A new look at Self-Consciousness (Question reality)

[A Higher Enlightenment]

Before we begin, I'd like to make it clear that I am new to philosophy in general. Any positive constructive feedback, along the way, would be awesome!
I hope you enjoy this post, happy reading!

(ABOUT)
This post is an attempt at tackling what I think Self-Consciousness is, from a new perspective.
To understand "My view" on what Self-Consciousness, and Self-Awareness is, we must first understand what I think consciousness is; and how and why I believe it to be different than awareness. This sets the stage for everything else to fall into place.


What do I think Consciousness, and Unconsciousness, are, and what do they require?

Consciousness is simply the state of being Alive and Awake.

If you are not awake you are unconscious.

Being conscious or unconscious requires Life.

In conclusion, consciousness is simply the state of being alive and awake; Unconsciousness is the state of being alive and not awake.

What do I think awareness is?

Awareness is the acknowledgment and realization of experiences.

When you experience something, you become aware of it.

If I died instantly vs death by bleeding out, I wouldn't experience anything.

Does Awareness require being awake?

My answer to this is, that it depends on the awareness you are referring to. From My understanding, the mind is capable of (Awareness) and (Sub-Awareness).

Awareness & Sub-Awareness
Both require a combination of the ability to use Physiological Sensory Perception and Intelligence with an immediate direct perception to be aware of the experience. Then acquire a belief in what is currently perceived as reality.

So, what's the difference Then?
The difference is reality!

I believe Sub-Awareness is the experience of thought and emotions, that are triggered by a false sense of reality
(i.e) dreaming, daydreaming, and even Illusions.

When you dream there is no reality to it. Yet while you dream, you participate and engage with it as if it were real. Just like being fearful in a nightmare, you experience fear through a false sense of reality, Emotions, and thoughts, are something we experience.

If you experience fear in a nightmare, you are aware of something while you sleep, but are not aware it is a dream.

In conclusion, Sub-Awareness is the false sense of reality driven by belief from experiences that you are temporarily unaware are not real. Are these not dreams?

In conclusion, Awareness is the state of being awake and applying Intelligence and immediate direct perception. To acquire an understanding of physical reality, but is it really that simple?

Another quick example of how we can get a false sense of reality, in the real world. Are the pictures below. One shows two obvious Square like shapes of different shades, it appears that the one on top is much darker than the bottom. Without any further information to tell us otherwise, we can think and believe this to be true.




Open the spoiler for more information that, they are indeed the same shade.

---

Spoiler

In the event you do not trust what you see, you can hold two fingers up and between the light and dark square in the first picture. This will produce the same result.

I believe awareness and consciousness are not the same.
The concept is often used as synonymous with consciousness and to describe Consciousness itself.
I, however, disagree with this completely.

Whereas awareness of physical reality requires consciousness, it does not mean that everything conscious is aware.

In a Vegetative state, one is ALIVE but they may not be aware of anything at all. However, in rare cases, studies have shown this is not always the case.

In conclusion, if you can be awake but not aware, then to be conscious does not mean to be aware.

What I think Self Awareness and Self Consciousness are, and what they require.

We must first understand I believe there are two parts to Self-Awareness (Self and Awareness). We have a good understanding of what awareness is based on the previous conclusion.

What do I believe Self to be?

Simply put, I believe the Self is the essential being that one is what separates oneself from others. I believe this to be your personality, what it is to be you, in your immediate reality.

I believe personality is acquired from the direct result of one's environment, introspection, and reflexive action as well as belief.

(i.e) If someone were born in a lab, to never know about the outside world. It is all they will ever know, and this is all they believe to be their reality. What would the personality of this individual be like under these sets of conditions?

In conclusion, Self-Awareness is the awareness of one's physical body, and the experience and feelings of one's personality or individuality, to be aware of oneself as a direct result of their perception of reality.

