Self-awareness?

So what's really going on?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Self-awareness?

Post by bahman »

ken wrote:
bahman wrote: This means that we have an extra sense specialized to experience self. Is that what you suggest?
Yes, exactly.
What is that sense?
ken wrote:
bahman wrote: Yes, that sentence is right. I am simply saying that what you experience is simply a sense of self. In simple word, your brain constructs a mental state, sense of self.
If you believe your brain constructs a mental state, sense of self, then what has that got to do with self-awareness?
We experience sense of self directly since it is a mental state so we are self aware. But this doesn't mean that we have self.
ken wrote:
bahman wrote: You don't have any other option at least within materialism/monism. Everything is matter in materialism framework which means that we don't have self within this framework so the self must be created by brain and then be experienced by brain.
Why would any sane person follow any one form of ism?
Well, we need to discuss different system of believes.
ken wrote:
bahman wrote: The story is same under dualism since you have a self and a body.
Until you know what self is you would be wrong to assume 'you' have a self and a body.
Dualism is simply an system of belief. We need to discuss it to see whether it allows us to have a sense of self.
ken wrote:
bahman wrote: Self cannot experience anything without body and body again grants five senses which each is specialised to experience specific thing but self.
Thus the reason not to assume anything based on what has come through from the five senses.
What do you mean?
Beauty
Posts: 283
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2016 3:08 pm

Re: Self-awareness?

Post by Beauty »

bahman,
You know there is living in the physical and there is living in the spiritual which is like living in the mind/heart but not exactly, that is spiritual sense. So living spiritually would be dreaming(thinking) about your girlfriend, thinking of the oncoming fete, party, function, celebration, getting a feel of the place, intuition, understanding the issue, thinking points up for argument regarding an ongoing debate, the feeling, thinking and understanding you have right now reading this post etcetera. It's amazing but we do live an enormous part of our life in the spiritual realm, but don't know it. In fact most of our life is living in the spiritual realm, but it seems we are living in the physical more, but if you add up both, then you will find that living in the spiritual is more. Let's say while doing dishes is physical, but all that you think, feel, understand while doing the dishes, is spiritual(mind and heart related), same for when watching TV, working on the computer/net, cleaning the house, singing, dancing, eating, walking, running, watching the flowers, in the traffic etcetera. Spiritual sense involves the spiritual heart and the spiritual mind, the physical involves the physical heart and brain. If you still find it difficult to understand then how about this? You've been too much on the internet son, go get some exercise?
User avatar
HexHammer
Posts: 3354
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 8:19 pm
Location: Denmark

Re: Self-awareness?

Post by HexHammer »

bahman wrote:
HexHammer wrote: You are dead wrong, people are not aware that they may not have any sense of experiencing self directly, as they don't care about it.
Besides those who care, does know that they have a sense that can experience self directly, that's why we see elephants, dolphins, pigs etc as highly intelligent beings as they have a self awareness when they see themselves in the mirror.
What is that sense that allows us to experience our selves directly. Of course the sense of sight is not that sense since it can only show what you see and self is not something which we can see.
HexHammer wrote: We don't deduce anything from a being who performs the action ..that's a huge delusion you have.
You deduce when you go in front of a mirror. You deduce when you perform any action.
HexHammer wrote: We can be sure there's a self, because of intellect, those who can't lacks that intellect and either has a low function or nonfunction in that area of the brain.
Intellect has nothing to do with self when it come to experiencing self.
HexHammer wrote: Dear bahman, you need very very simple things spelled out ..as always, you don't comprehend very very simple science, but has a very very delusional approach to it. What you ALWAYS say is pure nonsense and babble!
So as you see, I am not dead wrong.
Yes you are dead wrong.

A mirror image can't really be described as a being, only reflection of a being.

Some of those who have suffered massive head trauma may not recognize themselves through visual perception, we recognize ourselves through our senses.

Intellect = to understand, if we can't recognize ourselves in the mirror, then we don't understand, thus it's an intellect to be self aware.

You love to grasp things out of thin air and think it's the truth, when it's merely pure nonsense and babble always contradicting basic science.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Self-awareness?

Post by bahman »

HexHammer wrote: Some of those who have suffered massive head trauma may not recognize themselves through visual perception, we recognize ourselves through our senses.
You are not really self-aware since you cannot experience your self directly. You experience yourself by senses and then you deduce that what you experience is your self.
HexHammer wrote: Intellect = to understand, if we can't recognize ourselves in the mirror, then we don't understand, thus it's an intellect to be self aware.
There is no need for intellect to recognize your self if you could directly experience your self.
User avatar
HexHammer
Posts: 3354
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 8:19 pm
Location: Denmark

Re: Self-awareness?

