might still be "awear" in the sense that animals are awear of their own surroundings, but that is it. That is not enough for "conscious awearness".

 

[loseyourname]

I take it that you mean by "conscious experience" as to mean "conscious awearness". Well, there might be other measures/indicators of "conscious". For me, a "conscious" individual has the ability for a kind of self-reflection that leads to changes in his/her own behavior pattern. This process implies the ability to acquire new skills/knowledges, which each field hemisphere cannot do by itself. Perhaps, after the excision, a person might still be "awear" in the sense that animals are awear of their own surroundings, but that is it. That is not enough for "conscious awearness".

What makes you say that? They don't lose the ability to use language; they don't lose their memories; they don't lose the ability to learn; they don't lose the ability to function normally in everyday life. Both hemispheres carry out much of the same function, with the primary differences being the right hemisphere processes information obtained from the left side of the body and vice versa. If you want to simulate much of what it's like, just paralyze one side of your body, blind one eye, and deafen one ear. It doesn't reduce you to the level of a dumb beast.