So, what is Self-Conscious, and what does it require.
I believe to be Self-Conscious, you must be Alive, Aware of yourself, Awake, and Aware that you are Alive and Awake!
In my Conclusion, this requires the understanding that you were once asleep. And I believe that requires the experience of a dream, and understanding dreams are not reality. You don't wake up in a dream, you wake up in reality.

 

[Led Zeppelin]

So, what is Self-Conscious, and what does it require.
I believe to be Self-Conscious, you must be Alive, Aware of yourself, Awake, and Aware that you are Alive and Awake!
In my Conclusion, this requires the understanding that you were once asleep. And I believe that requires the experience of a dream, and understanding dreams are not reality. You don't wake up in a dream, you wake up in reality.

Sounds good to me.

I would be interested to know more about your thoughts on determining simple consciousness. Would you consider insects as conscious?

 

[A Higher Enlightenment]

Sounds good to me.

I would be interested to know more about your thoughts on determining simple consciousness. Would you consider insects as conscious?

Anything that is alive and awake is conscious now whether or not that Living organism Is self-conscious we would have a hard time knowing. So this applies to any and all insects that are alive and awake.

I think you understood when you read the post that I was separating awareness and consciousness and redefining consciousness itself as something more simple. I Think problems occur when we over complicate what consciousness is. It is indeed a complex topic when we talk about all the aspects that self-conscious and self awareness require. However the topic becomes even more complex if we over complicate the simplest parts.

 

[*SD*]

As you requested, the old thread is now locked for the discussion to continue in this one
@A Higher Enlightenment

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Why Google’s LaMDA Chatbot Isn’t Sentient

The way consciousness works is, “we create virtual models in our minds of how we think the universe works, then we choose what names to give to each part or element of that virtual model, in order to suit our needs.” To not be some mindless chatbot, then, requires more than just running math on spreadsheets of words. Those words need to be computationally linked to detailed computational models of those words’ content and meaning. When we link words together in a sentence, the resulting construct has to produce a new computational model of what those words all mean when placed in that arrangement. If we say “there is usually a toilet in any given residence,” and actually comprehend what we are saying, then there has to be a physical, computational connection between these words and substantive models of what toilets and residences are, and thus why they frequently correlate in the world (and in an experimental AI, we will have that in an observable, readable trace in the coding of the computation that was run to produce that sentence). This means, at minimum, a model of the role toilets play in disposing of the biological waste of a resident, and what a residence in general physically does for a resident—and, of course, a model of the fact that biological waste needs a special disposal mechanism, even if you aren’t sure exactly yet what “biological waste” is or why it needs special treatment.

As an example I have given before, “Once we choose to assign the word ‘white’ to ‘element A of model B’ that assignment remains in our computational register: the word evokes (and translates as) that element of that virtual model.” And “that’s how communication works: I choose ‘white’ to refer to a certain color pattern, you learn the assignment, and then I can evoke the experience of that color in you by speaking the word ‘white’.” You have to have a circuit coded to generate the experience when prompted by that word. You can’t just have the word in a spreadsheet. You need a computer assigning a label to a repeatable experience. This is straightforward computational physics; but of a particular kind. It’s not “statistically, if I type ‘white’ right now this will get approving feedback.” It’s “I am experiencing a computational model of a color, and have learned to label that ‘white’, so that when I am experiencing the running of that color-computing circuit, I know what to type-out to describe what I see.” In the one case, there is no knowledge of what “white” even means, and no such experience being had to thus describe. In the other case, there is. And that’s the difference between mindless machine andconscious machine.

And the same goes for self-consciousness. There has to be a computational model of the self that is being run; if there isn’t, there won’t be any self-consciousness generated or experienced. This is how we know many animals are probably conscious, as in, they have phenomenal experiences (of feelings, sensations, memories, a three-dimensional awareness of their environment, and so on), but are not self-conscious. Because (just as for human fetuses before the third trimester) they lack all the physical machinery needed to generate that specific kind of model. And we know that both directly (from comparative anatomy we can determine what every part of their brain does—and thereby confirm they have none of the parts that do this) and indirectly (their behavior multiply confirms they lack the ability to compute any such thing). Nevertheless, animals can trick people (especially when trained) into thinking they are self-conscious. So can chatbots. But their comparative anatomy and behavioral study will confirm that’s a mislead.