Post by HexHammer »

bahman wrote:You are not really self-aware since you cannot experience your self directly. You experience yourself by senses and then you deduce that what you experience is your self.
HexHammer wrote: Intellect = to understand, if we can't recognize ourselves in the mirror, then we don't understand, thus it's an intellect to be self aware.
There is no need for intellect to recognize your self if you could directly experience your self.
Dude you don't have a clue about neurology, you speak straight our of your ass, plz go study and come back for a serious discussion.
ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: Self-awareness?

Post by ken »

bahman wrote:
ken wrote:
bahman wrote: This means that we have an extra sense specialized to experience self. Is that what you suggest?
Yes, exactly.
What is that sense?
As you have just said and I agreed to that we have an extra sense, therefore if we logically follow on after the five and fifth sense that we are aware of, then that sense must be the sixth sense.

What that actually is and how it actually works I think would take too long for Me to explain it here fully in a forum like this.
bahman wrote:
ken wrote:
bahman wrote: Yes, that sentence is right. I am simply saying that what you experience is simply a sense of self. In simple word, your brain constructs a mental state, sense of self.
If you believe your brain constructs a mental state, sense of self, then what has that got to do with self-awareness?
We experience sense of self directly since it is a mental state so we are self aware. But this doesn't mean that we have self.
There are three things here:

1. You say, "... so we are self aware." If that is so, then what is the answer to who am I (the Self)? If you can not answer that, then 'you' are not self aware. Although that is not to say that I am not self aware. So, please be careful when you use the 'we' word.

2. You say, "But this doesn't mean we have self", by using the 'we' word here implies 'it' is an actual self. By actually stating the words 'we', 'I', or 'you', and them has having or not having something, this infers that there is an actual thing, a self. If this is not true, then what do you mean when you use the words 'we', 'I', and 'you'? What do those words refer to?

3. Here you say, "... so we are self aware", but in reply to hexhammer you say, "You are not really self-aware...", either you are suggesting that hexhammer is not really self aware but bahman and ken are self aware, or, you are not totally sure if 'we', human beings, are self aware or are not self aware. If you want to be understood, then you will need to clear this up for us.
bahman wrote:
ken wrote:
bahman wrote: You don't have any other option at least within materialism/monism. Everything is matter in materialism framework which means that we don't have self within this framework so the self must be created by brain and then be experienced by brain.
Why would any sane person follow any one form of ism?
Well, we need to discuss different system of believes.
But there is only one system of belief - generally known as the belief system - is there not?

A person either believes or does not. What an adult chooses to or wants to believe (in), or not believe (in), is a totally free choice they themselves make.
bahman wrote:
ken wrote:
Until you know what self is you would be wrong to assume 'you' have a self and a body.
Dualism is simply an system of belief. We need to discuss it to see whether it allows us to have a sense of self.
Dualism and monism BOTH are necessary to fully explain and understand how two senses of things actually does exist and how there is a self and a Self. The who i think i am self is very much different than the who I really am Self is. This is only fully understood in conjunction with and when understanding how the Mind and the brain work exactly. Parts of both dualism and monism both help in explaining how the Mind and the brain work.
bahman wrote:
ken wrote:
bahman wrote:Self cannot experience anything without body and body again grants five senses which each is specialised to experience specific thing but self.
Thus the reason not to assume anything based on what has come through from the five senses.
What do you mean?
If, as you suggest, each of the five senses is specialized to experience a specific thing but self, then assuming you could arrive at actually discovering and knowing a self or discovering and knowing a sense of self from the information/knowledge that has been grasped by any or all of those five senses just does not make any sense at all. To be able to answer the question who am I, for once and for all, and thus fully understand and be fully self aware, then a new way or new sense, like a sixth sense, is needed.

All of this is very easily achieved, uncovered, and understood with the right know how, but how to explain it to others who a not prepared to or unwilling to learn any of this is another matter.
surreptitious57
Posts: 4257
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Self-awareness?

Post by surreptitious57 »

ken wrote:
we logically follow on after the five and fifth sense that we are aware of then that sense must be the sixth sense

The five senses are the major ones but they are not the only ones as there are many other lesser known ones also

What that actually is and how it actually works I think would take too long for Me to explain it here fully in a forum like this

Nothing should ever be too long to explain on a philosophy forum of all places and so give the short version if nothing else

What an adult chooses to or wants to believe ( in ) or not believe ( in ) is a totally free choice they themselves make

This is completely false because one does not have free will all when it comes to the question of what to believe
ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: Self-awareness?

Post by ken »

surreptitious57 wrote:
ken wrote:
we logically follow on after the five and fifth sense that we are aware of then that sense must be the sixth sense
The five senses are the major ones but they are not the only ones as there are many other lesser known ones also
Fair enough.
surreptitious57 wrote:
ken wrote:What that actually is and how it actually works I think would take too long for Me to explain it here fully in a forum like this
Nothing should ever be too long to explain on a philosophy forum of all places and so give the short version if nothing else
That is very true, but I am not yet in a position to explain exactly how a supposedly non-physical, immaterial thing interacts with physical, material things.

