Self-awareness?

So what's really going on?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
waechter418
Posts: 204
Joined: Mon Jul 20, 2015 12:19 am
Location: Costa Rica
Contact:

Re: Self-awareness?

Post by waechter418 »

All our deeds, emotions, thoughts, creeds – and whatever else we are trying to relate ourselves with – are expression of ConsciousNess which thus exercises its possibilities in order to realize itself.
Voidance
Posts: 2
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2016 4:56 pm

Re: Self-awareness?

Post by Voidance »

Mind is a function of the brain so its source is not unknown and since the brain is physical the mind cannot be immaterial
It is well known that all our senses and brain functions/mind operate as electrical signals and all electrical signals relate directly to the electric field which is considered immaterial thus part or all of our mind is immaterial.
User avatar
RG1
Posts: 210
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2013 9:49 pm

Re: Self-awareness?

Post by RG1 »

bahman wrote: We know that we don't have any sense that we could experience self directly.
Agreed, and furthermore, it is not logically possible for one to possess a sense that could sense it-self. Those that claim to be “self-aware” (aware of self) are only just fooling themselves. "Self-awareness" is impossible on at least two different fronts:

1) we can only experience EXPERIENCES (i.e. mental states; feelings/senses) …NOT actual things, objects, or ‘SELFS’ themselves!

2) we can’t be in two places at one time, …we can’t be at both ends; the subject (observer) and the object (the observed) at the same time. …an eyeball cannot see itself!

“Self-awareness” is just a (feel-good) myth.

bahman wrote:We however directly experience our actions and deduce that there is a being with self who performs the actions.
Well, to be more accurate, there is a being that “experiences” (not “performs”) the actions.

We can logically derive an ‘experiencer’ that we then equate to, or call as “self”. We logically derive that if an experience (of any kind) happens/exists, then there must also be an ‘experiencer’ (called “self”) that is the subject of said experiencing.

For without an ‘experiencer’ (aka "self"), experiencing could not happen. Something can’t happen if no-thing is happening! This experiencer is ‘logically’ derived, (...and not 'experientially' derived).

bahman wrote:How could we be sure that there is a self?
If we equate “self” to “experiencer”, then we can be (logically) certain!

But where we get into trouble (i.e. delusional) is when we equate “self” to something OTHER than just an experiencer; such as a “thinking entity”, a mind, spirit, soul, etc.

Remember: Selfs (i.e. “we”) cannot actually perform the ‘thinking’ of thoughts. Selfs can only ‘experience’ the thoughts! ...subtle difference, but of HUGE importance!
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Post by henry quirk »

"an eyeball cannot see itself!"

Yes it can!

Mirrors.
User avatar
RG1
Posts: 210
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2013 9:49 pm

Re: Self-awareness?

Post by RG1 »

That's just an image; reflection, and not the eyeball itself.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: Self-awareness?

Post by henry quirk »

It's the same light conveying the image whether reflected or apprehended directly. The image built by the brain (which is the self, by the way) is the same either way.

The eye can see itself.

There goes a thousand years of zen down the toilet.


See you folks down the road...I (me, a self) got things to do.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Self-awareness?

Post by bahman »

RG1 wrote:
bahman wrote: We know that we don't have any sense that we could experience self directly.
Agreed, and furthermore, it is not logically possible for one to possess a sense that could sense it-self. Those that claim to be “self-aware” (aware of self) are only just fooling themselves. "Self-awareness" is impossible on at least two different fronts:

1) we can only experience EXPERIENCES (i.e. mental states; feelings/senses) …NOT actual things, objects, or ‘SELFS’ themselves!

2) we can’t be in two places at one time, …we can’t be at both ends; the subject (observer) and the object (the observed) at the same time. …an eyeball cannot see itself!

“Self-awareness” is just a (feel-good) myth.

bahman wrote:We however directly experience our actions and deduce that there is a being with self who performs the actions.
Well, to be more accurate, there is a being that “experiences” (not “performs”) the actions.

We can logically derive an ‘experiencer’ that we then equate to, or call as “self”. We logically derive that if an experience (of any kind) happens/exists, then there must also be an ‘experiencer’ (called “self”) that is the subject of said experiencing.

For without an ‘experiencer’ (aka "self"), experiencing could not happen. Something can’t happen if no-thing is happening! This experiencer is ‘logically’ derived, (...and not 'experientially' derived).
bahman wrote: How could we be sure that there is a self?
If we equate “self” to “experiencer”, then we can be (logically) certain!

