Alpha wrote:rg1, it seems to me, that for anyone to recognize that there even is a physical self, is in itself being aware that there is a me that isn't you, him, her, or anyone else, which should suffice.
RG1 wrote:Alpha, I agree that it seems that “self-awareness” implies something ‘more’ than that of which we are ‘actually’ aware of (i.e. the physical self). It also seemingly implies the existence of a ‘mind’ (the mental self; mind). BUT, take a closer look and you will see the hidden ‘equivocation fallacy’ in play here (i.e. the dual meaning of “self”; assigning one meaning of “self” to prove the other).
I’m sure you will agree that the conclusion here does not logically follow: “I experience apples, therefore oranges exist!”, …and likewise, nor does it logically follow that: “I experience the self (the physical body), therefore the self (the mind) exists!”.
Remember: The existence of a “mind” is not required to 'experience’. The “body” can experience just fine by itself.
i don't know how the body can experience anything by itself. i'm not saying that there must exist a mind (such as in a soul), but even if it were possible for a purely physical creature to experience things, there would still need to be a central part (like the brain) which processes everything and is the part which is aware of the self and such. animals (other than humans) would probably never comprehend these distinctions, but they (some) might be able to understand 'self' in a more primitive/simple way (maybe just the physical self, i.e., body).
"My cats evidently don't recognize themselves. Is this proof of lack of sufficient intelligence?" [clueless response earlier]
I had a deaf cat and she learned to interpret mirrors because of this deficit. She recognized herself in the mirror and used it to interpret where I was in relation to her when I played with her. This, at least for me, disproves the idea that a mirror could be used to interpret whether some animal is somehow more or less 'aware' of itself. I also learned to interpret her expressions which I never would have before. I even taught her to communicate using symbolic gestures. I think that a deaf cat (or other limited sensed animal) would be an ideal way to measure these things as they help remove other external influences required to do a better experiment. Animals that don't appear to recognize their image is immature and likely false. They simply just have no patience to care to interpret what a mirror IS. If they HAD to interpret what they see as not some other animal, they too would learn what a mirror is and then be able to interpret the image as a reflection of themselves. This supposed experiment to interpret whether other animals are somehow conscious is severely more anti-intellectually derived and biased to favor what we, as humans, impose what is significant to the definition of consciousness.
Interesting!
Would you mind elaborating on the kind of play which required that the cat use a mirror to keep track of you. I should think, having no vision deficit, it could see where you were in relation to it without need of a mirror?
I already heard of the mirror test (see Wikipedia's discussion on this at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-awareness) and they discuss how they would anesthetize a spot and place it on the animal to see if upon looking in the mirror whether they could interpret they have this mark on them and try to wipe it away.
I merely played with her where I'd sneak a finger or toy up to her as she is staring in the mirror and she learned to interpret where the object was and seemed to enjoy using the mirror purposely to do this rather than turn around.
How is animals appearing not to recognize their image in a mirror immature and likely false?
I don't think this experiment is even valid because I believe it was intended to try to distinguish us as humans as somehow more 'superior' in our own consciousness. Most religious people certainly believe that WE humans have some kind of 'soul' and this explains why some would like such an experiment to justify this. However, even many non-religious scientists may also believe that we have some truer form of 'consciousness'. I think our only distinctive advantage is about our quantity of memory that we may have to adapt to changing environments. Unlike other animals, we can rapidly exchange environments. A lion, for instance, would not tolerate going from Africa to Siberia.
So I think all animals share common forms of consciousness including the 'awareness'. It is more about the luxury we have as humans given time and patience that allows us to even care to be self-reflective. But naturally, most animals are still like hyper-active children who are too energized to pay attention. They have to be to survive. But it doesn't mean they lack the same capacity to 'feel' or even think intellectually as we do.
