NationStates Jolt Archive

This came up in one of the abortion threads, but most of the better posters avoid those like the plague, so I will remove it altogether.

What do you think defines self awareness? When does a human being reach this level?

This came up in one of the abortion threads, but most of the better posters avoid those like the plague, so I will remove it altogether.

What do you think defines self awareness? When does a human being reach this level?
I suspect, although there is no way to prove this that I know of, that it varies from individual to individual. My 1-year-old grandson was born with the ability to focus. The first time I held him, he locked eyes with me. I think this was a sign of a degree of self-awareness. Whether it ever exists prior to birth is anybody's guess.

Its ok if you have no friends, I wont tell anyone.

Its ok if you have no friends, I wont tell anyone.

Too tricky of a subject for you to post a valid response or what?

I doubt theres a definitive line. I think some animals have some kind of awareness, but probably much less than a human with the exception of chimps etc... and maybe octopusses(?).

I think insects are probably just pure reflexes. Bacteria are almost chemical in their simplicity.

Humans at some point in their development become more advanced than most. When? I don't know. A new born can basically grasp and suckle, is that intelligent?

To put it shortly, I have no idea. Any biologists in the house?

If Jaques Lacan is to be believed it's when we recognize ourselves in the mirror, his 'mirror stage.'

But really, all he's good for these days is theater and film theory platforms as I believe no one buys that anymore.

Oh, he's also good for doing this:
JaquesLacan....JaquesLacan.....LetMeRockYouJaquesLacan...

(Chaka Kan, get it? AAAAAnnnnyway.....)

It depends on what you consider to be self awareness, and I don't think it's as simple as saying, before this moment it wasn't aware, now it is. It's like with evolution, at which point did we become human?

If Jaques Lacan is to be believed it's when we recognize ourselves in the mirror, his 'mirror stage.'

But really, all he's good for these days is theater and film theory platforms as I believe no one buys that anymore.

Oh, he's also good for doing this:
JaquesLacan....JaquesLacan.....LetMeRockYouJaquesLacan...

(Chaka Kan, get it? AAAAAnnnnyway.....)

I'm not sure which is worse, the Chaka Kan part of the joke or the JaguesLacan part of the joke. Either way, a big thumbs up.

What I am trying to figure out is what defines the human experience, what causes a human life to be more valuable than that of other animals.

What is it that makes you value your own life? And I don't want superficial things that are unique, I want the basic component of life that makes in valuable.

I feel that it comes at the point when you realize that life is more of an experience than simply a necessary function. But when does that come about? Somebody must have done some research on this and should be able to inform me.

Depends on how you define self. There is no such thing as a static unchanging individual self, there is actually little continuity between the self you are today and the self you were yesterday. All personhood, which you could say is the definition of self, is inter-connected and ever-changing.

Depends on how you define self. There is no such thing as a static unchanging individual self, there is actually little continuity between the self you are today and the self you were yesterday. All personhood, which you could say is the definition of self, is inter-connected and ever-changing.

How would you respond to post #8?

octopusses(?)
Octopi. :) Although ... another variation does have a certain ... cache. :D

How would you respond to post #8?

Do I value you my life or all life or should I value the concept of life more? What matters more the experience or the effort exerted? And who or what is exactly expereincing reality? Are we just the universe expending energy? Not necessarily just made up of particles, atoms and molecules but are we more the embodiment of the effort and the energy expended?

What I am trying to figure out is what defines the human experience, what causes a human life to be more valuable than that of other animals.

What is it that makes you value your own life? And I don't want superficial things that are unique, I want the basic component of life that makes it valuable.

I feel that it comes at the point when you realize that life is more of an experience than simply a necessary function. But when does that come about? Somebody must have done some research on this and should be able to inform me.

I spent many years ( off and on ) struggling with this very question. In fact, it's the subject of an essay of mine ( which, due to several protests at my "self-aggrandizing" posting of the URL for this essay, will only be telegrammed to those who ask for it ). In brief, what I concluded is that what causes a human life to be more valuable than that of an animal is the responsibility for all life incumbent on humans as self-aware beings.

I have concluded that self-awareness represents the continuing efforts of the Universe itself to become self-aware. Life, all life, is immanent in the very warp and woof of the Universe ... where the conditions for its existence arise, life will arise.

I have concluded that self-awareness represents the continuing efforts of the Universe itself to become self-aware. .

We are that awareness.

I have concluded that self-awareness represents the continuing efforts of the Universe itself to become self-aware. Life, all life, is immanent in the very warp and woof of the Universe ... where the conditions for its existence arise, life will arise.

I am a little confused as to how self-awareness, the perception that there is an I that is different to the rest of the universe, is a phenomenon of the universe itself becoming aware. The universe may be both the necessary and sufficient conditions for life, but how does this tie into awareness.