 

[A Higher Enlightenment]

I agree with some of what is said here, but you have used Consciousness, Intelligence , and Awareness synonymously. Consciousness, is not the same as Awareness, I gave a good reasons in multiples ways that support this. And just because something has intelligence does not make it aware.

“I am experiencing a computational model of a color, and have learned to label that ‘white’, so that when I am experiencing the running of that color-computing circuit, I know what to type-out to describe what I see.” In the one case, there is no knowledge of what “white” even means, and no such experience being had to thus describe. And that’s the difference between mindless machine and conscious machine.

This bit here that I quoted you in, you have done just what I have talked about in the previous sentence.

This is introspective thought, and humans use this with memory of past experience paired with knowledge and belief given to us by language that the color white is associated with various meanings, the same goes with the toilet in every home. Humans know to take shits and pisses in there based on knowledge we have acquired. We use that knowledge along with intelligence to determine where bathrooms are in public places.

AI is just a really intelligent computer, that has been programed to follow specific syntax or code. This is not "Consciousness " it is merely programming and intelligence. I can agree that awareness requires intelligence but just because something is intelligent does not mean it is aware. Take for example a calculator, calculators acquire knowledge of Simple and Complex Math through language of "Syntax".
The calculator is then capable of solving math problems, but the calculator does not chose to do this by will of choice. It is set to follow specific rules it can't make decisions on its own whim out side of code. The same is said for AI, even if they are programed to have conversations do math, and even solve puzzles or identify color the list goes on. They do these things not by choice but by programming. They can program the robot to make choices between various things, like chose the brightest blue. But again they are programed to make these choices, they lack free will and belief. I can pick what i believe to be the brightest blue, even if I am wrong.

Just because I give a robot a Name, and code it to recognize its name, talk and make choices, does not mean its aware of the choices it makes, in order for this to change the AI would have to learn it is making these decisions outside of its control, and that is impossible! You can't code free will, we as humans are not limited to choices we make with in reason. We can set goals, and we can do what ever for what ever reason we give or do not give. Assuming those goals are realistic to attain. I can chose to stab my self in the eye if I could bring my self to do so. What limits me from doing it is thought and belief it will hurt. These are things, you can not program into an AI. AI is limited to the SYNTAX it is given.

AI are not awake: They are not conscious
AI are not awake, there for cannot be self conscious
AI lack belief and free will, this limits them to what they are programmed to do.
AI are not aware because they lack experience perceived by biological machinery out side of programing.
AI are not self aware because the AI has no self, or Awareness.
AI could never actually sleep, because they lack a living body and brain, because of this they will also never dream.
The list continues but I will stop here.

All of this takes LIFE, not artificial mechanical machinery

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

I feel like you missed the forest for the trees. I encourage you to click the link to that blog and read the whole thing.

I agree with some of what is said here, but you have used Consciousness, Intelligence , and Awareness synonymously. Consciousness, is not the same as Awareness, I gave a good reasons in multiples ways that support this. And just because something has intelligence does not make it aware.
This bit here that I quoted you in, you have done just what I have talked about in the previous sentence.

One point of the quotes I have shared thus far is to demonstrate those terms build off of each other and cannot be separated. First, of course, intelligence is needed. That would be the first step. Once that develops, awareness of the world and self follows. That self-awareness is what we would call consciousness.

Can I ask, what research have you done on this topic before posting here?

AI are not awake: They are not conscious
AI are not awake, there for cannot be self conscious
AI lack belief and free will, this limits them to what they are programmed to do.
AI are not aware because they lack experience perceived by biological machinery out side of programing.
AI are not self aware because the AI has no self, or Awareness.
AI could never actually sleep, because they lack a living body and brain, because of this they will also never dream.
The list continues but I will stop here.

You are building this off your premise that dreams are necessary for consciousness to exist. That is what you are trying to prove. Thus you cannot use it in your argument to prove it. That is circular.