I should think that curiosity, in the case of cats-who are renowned for it-would be sufficient motivation to determine who that is in the mirror. I think they see a stranger that they want nothing to do with They study my image in the mirror while I'm holding them and look at me directly from time to time, as if wondering how I can be in two places at once, in the manner of an electron. They prefer not to look at themselves, and prefer not to touch the mirror. When they were babies, they "enjoyed" seeing those kittens in the little handheld mirror placed on the table, and vied for ringside seats; even tried to look under the mirror, and, in the process, succeeded in knocking it off the table.
It's great that you were able to teach your cat sign language.
Yeah, I learned a lot from her (she died in 2012 of Cancer). She was easy to learn signs but was a bit confused at how to nod as she only interpreted it to mean, "affirm" but never a "no". So a 'no' would simply be a non-response whereas a 'yes' would be a quick shake of her head. So I could ask her what she'd or want and she'd 'affirm' to me when I hit on target. I wasn't intending to do any actual experiments with her so didn't expand on this in kind to what a scientist would do in the lab. But we learned to easily communicate a lot, including her emotional states. [Yes, even a cat can 'smile'!]
To alpha and others: In the declaration, "I'm aware of my physical self", who or what is professing the awareness, and in what sense is the physical self "mine"?
Isn't the brain (which has many components) the organ of awareness? Without the brain, there is no awareness. Evidently, without just one component - the claustrum, there is no awareness. In certain diseases of the brain, awareness is altered or diminished.
If, in the declaration, "physical self" is to be interpreted as referring to one's body parts - the brain is aware of body parts - then the brain is aware of itself, being one such body part. The external viewable parts are apprehrended by vision, whereas the internal brain and other parts usually only enter awareness in other ways, such as through education. Who among you has seen his own brain with his own eyes?
My physical self consists of my entire body including my organ of awareness; namely, my brain. If I'm aware of my physical self (see Webster's definitions of "my" and "mine") which includes the brain, I am not the brain nor any of those body parts. So, what am I? I "seem" to be something the brain produces or does or constructs.
I know the world around me (the environment which l see and interact with (experience)) is constructed by this brain (my brain), and I suspect that I/me/myself am likewise constructed. In short, the brain constructs me and the reality which I experience. I am the ghost in the machine.
To RG1: What's wrong with "I experience the physical self; therefore, I exist."? I am the experiencer; what I'm experiencing is the physical body. Call me self or call me something else.
To Scott Mayers: In shaving myself, I'm simultaneously shaving that fellow in the mirror. Is it any wonder that when I notice that he has shaving cream on his forehead, I wipe it off for him.
How do we know the chimp doesn't think he or his twin is actually in there behind the mirror surface? We don't really know what the chimp thinks; how he processes this experience.
clueless wrote:To Scott Mayers: In shaving myself, I'm simultaneously shaving that fellow in the mirror. Is it any wonder that when I notice that he has shaving cream on his forehead, I wipe it off for him.
How do we know the chimp doesn't think he or his twin is actually in there behind the mirror surface? We don't really know what the chimp thinks; how he processes this experience.
You can say this about everything you observer or experience though.
clueless wrote:To Scott Mayers: In shaving myself, I'm simultaneously shaving that fellow in the mirror. Is it any wonder that when I notice that he has shaving cream on his forehead, I wipe it off for him.
How do we know the chimp doesn't think he or his twin is actually in there behind the mirror surface? We don't really know what the chimp thinks; how he processes this experience.
You can say this about everything you observer or experience though.
How does a man with a one-word vocabulary say "I lost my car keys."?
RG1 wrote:Remember: The existence of a “mind” is not required to 'experience’. The “body” can experience just fine by itself.
Alpha wrote:i don't know how the body can experience anything by itself. i'm not saying that there must exist a mind (such as in a soul), but even if it were possible for a purely physical creature to experience things, there would still need to be a central part (like the brain) which processes everything….
The brain IS part of the physical body. Why do you think a mind is necessary to experience? What function does it perform? When we feel (experience) pain, do we first need conscious permission from the mind before we are allowed to feel what we feel?
clueless wrote:What leads us astray is imprecise language.
Agreed.
clueless wrote:What's wrong with "I experience the physical self; therefore, I exist."?
