Apparently it's just too simple for some people to comprehend, but it's merely the awareness of one's own existence; and it seems self-evident to yours truly that it's the most elementary aspect of human consciousness, the capacity for reflection and for intuitively telling right from wrong being higher order functions thereof. What many people seem not to understand is that it cannot be an emergent property of the cogitative process, as said process can, at least temporarily, obliterate the self-awareness of the cogitator - hence the expression, "lost in thought". Anybody have a problem with any of that?
Another aspect of self-awareness is the consciousness of one's self as a unique individual. Decades ago there was an excellent series called The Prisoner, which included an episode entitled "Schizoid Man", wherein the villains literally tried to convince the hero that he was not himself. I remember the hero saying, "I have a very strong sense of identity", and, as a child, wondering why anyone would need that, and how anyone could be convinced that he's someone else. Later in life I came to see that such a thing is not only possible, it happens all the time - perhaps the most horrific example in modern times being boys who think they're really girls and vice versa. I can go into it a little more if there's any interest.
This is still too complicated or too simple for me to comprehend. What about a computer which is aware of itself, in that it has memory allocated associated to itself and which it knows is associated with itself? Does that count? And if not, how is that different to humans? Not sure what you're referring to in your example. Do you think society influences us like this too, like boys being suppo
A computer doesn't know anything in the sense that a living organism does, because it hasn't got a self. Cat gotcher tongue?
The one thing science has had a very difficult time explaining is self awareness. Who is it that is aware of itself when you, for example, look in the mirror and recognize yourself ? In essence, who is the "you" and what is the driver of the body itself ?
While we know quite a lot about in what way computers know things, how do you make the claim that human knowledge doesn't work in the same way? I suppose it did. Was supposed to say: Not sure what you're referring to in your example. Do you think society influences us like this too, like boys being supposed to like things like cars?
To me, just watching my own, there seems to be awareness, and then there is self awareness. Awareness isn't a state of duality, where self awareness is a state of duality. In self awareness, consciousness divides itself into the thinker and the thought the observer and the observed the experiencer and the experience. This state seems to consist of the past, as memory. I am looking out at the world, but the looker is the past, as memory. My identity, and all that I think I am is due to what is contained in my memory. Here is an example of the two which we probably have all experienced. You are driving down the road, aware of the traffic and your response to that, but also you are thinking about various things, constantly. Suddenly you top over a hill, and you see the most extraordinary sunset you have ever seen and its beauty for a nanosecond stops all thought stops all memory in its movement as thought, and there is just for a moment just awareness. And then thought comes back in, and says, what a magnificent sunset, the best I have ever seen. But during that moment of just awareness, when the beauty takes over and thought stops there is no sense of self awareness at all, there is a singular awareness only of that sunset. At that nanosecond, there is only the sunset. This has happened to us all, but perhaps not a sunset, yet we pay no mind to it. We don't notice the different states of awareness.
I believe that self awareness and awareness of surroundings are too different things. Being self aware is merely being aware of one's own individuality including one's own thought processes. Many other animals are self aware. "being lost in thought" is about the temporary suspension of ones awareness of one's senses and surroundings, it does not mean loss of self awareness. IMHO being lost in thought requires both self awareness and sapience, a combination that markedly sets us apart from the rest of the animal kingdom. .
You should watch some of the star trek eps (later series, not the original) which deal with this question in a 'world' which has both human rights and androids. simplistic, but does force you to think about it beyond the point our current technology does.
I told you how. Presumably you have a problem with the idea that a computer doesn't have a self, but until you say why the conversation has nowhere to go. That question leads down a road to nowhere, so rather than get bogged down in the gender issue I'll just point out that drug addicts, e.g., engage in self-destructive behavior because they see themselves as creatures that require that sort of stimulation when that is clearly against the best interest of their real selves. No, the thought process is separate from consciousness, through which the self is able to control it. No, all your memory contains is data. Most likely there's plenty in there you'd never miss if it disappeared; but even if it were wiped clean, you'd still be you. No they aren't. If they were they'd show signs of having a conscience, and they don't. Perhaps you'd like to point to the sapience in a mathematician being so engrossed in solving the Riemann Hypothesis while driving that he plows into a pedestrian. Certainly it's true that animals can't be lost in thought, but that's because they can't be lost at all in the sense of being in a place they don't belong, as humans can. If the antelope gets separated from the herd, that's because it belongs in the belly of the lion.
You could say it like that, but I'd rather phrase it as me having a problem with the idea that human have a self. Or rather, that the self of a human is anything above a computer's self-reference (albeit a pretty complicated self-reference). Cool, let's not get the issues muddled. I'm afraid I'm still not getting the entire argument. I'm not saying I disagree with it, I just don't understand how it is put together.
I have never understood why philosophers have such a hard time with this. Why can't consciousness / self-awareness simply be another property of matter that is of sufficient complexity? Why create something outside of the material world (ie the world of particles, forces, energy, laws of physics, etc), when no such world is known to exist?
boredom? inability to achieve any sort of contentment? sense of entitlement? I don't understand it either, so just playing with possible reasons.
Of course they show self awareness. Explain elephants grieving for "loved ones" as has been extensively documented. Self awareness is conscientiousness. "Having a conscience" is not the same thing, since in such context, it is exclusively about morality. I suspect you might benefit from a dictionary. It is sapience that enables somebody to become a mathematician. It is sapience that creates the body of knowledge that enables the mathematician to work on other peoples ideas. And once again, the accident is caused by the mathematicians brain temporarily suspending various sensory inputs. Kinda like a multi tasking computer with a glitch in how many systems resources to apply to a particular computing thread. what?
Swell, but you still haven't said why. Dunno what I can do about that. Because of itself, complexity is not sufficient to account for even such sentience as bacteria manifest. Who do you figure is creating anything here? The reason for looking outside the material realm is that no one has found anything therein which accounts for the existence of self-awareness.
Big deal. Millions grieved over the death of Stalin, but obviously that testified to their lack of self-awareness. No, as I said to begin with, conscientiousness is a higher function of human consciousness. sapient [sey-pee-uh nt] Word Origin adjective 1. having or showing great wisdom or sound judgment. Perhaps you'd like to explain how an act of great wisdom or sound judgment can result in negligent homicide. No, the accident is caused by the mathematician caring more about self-aggrandizement than about the life of another human being. Perhaps English is your second language?
Well, I see humans managing to use self references, and I see computers managing to use self references. I know I'm a human and I manage to do it, but I am not a computer, so I cannot compare my experience to its. Thus, I can't make the distinction. You could restate it in a readable manner.
I suspect someone is going to mention "soul" (not James Brown soul, but the human "soul") very soon. See, I was right, I just did. All the wonderful functions of the brain and the concept of "mind" disappear when we are dead. The brain ceases to function and the self is no more. Self-awareness, useful for the process of existence, disappears with the loss of brain function. The sense of "self" that we have is simply the accumulation of remembered experience. Without memory there is no self. If there is a "soul" then it is memory.
Bearing in mind that a paper document can also reference itself, you might want to rethink the value of such a comparison. Why would I repeat the process?
This is why I restated your objection. I wasn't challenging that self-reference on a paper or computer is simple, I was challenging the idea that human selves is anything more complicated (in fundamental terms, obviously, humans are more complicated, but that doesn't mean fundamentally different). Because I didn't understand it the first time. The fact that drug addicts can display self-destructive behaviour is no more surprising than that computers can be programmed to have self-destructive behaviour.
Who said anything about that? Which might be interesting if a computer had a self, in which case it could possbly care about its own destruction. Things being what they are...