Beyond that, what research have you done into our free will?

All of this takes LIFE, not artificial mechanical machinery

This is a blind assertion. Nothing you have provided shows that biological life is necessary for consciousness. Nor have you shown that dreams matter for that.

 

[creativesoul]

...Consciousness is simply the state of being Alive and Awake.

If you are not awake you are unconscious.

Being conscious or unconscious requires Life.

...consciousness is simply the state of being alive and awake; Unconsciousness is the state of being alive and not awake.

The term "awake" is key to everything that follows. Such pivotal terminology needs defined. There is no definition of "awake" anywhere to be found in the authors language use thus far. I'm left wondering what exactly they're doing with the term. Seems to be used as a means to help draw a meaningful distinction between being conscious and being unconscious.

That seems to be the most charitable interpretation.

Awareness is the acknowledgment and realization of experiences.

When you experience something, you become aware of it.

The second claim above is demonstrably false. We can know that, because we can check and see. The claim can be verified/falsified. When doing so, we're checking to see if the claim contradicts what's happened, what is happening, and/or what will undoubtedly continue happening. The results of such an endeavor are clear. The claim contradicts the way the world is. In other words, that claim is proven false each and every time someone hallucinates and neither realizes nor acknowledges that.

The optical illusion you've illustrated supports this criticism perfectly.

Upon first glance, most everyone believes that the two planes are drastically different shades. That belief is false. They are not drastically different. The aforementioned false belief IS the hallucination. It is only after we somehow alter the observation technique, that we can acknowledge and/or realize that they are not such different shades at all. Placing a finger between the two planes results in our becoming aware that both of them are very close to being the same shade, whereas prior to doing that, they appeared to be drastically different.

So, what can this tell us?


It tells us that we need not become aware of the hallucination in order to have one. Seeing how having one is equivalent to experiencing one, when can confidently conclude that when you experience something, you do not always become aware of it.

The second claim is false.

Constructive criticism=Commit it to the flames!


As to the rest...

I'm afraid that it looks like you're confusing and/or conflating hallucinations, with dreams and other false beliefs. That's pretty evident from here. We could get into that, but it may be best to iron out the wrinkles above before doing so.

 

[A Higher Enlightenment]

The term "awake" is key to everything that follows. Such pivotal terminology needs defined. There is no definition of "awake" anywhere to be found in the authors language use thus far. I'm left wondering what exactly they're doing with the term. Seems to be used as a means to help draw a meaningful distinction between being conscious and being unconscious.

That seems to be the most charitable interpretation.



The second claim above is demonstrably false. We can know that, because we can check and see. The claim can be verified/falsified. When doing so, we're checking to see if the claim contradicts what's happened, what is happening, and/or what will undoubtedly continue happening. The results of such an endeavor are clear. The claim contradicts the way the world is. In other words, that claim is proven false each and every time someone hallucinates and neither realizes nor acknowledges that.

The optical illusion you've illustrated supports this criticism perfectly.

Upon first glance, most everyone believes that the two planes are drastically different shades. That belief is false. They are not drastically different. The aforementioned false belief IS the hallucination. It is only after we somehow alter the observation technique, that we can acknowledge and/or realize that they are not such different shades at all. Placing a finger between the two planes results in our becoming aware that both of them are very close to being the same shade, whereas prior to doing that, they appeared to be drastically different.

So, what can this tell us?


It tells us that we need not become aware of the hallucination in order to have one. Seeing how having one is equivalent to experiencing one, when can confidently conclude that when you experience something, you do not always become aware of it.

The second claim is false.

Constructive criticism=Commit it to the flames!


As to the rest...

I'm afraid that it looks like you're confusing and/or conflating hallucinations, with dreams and other false beliefs. That's pretty evident from here. We could get into that, but it may be best to iron out the wrinkles above before doing so.