Looking at this from a very amateur zen perspective. The awareness of the self is what separates you from the universal awareness. So how is this a manifestation of that universal awareness? :)

I'm not sure which is worse, the Chaka Kan part of the joke or the JaguesLacan part of the joke. Either way, a big thumbs up.

What I am trying to figure out is what defines the human experience, what causes a human life to be more valuable than that of other animals.

What is it that makes you value your own life? And I don't want superficial things that are unique, I want the basic component of life that makes in valuable.

I feel that it comes at the point when you realize that life is more of an experience than simply a necessary function. But when does that come about? Somebody must have done some research on this and should be able to inform me.
This (http://www.freedonia.com/~carl/lfb/) seems like the stupidest way to simplify Lacan. (why did I include it? I don't know) Heres (http://www.sou.edu/English/Hedges/Sodashop/RCenter/Theory/People/lacankey.htm) a better one. Once you start with that dude, though, you'll start bumping into all sorts of others like him who have tackled the same issue, more or less.

As to why we value humans more than other animals...there are some theories-the best is biological. We are biologically predetermined to protect other humans as part of our survival back when we where pack animals. But you should find a lot of that as a prefery to Lacan, who I'm more familiar with because he's used as a base point in symiology.

Do I value you my life or all life or should I value the concept of life more? What matters more the experience or the effort exerted? And who or what is exactly expereincing reality? Are we just the universe expending energy? Not necessarily just made up of particles, atoms and molecules but are we more the embodiment of the effort and the energy expended?

Way too much thinking. You obviously value your life, as you are not dead. It is a good deal of work to continue living, so what is the payoff that makes it worth it?

I don't understand the importance of self awareness or why it is used to seperate X level of developed intelligence to Y level of intelligence. Could someone help me out on this one?

Also, I do not understand it's relevance in regards to the abortion issue. While I am unaware of the specifics I am just going to go with the 'what if' scenario. What if a mentally challenged child didn't become self aware until the age of three, it wouldn't be consider any less of a person because of this would it?

I'm not trying to start an arguement here, I am just asking to become more educated on the issue so I can discuss it further.

Way too much thinking. You obviously value your life, as you are not dead. It is a good deal of work to continue living, so what is the payoff that makes it worth it?

I value the expereince

Owww! This makes my head hurt. :headbang:

I suppose we keep on living because it's a biological imperative. People who have almost no hope of living what we consider a quality life not only keep on living, but have children. I can't imagine wanting to go on in some refugee camp with no real chance of any life but one of starvation and hardship, especially if your whole family has been wiped out.
Is depression merely the failure of this mechanism? Perhaps some questions will never have satisfactory answers.

Way too much thinking. You obviously value your life, as you are not dead. It is a good deal of work to continue living, so what is the payoff that makes it worth it?
It's a long, long list. The beauty in the world, the laughter of small children, the opportunity to learn and grow, learning to survive and beyond that to thrive, chances to help others, loving and being loved, a good meal, the sparkle of sunlight on the wings of a dragonfly, a good book ... you see where this is going, yes? :)

Technically self-awareness comes about....I believe early toddler age. I can not remember the exact age (developmentally wise). There is a psychological test you can do with little kids...you put lipstick on their nose (or just make some kind of mark on their face), and you put them in front of a mirror. If they put their hand to their face....then they have "self awareness". If they don't, they think the person that they see in the mirror is just some other person.

Something like that anyway.

Yep. Little things mean alot. As someone who's been treated for depression, I wonder what makes life seem so bleak sometimes, and okay at others.

I have concluded that self-awareness represents the continuing efforts of the Universe itself to become self-aware.

Wow, you have just stated the first tenet of The Cassini Belt's idiosyncratic personal religion.

Do post the url to your essay, please.

(will only be telegrammed to those who ask for it ).
I wouldnt mind a copy please

EVerything has some level of self-awareness, but we are in a higher level of existance spiritually than animals are so we are more aware. Once an animal dies and is ready to move up to the next level it will become human, etc. Its all a part of the life process of learning.

I suspect, although there is no way to prove this that I know of, that it varies from individual to individual. My 1-year-old grandson was born with the ability to focus. The first time I held him, he locked eyes with me. I think this was a sign of a degree of self-awareness. Whether it ever exists prior to birth is anybody's guess.
Many, many animals can lock eyes with anything. It is quite a simple skill, assuming the existence of eyes. That does not indicate self-awareness at all, it mere indicates some form or another of awareness.