In a very short version, the Mind, which is by the way always open, is the instrument for what could be called the sixth sense. Although where the Mind actually is is unknown because of Its immateriality nature, there is something labelled with the word 'Mind'. The Mind, to Me, has the ability to KNOW things, like morality for example. The open Mind is also what allows human beings to be able to learn, understand, and reason absolutely anything. This ability has led to human beings progressing as far as they are now, which is way beyond any other known thing.

Through the open Mind two different senses of self and Self can be seen and understood. The small s self is the one that we think we are. The big S Self is the One that we know we really are. Of course non of this is, at the moment, fully or even slightly understood by most people, and thus it is still unknown knowledge yet to and by most people. But it will soon become common knowledge.
surreptitious57 wrote:
ken wrote:What an adult chooses to or wants to believe ( in ) or not believe ( in ) is a totally free choice they themselves make
This is completely false because one does not have free will all when it comes to the question of what to believe

If that is what you believe, then that is fine. No one can 'argue', logically reason, against or with a strongly held belief so I will leave it at that. But I will just ask for clarity about that if I neither believe nor disbelief (in) anything, besides the ability of Self to do and achieve anything that It truly wants to do and achieve, then is that because I am totally unable to believe (in) anything else, or for some other reason?
User avatar
Trajk Logik
Posts: 353
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2016 12:35 pm

Re: Self-awareness?

Post by Trajk Logik »

bahman wrote:This is simple: We know that we don't have any sense that we could experience self directly. We however directly experience our actions and deduce that there is a being with self who performs the actions. How could we be sure that there is a self?
The first statement doesn't seem to make any sense. What does it mean to say that we experience our actions but we don't experience ourselves directly? Are we not defined by our actions? Isn't my action mine, and not yours, because the will, or intent, to do the action preceded the action. And when you act, my will or intentions don't precede those events that are your actions. My self is also defined by my kind of experience of some kind of event. When I injure my back, I can feel it. When you injure your back, you can feel it but I can't. This is why we call it "your injury", or "my injury" - because we are singularly aware of an injury in a way that other can't be aware because they aren't connected to my nervous system.

However, I can see your injury and you can see mine, but we can't see our own injury because it's on our backs. This is because we use light to see - to be aware of each other's injury requires light which permeates the environment so that each individual has access to information in the environment without our nerves permeating the environment, but only if the light is reflected into the eyes. The only way to see your back is to use a mirror. So it would seem that the temporal-spatial limit of our nervous system, and the information it has access to at any given moment defines the limit of our selves.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Self-awareness?

Post by bahman »

Beauty wrote: bahman,
You know there is living in the physical and there is living in the spiritual which is like living in the mind/heart but not exactly, that is spiritual sense. So living spiritually would be dreaming(thinking) about your girlfriend, thinking of the oncoming fete, party, function, celebration, getting a feel of the place, intuition, understanding the issue, thinking points up for argument regarding an ongoing debate, the feeling, thinking and understanding you have right now reading this post etcetera. It's amazing but we do live an enormous part of our life in the spiritual realm, but don't know it. In fact most of our life is living in the spiritual realm, but it seems we are living in the physical more, but if you add up both, then you will find that living in the spiritual is more. Let's say while doing dishes is physical, but all that you think, feel, understand while doing the dishes, is spiritual(mind and heart related), same for when watching TV, working on the computer/net, cleaning the house, singing, dancing, eating, walking, running, watching the flowers, in the traffic etcetera. Spiritual sense involves the spiritual heart and the spiritual mind, the physical involves the physical heart and brain. If you still find it difficult to understand then how about this? You've been too much on the internet son, go get some exercise?
I don't really understand what do you mean with spiritual heart and mind.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Self-awareness?

Post by bahman »

HexHammer wrote:
bahman wrote: You are not really self-aware since you cannot experience your self directly. You experience yourself by senses and then you deduce that what you experience is your self.
HexHammer wrote: Intellect = to understand, if we can't recognize ourselves in the mirror, then we don't understand, thus it's an intellect to be self aware.
There is no need for intellect to recognize your self if you could directly experience your self.
Dude you don't have a clue about neurology, you speak straight our of your ass, plz go study and come back for a serious discussion.
There is no need for neurology. These are all common sense. If you don't them then it means that you didn't think about yourself enough.
User avatar
HexHammer
Posts: 3354
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 8:19 pm
Location: Denmark

Re: Self-awareness?