If somebody experiences a hallucination they are aware of some thing they believed to be real. This goes hand-in-hand with experiencing some thing without actually knowing what they experience is. In this case it’s a hallucination, The same goes for feelings when you experience feelings in a dream you are aware of the feelings but not necessarily aware that the feelings that you were aware of, come from a source that you are not aware of. Which is a dream, In other words hallucinations are the same in this sense.

 

[creativesoul]

I feel like you missed the forest for the trees. I encourage you to click the link to that blog and read the whole thing.

I would concur, and take it a bit farther...

In addition to following the suggestion above, I would further suggest setting aside all preconceptions prior to attempting to understand what they are getting at.

 

[creativesoul]

self-awareness is what we would call consciousness.

Who's "we"?



It would follow that only self aware creatures were conscious.

That's problematic.

 

[A Higher Enlightenment]

I feel like you missed the forest for the trees. I encourage you to click the link to that blog and read the whole thing.



One point of the quotes I have shared thus far is to demonstrate those terms build off of each other and cannot be separated. First, of course, intelligence is needed. That would be the first step. Once that develops, awareness of the world and self follows. That self-awareness is what we would call consciousness.

Can I ask, what research have you done on this topic before posting here?



You are building this off your premise that dreams are necessary for consciousness to exist. That is what you are trying to prove. Thus you cannot use it in your argument to prove it. That is circular.

Beyond that, what research have you done into our free will?



This is a blind assertion. Nothing you have provided shows that biological life is necessary for consciousness. Nor have you shown that dreams matter for that.

You are associating consciousness and awareness to be the same thing are you not? I am doing the exact opposite. What evidence shows that intelligence is going to lead to self identification as far as personality goes.
Is that something that intelligence leads to alone or does it take more what about thought and belief doesn’t that also define personality. And I think personality is definitely needed for self-awareness.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Who's "we"?



It would follow that only self aware creatures were conscious.

That's problematic.

"We" would be conscious/self-aware beings. And the point I am making is that self-awareness is synonymous with consciousness.

You are associating consciousness and awareness to be the same thing are you not?

Yes.

I am doing the exact opposite.

I know, yet I do not understand why.

What evidence shows that intelligence is going to lead to self identification as far as personality goes.

I never said it would lead to self-identification, but it is a requirement for it.

Is that something that intelligence leads to alone or does it take more what about thought and belief doesn’t that also define personality.

I am having a problem parsing this sentence.

And I think personality is definitely needed for self-awareness.

I agree.

 

[A Higher Enlightenment]

I never said it would lead to self-identification, but it is a requirement for it.

First, of course, intelligence is needed. That would be the first step. Once that develops, awareness of the world and self follows. That self-awareness is what we would call consciousness.

Would you agree that self is personality? When refer to intelligence and you say " Once that develops, awareness of the world and self follows" Does this not imply intelligence leads to self identification/personality?

Is that something that intelligence leads to alone or does it take more what about thought and belief doesn’t that also define personality.

What I mean is, does intelligence alone lead to self/personality or does it require something else? Could that something else be ( Thought and Belief)?

 

[creativesoul]

self-awareness is synonymous with consciousness.

Indeed, it is used like that by some creatures that are self aware!

Not all.

Others are forced to reject that terminological framework as a result of its inevitable consequences. On pains of coherency alone, the taxonomy you've put into practice leads to concluding that only self-aware creatures are conscious. Whereas others grant consciousness to any and all creatures that are capable of becoming and/or being aware of something. That approach seems to be far more amenable to terms of evolutionary progression than the one you've used here.

 

[A Higher Enlightenment]

The term "awake" is key to everything that follows. Such pivotal terminology needs defined. There is no definition of "awake" anywhere to be found in the authors language use thus far. I'm left wondering what exactly they're doing with the term. Seems to be used as a means to help draw a meaningful distinction between being conscious and being unconscious.

Awake is to not be not asleep, to be asleep is to be unconscious or not awake. If that is not clear then I have now defined this here.

