If I was not affected by something else, could I exist?
It’s as inconceivable as nothingness…
If I cannot exist without something to observe, and something has no proof of existence without observation…
Anyway…
Consciousness has been defined in multiple philosophies as “awareness of one’s own existence.” I would argue that we are not aware of our own existence, but that we are aware of otherness…
If you had no memory/memories and no senses, what would you be aware of? Even if you existed, but you had nothing but yourself… How would you know you existed?
In reality, lets say we are born without memories, but we have a portion of our brain devoted to memory, enough so that we can string moments together and be aware of movement. Until we actually do something, in that we intentionally interact with the otherness that we are aware of, we don’t have any evidence of a “self”. The question then becomes: How could we intentionally act until we knew we existed?
I guess you have to ask what consciousness is without awareness… again…
If we are aware of things, but we can also affect what we are aware of… Then maybe it’s possible that we can affect things without being aware of them.
If we are a force that’s always acting, but not always aware, that would explain the first of our actions that we were ever aware of.
I’m not sure what you’re trying to get at here, but I’ll try to respond, anyway.
First, we are born with memories–what I call ‘felt’ memories. They aren’t unconscious, we just don’t have the ability to express them. By the time we have that ability, the memories will have become unconscious. We’re also born with senses; but, again, without the ability to express them. We’re born with our instincts, which are based on mammalian experiences and the collective unconscious over long ages of our genetic development into homo sapiens. So, we are born ‘aware’ with all the tools needed to make us self-aware, except for the labels–the language–needed to express our awareness. We’re born conscious.
Yes, it’s possible that we can affect the entire world without being aware of how we’ve done so–it’s called the “butterfly effect.” It’s a principle in chaos theory which posits that even the smallest change in the space-time continuum will have unanticipated, unintended, and unknown consequences. In theory, that goes against determinism in a sense, but maybe not.
Whatever, I really don’t want to end your thread before it begins. I hope other people will respond.
The most basic level of memory we have, that allows us to experience movement and change, comes from our brain. What I’m saying is, there was a point when that part of our brains first developed and we went from basically no consciousness (just sensation without any concept of time or imagination), into consciousness.
Now, for us to make a voluntary action, we must first identify with something; we must first have a sense of self. The idea is “I’m going to do X,” and then we do it. But in order for us to have that idea, we have to know we are something, and not just an observer. We remember that we can act and that allows us to plan our actions.
Also, you have to accept that our imagination is 100% dependent on our memory as well. Everything we imagine is just bits of memory that we’ve manipulated in our heads…
So, if we have no evidence of a self aside from memories, then where did the first memory of an intentional act come from?
That’s why I ask if maybe conscious is something aside from sensation and memory… and that without those things, it may be the force that makes all these unconscious things behave in a seemingly conscious way.
You seem to be trying to make a number of different points with your thread. Is the basic question, “When does our brain first become self-aware?”
You then go on to self-awareness and ‘planning’ an action. From there, you suddenly bring up imagination and how it’s memory dependent. Finally, you say:
You seem to be making some pretty broad assumptions, here. We’re born with memory–basic memory, yes–brain stem and cerebellum activity. The frontal lobe also develops just before birth. When a baby is born normally (i.e., full term,) it comes equipped with everything it needs to maintain its life. It doesn’t yet have a fully developed frontal lobe or limbic system which are needed for both action and true memory, but their development has started. The brain grows as the skull grows–which is rapid during the first 3 yrs of life. That’s why a 2yr old questions can be so frustrating to the parents–it’s a tremendous growth period.
I’m still pondering your last sentence. What do you mean by “…the force that makes all these unconscious things behave in a seemingly conscious way”? What do you mean by “unconscious things”?
i’m not quite sure how you guys define awareness… but i view it like a line to infinity… meaning one can always be more “aware” of some thing
i can study an object, and over time my knowledge of the object, and likewise my awareness of the object will increase
when i apply this concept to myself, it is difficult to gauge, because self awareness is not something that others can dictate for me… to what can i compare my self-awareness against to know how self aware i am?
