A very interesting topic which also gave me many hours of thought. Thank you for bringing it up.
I am left with the conclusion that consciousness could very well be divisible. There's possibility that the human brain could hold multiple consciousness, each one truly as real as the the one you know as you.
I think this is perfectly normal. How else would it be possible to empathise with other people and perspectives? It would not be possible at all. When we follow a play (film, theatre), we are able to recognise each character as peculiar and we, as observers, can understand each of these characters in their feelings and actions. In my view, a person who can put himself in these different roles is a human being precisely because he has an awareness of himself, which at the same time enables him to experience and make himself aware of those of others as well. The division of the self into many selves, which is also considered schizophrenic, is nevertheless primarily not pathological, but normal. At least as long as one does not insist that the people or imaginary figures that exist in one's consciousness must be materially visible to others.
If you have ever written a book or a screenplay, you will notice that the characters develop a kind of life of their own and that as an author you feel a certain amazement that you, as the creator of the characters, write things that they do that you did not necessarily intend precisely. There is a blurring between character and author. I think this is the effect of being able to take on multiple personalities and surprise yourself in a way that is hard to describe, that you didn't anticipate the outcome of a scene.
Since the transition from homo sapiens to man, his awareness of himself is a kind of curse and blessing at the same time. This ability brings the individual into constant conflict with the group, the many others, where he makes (must make) a distinction between group will and self-will.
I'll copy you some paragraphs from a book, I am right now reading, in another comment.
Greetings.
Ooo that's a thought that never occured to me. I do believe you are right though, it makes since to me that the ability to emphasize comes from the ability to live out another life inside of our own. Everyday people just not noticing it because it usually only happens in fractions of a second.
And your right, I've never gotten into novel writing myself, but I have heard famous authors who describe exactly what you are saying here. It would also explain why some actors get so in character that they struggle to get out.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts on this. You gave me a lot to think about as well. And I'll definitely check out your article , and probably that book as well.
Thank you for your appreciative response, I am pleased very much when I can surprise someone else :)
Often, we are not really aware of such things that are so self-evident. The most impressive abilities of us humans belong to us like our skin and are so normal that we hardly notice them. Unless you work with them like all writers, screenwriters or even Gestalt psychologists do. In my training, a very exciting module dealt precisely with this, with the stage that every human being enters in his or her inner being, as you say, in just a fraction of a second, and where every situation in which, for example, a decision has to be made, is played by the various characters of this inner stage. We trainees were asked by our teacher to imagine a certain scene in which a spontaneous decision had to be made and we were asked to write down which different voices and arguments appeared on the stage. I found the results fascinating and have never forgotten it since. The same scene, the same location, the same person has the possibility to vary here at any time.
Because this is so, because the human being is capable of taking countless perspectives, it is sometimes so difficult to be asked to make a fundamental decision about something. I therefore find principles helpful to have an orientation, but they become a shackle if one wants to emphasise or even force a "one for all rule" too much. The schizophrenic mind knows that this is not possible; opposed to this is the part that believes in the idea of the one-dimensional and is therefore prone to error.
Have you read the article?