It depends. Who is this “I” (in red)? Is this the ‘physical self’ (i.e. the body) or the ‘mental self’ (i.e. the mind)?
If you are trying to claim “I experience the ‘body’, therefore the ‘mind’ exists” then this logic is flawed. (Example: “I experience ‘apples’, therefore ‘oranges’ exist”).
Or, maybe you are really trying to claim “I experience…, therefore I (the mind) exist”. If so, then who is this “I” (in blue)? The ‘mind’ or ‘body’?
If you are trying to claim “The ‘body’ experiences…, therefore the ‘mind’ exists”, then again, this logic is flawed (via equivocation). And if you are claiming “The ‘mind’ experiences, therefore the ‘mind’ exists”, then again this logic is flawed (via begging-the-question; pre-assuming the conclusion).
clueless wrote:I am the experiencer…
Yes, agreed. That is all we are and can be. In effect, we are all just ‘experiencing’ machines (physical bodies) that auto-react to our circumstances. (note: minds do not exist except as a concept/notion)
RG1 wrote:Remember: The existence of a “mind” is not required to 'experience’. The “body” can experience just fine by itself.
the only part of the body that does any actual experiencing, is the brain.
Alpha wrote:i don't know how the body can experience anything by itself. i'm not saying that there must exist a mind (such as in a soul), but even if it were possible for a purely physical creature to experience things, there would still need to be a central part (like the brain) which processes everything….
RG1 wrote:The brain IS part of the physical body. Why do you think a mind is necessary to experience? What function does it perform? When we feel (experience) pain, do we first need conscious permission from the mind before we are allowed to feel what we feel?
... In effect, we are all just ‘experiencing’ machines (physical bodies) that auto-react to our circumstances. (note: minds do not exist except as a concept/notion)
even if the mind is only a notional thing, it can still be called "i", or "self", since it encompasses all the aspects of a person. personally, i'm inclined to believe that we do actually have souls/minds, but for those who don't, i guess they must either accept that the notional mind is the "i" and the "self", or attribute the "i" and "self" to the brain directly, since it's what is creating this notion of a mind/i/self.
RG1 wrote:Remember: The existence of a “mind” is not required to 'experience’. The “body” can experience just fine by itself.
Alpha wrote: ...but even if it were possible for a purely physical creature to experience things, there would still need to be a central part (like the brain) which processes everything... ...The only part of the body that does any actual experiencing, is the brain.
Not so, I think creatures ‘without’ a brain can also experience.
Have you ever put a (brainless) worm on a fishing hook? When you puncture its body with the hook, do you notice how violently it squirms as if it is trying to get away? I think the worm ‘experiences’ something that has caused it to squirm as it does. I suspect ‘reaction’ to stimuli is an indication of ‘experiencing’. This would also include (brainless) single-celled organisms 'experiencing' (reacting) to a beam of light.
The brain, or more specifically, ‘memory’, allows us creatures to ‘KNOW’ that we've experienced. For without memory, the experience could not be 'knowingly' felt. Memory is the retention, and the subsequent activation(s), of the retained experiences. Memory is the receiver, keeper, activator of experiences.
Therefore, I suspect that 'brainless entities' such as worms and single-cell organisms do in fact ‘experience’, but they just don’t know it!
RG1 wrote:... In effect, we are all just ‘experiencing’ machines (physical bodies) that auto-react to our circumstances. (note: minds do not exist except as a concept/notion).
Alpha wrote:Even if the mind is only a notional thing, it can still be called "i", or "self", since it encompasses all the aspects of a person.
What "aspects"? What does the ‘mind’ give us (encompass) that the ‘experiencing body’ does not?
Alpha wrote:...or attribute the "i" and "self" to the brain directly, since it's what is creating this notion of a mind/i/self.
Alpha wrote:The only part of the body that does any actual experiencing, is the brain.
RG1 wrote:Not so, I think creatures ‘without’ a brain can also experience.