But where we get into trouble (i.e. delusional) is when we equate “self” to something OTHER than just an experiencer; such as a “thinking entity”, a mind, spirit, soul, etc.

Remember: Selfs (i.e. “we”) cannot actually perform the ‘thinking’ of thoughts. Selfs can only ‘experience’ the thoughts! ...subtle difference, but of HUGE importance!
I don't think that we need a experiencer to experience. Experience just can happen. This is central teaching of Buddhism which makes quite sense to me.
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Self-awareness?

Post by Dontaskme »

henry quirk wrote:It's the same light conveying the image whether reflected or apprehended directly. The image built by the brain (which is the self, by the way) is the same either way.

The eye can see itself.

There goes a thousand years of zen down the toilet.


See you folks down the road...I (me, a self) got things to do.
The image built by the brain is a self maybe so, to the one trying to figure out where the self is located... but there's nothing behind any image pulling it's strings that is making it appear separately or independent from the light conveying the image. There is no entity in LIGHT, just as there is no entity inside a light bulb or inside a moving character in a film.
The light passing through the brain is what animates it, the brain doesn't have any part in that process.
The light animates the body via the brain just as the breath breathes and the blood pumps via the lungs and heart. No 'I' is doing these functions. The (organs) are doing the functions. For the light is null and void without them.
There is no 'self' in a brain no more than there is a 'self' in your little finger.

The I 'me' 'self' isn't doing anything. The doing doesn't belong to any one, it's all happening by itself, this one is an only child.
The 'self' is the one already looking through the eyes. The reflected self cannot see...for one very good reason. And the one looking through your eyes is the same one looking through every single (reflected)eye.

So there goes a thousand years of human theory down the toilet.
Walker
Posts: 14280
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Self-awareness?

Post by Walker »

henry quirk wrote:It's the same light conveying the image whether reflected or apprehended directly. The image built by the brain (which is the self, by the way) is the same either way.

The eye can see itself.

There goes a thousand years of zen down the toilet.


See you folks down the road...I (me, a self) got things to do.
I was going to expound on the philosophical and metaphorical implications of the fact that mirrors don’t reflect everything, a law of physics that has forced folks to fill in the loss with inference since the cave days.

Then I read about the Omniguides, now eighteen years old. :shock:
Wonder how they turned out.

M.I.T. Scientists Turn Simple Idea Into 'Perfect Mirror'
http://phys.lsu.edu/~jdowling/mit.html
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Self-awareness?

Post by Dontaskme »

A dear friend of mine wrote the following essay, and I liked it that much I wanted to share it here as I think it's relevant to the thread topic.

Would like to know what you think of the essay. I think it's genius, and is why I'm copying it to here.

_____________

Can you be Aware without being Conscious?
Can you be Conscious without being Aware?

There is always a lot of confusion between Awareness and Consciousness since we use both Awareness and Consciousness interchangeably. I would like to explain both Awareness and Consciousness with specific instances so that we may be able to differentiate Awareness and Consciousness.

Look at the following instances:

1. Consider the case of a Sleep Walker. He performs all actions during the sleep walking like driving vehicles, jumping the gates etc but still the sleep walker is not conscious enough to be performing such actions. So, a sleep walker is fully aware of his activities, but he is not conscious enough that he is doing such actions. The sleep walker has no idea that he walked so the previous night.

2. Consider a baby of say 1-2 years. Such a baby is aware of surroundings, able to smile at others, pick up objects, view television etc, but the baby may not be conscious enough. The baby has memory but not the sense of Self.

3. I may be deeply entranced in watching a movie, writing an exam, listening to Music, wondering a scenery etc. I am fully absorbed in the same and forget the sense of self for protracted period of time. This means, I was not conscious during such periods, but was aware during such times.

4. An ant or amoeba may be aware of its surroundings through its senses but it need not be conscious of its self. I know that I exist because I am conscious. But, a Dog, Cat, Ant, Baby, Spastic Child, Diode, Transistor, Logic gate or a Proximity Sensor may be aware and also exist, but may not be conscious enough to know or infer that it exists. Awareness not necessarily need to result in the culmination of Consciousness in the form of a closed loop circuit in all cases.

5. In dreams I may be Aware of dream objects, but need not be conscious enough. At times, in dreams I may be Aware of dream objects, and also be conscious enough to recall the dreams subsequently.