Post by HexHammer »

bahman wrote:There is no need for neurology. These are all common sense. If you don't them then it means that you didn't think about yourself enough.
Ooooh yes, forgot common sense makes up for complete ignorance, so you can perform brain surgery just by using common sense, you know how to operate strokes, can counsel patiens afterwards, etc etc ..just by using common sense, who needs long and expensive educations when we can just apply common sense to everything!
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Self-awareness?

Post by bahman »

ken wrote:
bahman wrote: What is that sense?
As you have just said and I agreed to that we have an extra sense, therefore if we logically follow on after the five and fifth sense that we are aware of, then that sense must be the sixth sense.

What that actually is and how it actually works I think would take too long for Me to explain it here fully in a forum like this.
So you believe in sixth sense.
ken wrote:
bahman wrote: If you believe your brain constructs a mental state, sense of self, then what has that got to do with self-awareness?
There are three things here:

1. You say, "... so we are self aware." If that is so, then what is the answer to who am I (the Self)? If you can not answer that, then 'you' are not self aware. Although that is not to say that I am not self aware. So, please be careful when you use the 'we' word.
This depends whether you are a materialist or dualist. There is no self in materialism then you only have a sense of self constructed by your brain. You got a self under dualism but the problem is you cannot have a sense of self without body, for example after you die or before you are born.
ken wrote: 2. You say, "But this doesn't mean we have self", by using the 'we' word here implies 'it' is an actual self. By actually stating the words 'we', 'I', or 'you', and them has having or not having something, this infers that there is an actual thing, a self. If this is not true, then what do you mean when you use the words 'we', 'I', and 'you'? What do those words refer to?
Please read the previous comment.
ken wrote: 3. Here you say, "... so we are self aware", but in reply to hexhammer you say, "You are not really self-aware...", either you are suggesting that hexhammer is not really self aware but bahman and ken are self aware, or, you are not totally sure if 'we', human beings, are self aware or are not self aware. If you want to be understood, then you will need to clear this up for us.
By self-aware I mean that you have a self and you are aware of it. I use sense of self when we are dealing with materialism where you brain construct a sense of self. Obviously your brain cannot construct a self under materialism.
ken wrote:
bahman wrote: Dualism is simply an system of belief. We need to discuss it to see whether it allows us to have a sense of self.
Dualism and monism BOTH are necessary to fully explain and understand how two senses of things actually does exist and how there is a self and a Self. The who i think i am self is very much different than the who I really am Self is. This is only fully understood in conjunction with and when understanding how the Mind and the brain work exactly. Parts of both dualism and monism both help in explaining how the Mind and the brain work.
This we have already discuss it.
ken wrote:
bahman wrote: What do you mean?
If, as you suggest, each of the five senses is specialized to experience a specific thing but self, then assuming you could arrive at actually discovering and knowing a self or discovering and knowing a sense of self from the information/knowledge that has been grasped by any or all of those five senses just does not make any sense at all. To be able to answer the question who am I, for once and for all, and thus fully understand and be fully self aware, then a new way or new sense, like a sixth sense, is needed.

All of this is very easily achieved, uncovered, and understood with the right know how, but how to explain it to others who a not prepared to or unwilling to learn any of this is another matter.
So you are a dualist?
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Self-awareness?

Post by bahman »

Trajk Logik wrote: The first statement doesn't seem to make any sense. What does it mean to say that we experience our actions but we don't experience ourselves directly?
It means that we have no direct way to experience our selves but we deduce self through our actions.
Trajk Logik wrote: Are we not defined by our actions? Isn't my action mine, and not yours, because the will, or intent, to do the action preceded the action. And when you act, my will or intentions don't precede those events that are your actions. My self is also defined by my kind of experience of some kind of event. When I injure my back, I can feel it. When you injure your back, you can feel it but I can't. This is why we call it "your injury", or "my injury" - because we are singularly aware of an injury in a way that other can't be aware because they aren't connected to my nervous system.
This means that you don't believe that you have a self.
Trajk Logik wrote: However, I can see your injury and you can see mine, but we can't see our own injury because it's on our backs. This is because we use light to see - to be aware of each other's injury requires light which permeates the environment so that each individual has access to information in the environment without our nerves permeating the environment, but only if the light is reflected into the eyes. The only way to see your back is to use a mirror. So it would seem that the temporal-spatial limit of our nervous system, and the information it has access to at any given moment defines the limit of our selves.
I thought you don't believe that you have a self.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Self-awareness?

Post by bahman »

HexHammer wrote:
bahman wrote: There is no need for neurology. These are all common sense. If you don't them then it means that you didn't think about yourself enough.
Ooooh yes, forgot common sense makes up for complete ignorance, so you can perform brain surgery just by using common sense, you know how to operate strokes, can counsel patiens afterwards, etc etc ..just by using common sense, who needs long and expensive educations when we can just apply common sense to everything!
Brain surgery has nothing to do with what we are discussing.
Post Reply