The second claim above is demonstrably false. We can know that, because we can check and see. The claim can be verified/falsified. When doing so, we're checking to see if the claim contradicts what's happened, what is happening, and/or what will undoubtedly continue happening. The results of such an endeavor are clear. The claim contradicts the way the world is. In other words, that claim is proven false each and every time someone hallucinates and neither realizes nor acknowledges that.

I can see how the statement contradicts itself, maybe I should be more clear here. When you experience things and apply intelligence, you develop thoughts and belief based on such. However what you believe to be true, and what you assume to be experiencing specifically depends on what you are experiencing. When you experience Illusions, Dreams or Hallucinations, you may not always be aware of what you are experiencing, but develop thought and belief around them. In exchange you may also develop emotion in some form based on these as well.

ie. If I were to hallucinate seeing a loved one who is dead, and believe they are somehow alive again. I may develop a wide range of thoughts and emotions based on what my beliefs are. These emotions are experiences, that have risen from something we are not aware of, and that is the hallucination. It was real to Myself at some point, until I realized it was not. Then I became aware it was a hallucination. But I still experienced something and was aware of that experience with out being aware of hallucinating.

 

[A Higher Enlightenment]

I know, yet I do not understand why.

Well then, with all due respect I think you missed the part in the beginning, where I indeed express that this is the entire point behind this post.

Here is the about I did provide before the actual post. I put in bold some key words.
“
This post is an attempt at tackling what I think Self-Consciousness is, from a new perspective.
To understand "My view" on what Self-Consciousness, and Self-Awareness is, we must first understand what I think consciousness is; and how and why I believe it to be different than awareness. This sets the stage for everything else to fall into place.
”

 

[A Higher Enlightenment]

"We" would be conscious/self-aware beings. And the point I am making is that self-awareness is synonymous with consciousness.

Okay lets grant this for a moment, with that said does this mean when one is having a nightmare of spiders crawling on them. Although unaware it is a dream, they still experience fear, they could wake up and then realize it was a dream. However prior to waking up, their belief in what they assumed to be real caused fear and anxiety. They were unaware that they were dreaming, but experienced the emotions and engaged with the dream believing it was real.

Awareness and consciousness are not the same
This does not work in the example I gave.

It also does not work for one in a complete vegetative state with no brain activity at all, there eyes are open, they are not asleep, but are not aware.
Few who were assumed to be in a vegetative state were actually aware in extremely rare cases according to studies.

If awareness and consciousness are not the same, then self awareness and self consciousness are not the same.
This also means that Consciousness is not synonymous with self-awareness.


This post is an attempt to take a look at the differences, and how they fit together to give rise to self-consciousness. Kind of like Legos every thing fits together then you get the finished result.

 

[Led Zeppelin]

Anything that is alive and awake is conscious now whether or not that Living organism Is self-conscious we would have a hard time knowing. So this applies to any and all insects that are alive and awake.

I think you understood when you read the post that I was separating awareness and consciousness and redefining consciousness itself as something more simple. I Think problems occur when we over complicate what consciousness is. It is indeed a complex topic when we talk about all the aspects that self-conscious and self awareness require. However the topic becomes even more complex if we over complicate the simplest parts.

Would you say that self conscious beings are able to understand morality and beings that are only conscious cannot?

out and arrest cats and dogs for fighting with each other or put fish in jail for eating other fish because we understand that it would be absurd to do so.

 

[A Higher Enlightenment]

Would you say that self conscious beings are able to understand morality and beings that are only conscious cannot?

Now when I say conscious I simply mean awake not aware, so I would like to rephrase what you said. If We use Self Conscious as I describe it in this post then humans and other beings like us if there are any. Would indeed understand morality but only from a personal perception. What are morals? From my understanding morals are acquired from what you are taught to be right and wrong from a young age. For example a young child taught from lets say the age of 3 - 18 to kill things like animals for no reason. That child later in life would carry no sense of doing anything wrong. Where as some would see that as wrong. This takes thought, belief, personality, and these things develop as we grow into mature adults.

In some cases psychotic personalities arise and thoughts and beliefs would be far different from one that is not psychotic.