6. During deep sleep I may be aware without any content, but not conscious enough. Hence, if there is a stimuli like someone calls me, I regain consciousness.

7. But, during Deep Meditation, Samadhi or Yoga Nidra states, a sadhak can transcend the conscious state and remain in 'Nearby to Zero Awareness' or 'Close to Zero Awareness' state in which the sadhak has the faintest sense of existence, as Bliss, but beyond the state of being fully conscious (Self recognition). This state of 'Nearby to Zero Awareness' may be like existing in the Twilight Zone between Sleeping and Waking, just like floating in the Ocean of Awareness without any Self Identity. Every learned Sadhak would have experienced this state of Bliss definitely. Samadhi is the state of Deliberately Induced Dreamless Sleep with the Barest Minimum Recognizable Awareness resulting in Perpetual Bliss.

8. During coma I may be fully aware with outside stimuli and fully conscious, but simply unable to communicate outside.

9. During a different kind of coma I may be fully aware without any contents (when all senses not properly working) and also simply not conscious enough.

10. Don't be shocked, after death my body may be fully aware without any contents (since all senses become dysfunctional) and simply not conscious enough.

One may ask how a dead body can be aware. Here, we may have to explain what Awareness exactly means. If Awareness is considered as the fundamental quality of all that exists in the universe, since a dead body is aware only it interacts with its surroundings and decomposes into its constituent elements. Hence, essentially every substance in this universe should basically be aware enough to perform its intended role and function. Say, a soil should be aware enough to absorb water. A plant's roots must be aware enough to absorb the necessary nutrients and give out the desired sweetness or sourness to its fruits as the case may be. Similarly a dead body must be aware enough to decompose or not decompose according to its the environment in which it exists.

Fundamentally, this would mean that the whole Universe and all its contents without any exception should be aware so as to perform their designated functions ruthlessly. This would bring us the idea that all Galaxies and Stars may also be aware. This essentially makes one believe that Awareness pervades the whole Universe or the panpsychism may hold true. Rather it can also be inferred the other way around that the whole Universe, Space, Time and all contents thereof exist inside Awareness. This would make us infer that Awareness can not be dispensed with by any means.

A sentient system with mere awareness functions as a programmed/auto-functioning entity like Dogs and Cats, but with consciousness unleashed a sentient system becomes a creative, clever and inventive system like human beings and become capable of breaking nature's barriers.

How do we know that we are Aware? Only by becoming Conscious we come to know that we are Aware. Else, we may never realize the fact that we are Aware as in the case of Animals. Awareness doesn't know that it's Aware. But, when Awareness becomes Consciousness it knows itself:

It must be clearly understood that to be Conscious is to be Aware and to be Aware need not be Conscious. Awareness comes to be known only through the birth of Consciousness. It may be the situation that when awareness reaches a certain threshold level due to the evolution of Mind, Consciousness naturally blooms and Self Awareness or Self Recognition is gained in the form of Consciousness (Being Aware that I am Aware or 2nd Degree of Awareness) in Dolphins, Chimpanzee, Elephants, Human beings etc. Whereas in the case of sentient beings Awareness has different gradients of evolution through development of different senses and every sentient being functions according to their level of evolution of Mind, non-sentient things possess barest level of evolution and possess no mind. It may be the case that every Atom, Molecule and Cell may be aware. Who knows?

It may be the fact that for any interactions to arise Awareness becomes absolutely essential. Hence, the whole universe and its contents may be nothing but One Single interacting SOUP, happening inside One Single Awareness. Nothing is unconnected. Existence may be one single network of connections happening inside One Single Awareness.

After having gone through the above paragraphs, the answers to the following questions may be like :

Can you be Aware without being Conscious - Yes, but you may never know that you are Aware during such times. Consciousness is not a prerequisite for Awareness. (Eg - Baby, A person engrossed in a movie, Sleep walking, Dreamless Sleep, Driving cars unconsciously etc)

Can you be Conscious without being Aware- No. Consciousness is the recognition of Awareness only. Awareness is a prerequisite for consciousness to arise.
User avatar
Trajk Logik
Posts: 353
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2016 12:35 pm

Re: Self-awareness?