Have you ever put a (brainless) worm on a fishing hook? When you puncture its body with the hook, do you notice how violently it squirms as if it is trying to get away? I think the worm ‘experiences’ something that has caused it to squirm as it does. I suspect ‘reaction’ to stimuli is an indication of ‘experiencing’. This would also include (brainless) single-celled organisms 'experiencing' (reacting) to a beam of light.
The brain, or more specifically, ‘memory’, allows us creatures to ‘KNOW’ that we've experienced. For without memory, the experience could not be 'knowingly' felt. Memory is the retention, and the subsequent activation(s), of the retained experiences. Memory is the receiver, keeper, activator of experiences.
Therefore, I suspect that 'brainless entities' such as worms and single-cell organisms do in fact ‘experience’, but they just don’t know it!
even if i agree with this, i must emphasize that such primitive and simple creatures would "experience" things in a much lower/simpler way than us, in addition to not knowing about it.
RG1 wrote:... In effect, we are all just ‘experiencing’ machines (physical bodies) that auto-react to our circumstances. (note: minds do not exist except as a concept/notion).
Alpha wrote:Even if the mind is only a notional thing, it can still be called "i", or "self", since it encompasses all the aspects of a person.
RG1 wrote:What "aspects"? What does the ‘mind’ give us (encompass) that the ‘experiencing body’ does not?
i'm sure that you won't deny things like emotions, which are purely non-body-related (even if one believes them to be nothing more than chemical or neuronal activities/reactions in the brain). the mind encompasses the physical and non-physical aspects of a person.
To RG1 and others: The brain performs a multitude of tasks (many simultaneously) and engages in a multitude of behaviors - it speaks (with the aid of the vocal apparatus which it controls); it smiles or frowns (with the aid of the facial muscles which it controls); it gestures; it nods the head; it writes; it taps at keys and symbols; it answers the phone; in short, it communicates.
The brain falls in love; laughs; cries; grieves; rejoices; sends flowers; dreams; creates art; despairs; wields a weapon, a scalpel, a stethoscope; apologizes; thinks; expresses gratitute; speculates; worships; philosophizes; sympathizes; is curious; experiments; pursues knowledge; makes mistakes; succeeds; invents technology; admires beauty; becomes frustrated; anticipates; criticizes; acts and reacts; hopes; doubts; senses; experiences; and so on, ad infinitum.
How do you define "processing"? What is the nature of processing? What is the brain/mind doing when it's engaged in processing; in thinking; knowing; employing logic; solving problems? Computing? What do we know and how do we know it? Why can't we know for certain whether (or not) there is mind/self? Is it possible to introspect? Are the mental and the physical a false dichotomy? What provokes thought?
Now, we must define "physical". Physical as opposed to what? Mental? Which is a concept? Are they both concepts? Or constructs?
What's involved in the "recognition" of the physical self? Does such recognition (realization/knowing) involve processing? If so, what is doing the processing? Is processing something that is done or something that just happens? When you grind meat, is the grinding something "you" do or something the grinder does?
I (the physical self) am like them, but I am not them (those others).
If there were multiple identical persons (with all which that implies) and "you" were one of them, which of them would you be? Are you really unique? Are you really?? If so, why? Why does your consciousness seem confined to you (your body; your brain; your soul)? Why is it yours? Why are you that identical, though particular person? Why are you that bloke and not this bloke? Why are you you and not me? Why is your consciousness confined within YOUR skull?
"I experience apples [an apple]; therefore, oranges [an orange] exist[s]" So, I'm an orange? Just kidding. My point is: If it is the case that nothing experiences which doesn't exist, then my experiencing is proof of my existence. It is not, however, proof that I am physical (a brain), although if I'm not a brain, what the hell am I?
Maybe my experiences are illusions. If so, do "they" exist; if so, where?
To exist is to persist (to have duration in time; to endure; to last, even for a short while).
When someone says/writes/signs "I", to whom or what does s/he refer? When someone says/writes/signs "you", to whom or what does s/she refer? THAT is the question. In referring to a person as "I", what is one doing but identifying the person who speaks (the PWS). The question is then: Who or what is doing the identifying (assuming the identifying is something being done (an act))?