so i tell myself and others that i am not self aware, but for all i know… i could be the most self aware of all
the definition of consciousness you present is tricky to me… “awareness of one’s own existence”… well in my opinion, there’s this fact “i exist” somewhere up in my brain… but at any given moment… i’m usually not thinking about my own existence itself… perhaps i’m thinking of some object as it relates to me… for example “mmm beer this makes me feel good”… perhaps that’s some form of “self awareness”… perhaps not…
but what is to differentiate “mmm beer makes me feel good” from some robot doing its task? computer knows “go to this website”… but would we say that its self aware? well it’s “self” is defined to go to websites sometimes… what’s driving these actions seems to be similar enough… “i drink beer because it makes me feel better” and “go to this website” [because i (computer) have toggled voltages and to bring the system to electrical equilibrium results in a website being digitally transferred]
i think we’re just all really sophisticated robots that make more of themselves
i’m not convinced my self awareness or consciousness is significantly different in nature from that of a computer
I don’t really understand how awareness could be infinite, as I tend to think of awareness as existing in limited capacity. For example, it seems to me that we can only be aware of a limited amount of information at any particular moment. And there are some things we may never be able to be directly aware of – like the parts of the light spectrum that aren’t visible, or ultra high pitched/low pitched sounds that we can’t hear.
I see awareness as a vantage point that can shift and change focus, but that is limited in scope and attention. So I don’t think one can always be more aware of something, but perhaps one can always be aware of something in a different way or from a unique perspective.
it is infinite in the regards that it is shaped by what you know and have learned… correct me if i’m wrong, it seems that your view of awareness is limiting based on what is perceived in any given moment, where i’m extending it to encompass what is automatically comprehended based on that information. i do agree with you in that it can shift and change focus, but i dont think the scope is limited
so for instance, lets suppose man A shoots man B… hopefully example is not too simple or too complicated or incorrect
there’s 7 observers, of varying awareness
person A hears a loud BANG, and sees a dead man on the floor, and a man holding a gun next to him
person B hears a loud BANG, and sees a dead man on the floor, and a man holding a gun next to him
etc… same inputs
lets say person A was a baby… not aware of bullets, not aware of death, but definitely of loud, uncomfortable noises that make it cry
lets say person B is a child, aware of bullets, aware of death, gets scared, and begins to cry
lets say person C is an adult, aware of bullets, death, crazy people. also, he’s aware of the location (bank). he knows that people with guns in banks might be robbing the bank, and so he ducks and covers immediately (the action is not awareness, but is perhaps indicative of it)
lets say person D saw the whole thing! a man with a gun charged into the room,and then he heard the loud bang, and saw the man fall. person D instantly knows that person E killed the man.
lets say person E was getting ready to rob a bank, and right before he was getting ready to tell people to get on the floor, the man in front of him was shot
lets say person F, the ballistics expert,who was present, notices the blood spatter pattern on the wall, and the direction the body twisted and fell as it hit the wall and eventually the floor. he knows instantly (is aware) that person E did not kill the man.
lets say person G was sitting on the rooftop on the neighboring building, and shot the man through the window with a sniper rifle.
i’d say regarding this event (and lets limit the timeframe to the actual event)… person G is more aware than person F is more aware than person E is more aware than person C is more aware than person D is more aware than person B is more aware than person A
as far as infinity is concerned, well, yeah prolly not gonna happen… but should one practice… i think that awareness ‘increases’, and i’m not convinced there’s a limit
perhaps a simpler example (that relates more personally to me)
person A stands by a piano, hears someone playing a tune, an recognizes the tune
person B sits at the piano, and has a teacher show him the right buttons to press to play the tune
person C has played the piano for 3 years, and can read the music for the tune and play it
person D has played by ear 7 years, and knows basic chords, bassline, and melody to play hearing (some tune) for the first time
person E has played for 10 years, is a college pianist, can play the tune with a fair degree of technical proficiency, and is beginning to perfect the dynamics of the song
person F has played for 20 years, is a classical concert pianist, has spent years memorizing, and perfecting this tune alone, and can tell you more about the song then you want to know
person G has played for 50 years, is a classically trained jazz pianist, just heard the song for the first time, and just pulled an extremely techncially profecient improvisation based on the tune out of his ass, while integrating a variety of musical styles, in addition to many of his own personal styles, and self-invented techniques throughout the song
awareness of the most simple musical idea, the melody, is present in all observers… but the ones that practice, have a varying degree of expertise that allow them to recite and/or improvise with more…awareness i’d say
i do realize that my quantifications/comparisons (‘more’) are poorly defined, as the object of observation is even less clearly defined… but i hope that some point is coming across
without varying degrees of ‘awareness’, how can one be unaware?
You’re just describing different experiences. None of those people experienced more or less than any of the others, just different things.
While in thought we are less aware of our sensations, so there is a balance.
We may have different understandings of situations, like in your examples, but whether anyone’s understanding is more accurate than the next person’s, we have no way to prove.