Post by Trajk Logik »

Dontaskme wrote: Can you be Conscious without being Aware- No. Consciousness is the recognition of Awareness only. Awareness is a prerequisite for consciousness to arise.
So consciousness is the awareness of being aware. This is nothing more than turning your thought processes onto the process of being aware - of thinking about being aware. This is similar to how a camera (the input) can be turned to look back at it's monitor (the output) creating a feedback loop. Most animals are self-aware in that they have categorized their own smell, sound, etc. as being separate from other smells and sounds, but haven't turned their mental processes back on themselves of thinking about thinking, or thinking about being aware. Humans seem to be the only species to achieve a full feedback loop in their heads.
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Self-awareness?

Post by Dontaskme »

Trajk Logik wrote:
Dontaskme wrote: Can you be Conscious without being Aware- No. Consciousness is the recognition of Awareness only. Awareness is a prerequisite for consciousness to arise.
So consciousness is the awareness of being aware. This is nothing more than turning your thought processes onto the process of being aware - of thinking about being aware. This is similar to how a camera (the input) can be turned to look back at it's monitor (the output) creating a feedback loop. Most animals are self-aware in that they have categorized their own smell, sound, etc. as being separate from other smells and sounds, but haven't turned their mental processes back on themselves of thinking about thinking, or thinking about being aware. Humans seem to be the only species to achieve a full feedback loop in their heads.
Yes, thank you. Humans can sense an apparent sense of separateness, and also transcend that apparent sense of separateness back to wholeness. This does appear to be unique to human.

From this premise we can see that Awareness is before/behind Consciousness - and that without the awareness of a sense of being, we would not be able to wake up from deep sleep when someone calls our name. When latent awareness knows sensation, consciousness aka (mind) is born. Although nothing here is actually born or can die. Awareness is neither alive or dead, it's just here now always...and that's all that can be known. Everything else is appearing in this, dependant on this, inseparable from this. And this is all there is. This is it.
User avatar
RG1
Posts: 210
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2013 9:49 pm

Re: Self-awareness?

Post by RG1 »

bahman wrote:I don't think that we need a experiencer to experience. Experience just can happen.
Logically this is NOT possible. -- Again, something can’t happen if no-THING is happening!

An action requires an actor. Experiencing requires an Experiencer. One cannot be without the other. -- E.g. running requires a runner, singing requires a singer, perceiving requires a perceiver, etc, etc. And, ...experiencing can't happen without some-THING experiencing!

bahman wrote:This is central teaching of Buddhism which makes quite sense to me.
No offense Bahman, but it only makes sense to you because you are caught up in the ‘feel-goodness’ of your religion (Buddhism), which causes you to automatically (i.e. blindly) accept this as ‘truth’. You’ve discarded ‘logic' in favor of (religious) ‘feel-goodness’.

Note: Even the almighty Buddha can’t make the impossible, possible!
User avatar
RG1
Posts: 210
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2013 9:49 pm

Re: Self-awareness?

Post by RG1 »

Dontaskme wrote:There is always a lot of confusion between Awareness and Consciousness since we use both Awareness and Consciousness interchangeably. I would like to explain both Awareness and Consciousness with specific instances so that we may be able to differentiate Awareness and Consciousness.

Look at the following instances:
[…lots of words removed...]
Dontaskme, I agree (and disagree) with a lot of what you say. But to help simplify the understanding of this complex relationship:

1. Awareness is (sensory) experiencing.
2. Consciousness is the “knowing” that we experience, (…or more precisely, Consciousness is the experience of recognition made possible by memory.)

Many entities can experience, but not many can “know” they experience. The ones that “know” are the ones that are considered “conscious” subjects.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Self-awareness?

Post by bahman »

RG1 wrote: Logically this is NOT possible. -- Again, something can’t happen if no-THING is happening!

An action requires an actor. Experiencing requires an Experiencer. One cannot be without the other. -- E.g. running requires a runner, singing requires a singer, perceiving requires a perceiver, etc, etc. And, ...experiencing can't happen without some-THING experiencing!
This is just a claim: Experience needs an experiencer. We know that there have been a long debate existence of soul/mind. Do you have any proof that soul/mind (the experiencer) exist? Of course we cannot prove the contrary.
RG1 wrote: No offense Bahman, but it only makes sense to you because you are caught up in the ‘feel-goodness’ of your religion (Buddhism), which causes you to automatically (i.e. blindly) accept this as ‘truth’. You’ve discarded ‘logic' in favor of (religious) ‘feel-goodness’.

Note: Even the almighty Buddha can’t make the impossible, possible!
Buddhism in not my religion.
Post Reply