I doubt theres a definitive line. I think some animals have some kind of awareness, but probably much less than a human with the exception of chimps etc... and maybe octopusses(?).
Anthing with a neural network probably has some typr of awareness. One of the requirements for something to be considered an organism is reponse to stimuli. Social insects such as ants certainly have awareness--no self-awareness, but a communal awareness that humans can only gape at in awe. It is so different than what we are capable of thinking...

And it's octopodes if you want the foreign plural, octopuses if you want the English plural.

I think insects are probably just pure reflexes. Bacteria are almost chemical in their simplicity.
First of all, we do not know how much instinct influences insect behaviour. I have read quite a bit on the study of social insects, and even people who have studied just one species for two decades still don't know how much genes influence individual and group behaviour. Second, bacteria are bacteria, not animals. They are the sole members of their prokaryotic domain.

A new born can basically grasp and suckle, is that intelligent?
Those actions are purely instinctual.

Depends on how you define self. There is no such thing as a static unchanging individual self, there is actually little continuity between the self you are today and the self you were yesterday. All personhood, which you could say is the definition of self, is inter-connected and ever-changing.
Granted, there is no stasis of self. However, biochemically, physiologically, anatomically, and psychologically speaking, we are nearly identical from day-to-day, with punctuations of rapid change occasionally occuring. I get where you're going, but you're taking it way too far.

Octopi. :) Although ... another variation does have a certain ... cache. :D
Nope, that's folk etymology. Octopus is not second declension. Damn Merriam-Webster for putting that up...

EVerything has some level of self-awareness, but we are in a higher level of existance spiritually than animals are so we are more aware. Once an animal dies and is ready to move up to the next level it will become human, etc. Its all a part of the life process of learning.
Oooh, someone who believes in reincarnation. We don't see many of those around here. Do you also believe that abiota have a level of consiousness?

My theory is, if anyone became self-aware, we would've definitely noticed that person.
There's a large difference between "self-aware" and "enlightened". Not many organisms are actually aware of the self, as far as biologists can tell. They can react to things like fear and pain, but in an instinctive, not self-aware way that humans are capable of. (sometimes...)

Granted, there is no stasis of self. However, biochemically, physiologically, anatomically, and psychologically speaking, we are nearly identical from day-to-day, with punctuations of rapid change occasionally occuring. I get where you're going, but you're taking it way too far.


No you are not a physically static being, you just believe you are. It's an act of faith. I addressed the topic in another thread.

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7985557&postcount=22

No you are not a physically static being, you just believe you are. It's an act of faith. I addressed the topic in another thread.

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7985557&postcount=22
I fail to see how that proves that there are dramatic changes to a human from a day-to-day basis, excluding periods of punctuated change. Granted, electrons are transferred like crazy throughout the body in biochemical time, so in organismic time there is so much electron exchange that it really removes any possibility of stasis, especially if you know just what happens in that insane Kreb's cycle, but overall organisms are fairly static day-to-day. There are naturally many physical changes that occur, but stay close enough that the change is so slight that it really has no influence. Granted, when you go out to such things as evolutionary and geological time, organisms don't really even exist as individuals anymore, and change happens to these infintesimal entities extremely rapidly.

I fail to see how that proves that there are dramatic changes to a human from a day-to-day basis, excluding periods of punctuated change. Granted, electrons are transferred like crazy throughout the body in biochemical time, so in organismic time there is so much electron exchange that it really removes any possibility of stasis, especially if you know just what happens in that insane Kreb's cycle, but overall organisms are fairly static day-to-day. There are naturally many physical changes that occur, but stay close enough that the change is so slight that it really has no influence. Granted, when you go out to such things as evolutionary and geological time, organisms don't really even exist as individuals anymore, and change happens to these infintesimal entities extremely rapidly.

You are not being reductionist enough, you stopped at a certain point and didn't go further, why is that?

You guys are getting confused between the existence of self, and the awareness of self.

In my philosophy, which is kind of zen, the existence of self as separate from the universe is an illusion. One which other forms of life do not share.

I do NOT think this gives us more value than other forms of life. In fact, i think it makes us retarded, spiritually speaking.

Now as for self awareness....i actually saw a very in depth discussion on this subject on an educational program. The scientists pretty much said they cant prove self-awareness. THey can take someone's word for it, and they know THEY THEMSELVES are self aware. But even with the mirror test, there is no way to scientifically prove a specific brain activity corresponding to self awareness.

THey believe that animals are not self aware. that they operate on auto-pilot with programmed responses. Kinda like when you are driving and having a conversation; the driving becomes an unconscious programmed response.

It all comes back around to 'I THINK THEREFORE I AM'

It all comes back around to 'I THINK THEREFORE I AM'

I am saying that we believe we are selves, therefore we are selves. To believe you are a self is an act of faith, and I believe it is by this act of faith we become a self.