Is the brain making the identification, or is something else; e.g., the so-called mind?
If we "auto-react" to our circumstances, there is no need for "mind" nor any decision-making feature which surveys the situation and decides whether (or not) to react: what action to take. We are automatons.
"I experience (which may not be the case); therefore, I exist." Why not: I exist; therefore, I experience? What does it mean to experience? Do we experience in the same sense that we smell, see, hear, taste, touch? Is seeing an experience? I see; therefore, I exist? When I watch TV (the telly), who or what is watching it; paying attention to it? The brain can usually accurately report what it's doing; the experiences it's "having". It's up to the addressee to interpret the report. What's wrong with the brain reporting that it (I) is (am) having a certain visual, auditory, cognitive, and emotional experience; namely, watching television? In so doing, is the brain only aware of the experience, or is it also aware of who's having it, or, at the very least, aware of which person is having it? PWS is watching television = I am watching television.
most of your post is too heavy for me, so i'll just address this part;
clueless wrote:If we "auto-react" to our circumstances, there is no need for "mind" nor any decision-making feature which surveys the situation and decides whether (or not) to react: what action to take. We are automatons.
the "decision-making", "surveying the situation", etc., are part of the auto-reacting process.
To RG1, Alpha, and others: Where do you think you are (perceive yourself to be) relative to what you see? I'm seated in my living room, watching television again. The set is directly in front of me, only a few feet away. To the right of the TV (stage left) is a cat curled up in a chair. Behind me is another cat stretched out on a sofa. To the left of the TV (stage right) is a bookcase, and to the left of it is another cat curled up in another chair next to a window. To the left of this cat is yet another cat curled up in a pet bed on the carpeted floor, and to his right is the aforementioned sofa. Intervening between me and the cat in the aforementioned chair by the window is yet a fifth cat to my immediate left, curled up in a chair. The doorway to an adjoining room is to my far right, and to the right of it (stage left) are some cabinets and another bookcase. To the left of it are more cabinets, a china cabinet, and a gun case. In the far northwest corner, near the cat in the chair by the window, and behind the cat in the petbed, is an upright piano. To the left of the cat on the sofa (stage right) is a desk and more shelves. To the immediate left of the TV is a stereo radio/cd player and some speakers. On the wall above the sofa is a large painting of four arctic wolves. On the table which supports the TV is a phone, some books, TV and radio remotes, and more speakers. In my right hand is a smartphone "tuned" to Philosophy Now Forum. I tap the virtual keys with the index finger of my left hand. Affixed to the ceiling of the room are two light fixtures. I perceive that I am surrounded by all these things which I see and, in the case of the smartphone and the chair upon which I sit and the floor my feet rest upon, feel. I know these things are "out there"; that the room in which I sit is bounded by the walls which, I cannot see beyond. When I close my eyes, the scene goes away. All that remains is the sound from the TV, the snoring of a cat, and what I feel by virtue of sense of touch..
I sometimes ask people where the world goes when they close their eyes. If they answer at all, it's to say, "Nowhere." I suppose I should ask "Where does what you see go when you close your eyes?" Probably the answer would be the same. Everyone knows you can't see with your eyes closed.
Of course, we enlightened ones know that what we see and feel and hear are 3-D images constructed by the brain (computed) using information available to it via the sensory pathways. Does the brain construct us (we observers) also?
Where do you locate yourself; roughly behind your eyes?
If the brain constructs the room in which I sit; the world in which I live, does it not construct me also?
I swear to God I'm sitting here in this room, in this chair, in this brain, watching TV.
clueless wrote:To Scott Mayers: In shaving myself, I'm simultaneously shaving that fellow in the mirror. Is it any wonder that when I notice that he has shaving cream on his forehead, I wipe it off for him.
How do we know the chimp doesn't think he or his twin is actually in there behind the mirror surface? We don't really know what the chimp thinks; how he processes this experience.
You can say this about everything you observer or experience though.
How does a man with a one-word vocabulary say "I lost my car keys."?
