Is Self-Awareness Our Essence? From Instinct to Transcendence

I find myself reflecting on the very nature of existence, wondering what it truly means to “be” and whether our consciousness—our self-awareness—is the very thing that defines us as individuals. From the moment we are born, we begin to engage with the world around us. Yet, how much of this experience is shaped by our true selves, and how much is simply driven by instinct and evolutionary programming?

Consider the idea that, for many living organisms, existence is nothing more than auto-pilot. Creatures guided solely by primal instincts, honed over millions of years of evolution, operate in a world where their actions are mere responses to environmental stimuli—a product of deep, evolutionary trial and error. Without self-awareness, these beings function like biological machines, executing survival tasks without ever questioning the very act of living.

Humans, however, seem to break away from this purely instinctual mode of existence. We develop self-awareness—the ability to recognize that we exist, to think, to feel, and to reflect on our place in the world. But what does this awareness truly mean? Is it simply a byproduct of our advanced brain structures—an emergent property of neural complexity, a sophisticated program that processes sensory inputs, makes decisions, and forms beliefs? Our brains, intricate networks of neurons and electrical impulses, can indeed be seen as the engines of our thoughts and emotions. In many ways, consciousness could be regarded as no more mysterious than digestion or the beating of our heart—merely a natural result of evolution.

Yet, reducing self-awareness to a mere biological byproduct may not capture its full essence. The experience of being conscious transcends mechanical processes; it is an ineffable feeling that allows us to contemplate abstract ideas, reflect on our past, envision our future, and even question the very nature of existence. This capacity for deep thought—what some call “meta-awareness”—suggests there might be something more profound at work. Could it be that our brain serves not only as a vessel for thought but also as a connection to a broader, more intangible force—perhaps a spiritual or universal consciousness that unites all beings? The question lingers: Is self-awareness simply a complex trick of the mind, or does it point to a deeper truth about who we are and why we exist?

We are, in many respects, products of our time, molded by societal norms, inherited behaviors, and instinctual desires. And yet, through self-awareness, we possess the unique ability to break free from the confines of mere survival. We can question, explore, and seek out deeper truths that lie beyond our everyday experiences. But what happens when we push further—when we transcend the physical boundaries of our bodies and detach from the sensory world that defines our current reality? Is it possible to achieve a state of perfect understanding—a state where the limitations of sight, sound, and time dissolve, leaving behind nothing but infinite peace and harmony?

In such a state, our consciousness might expand beyond the physical, unlocking dimensions of reality that are currently beyond our grasp. This could be the ultimate goal of self-awareness: not merely to understand the self within the confines of this world, but to transcend it entirely, to merge with a realm where everything exists in flawless balance and unity.

I think it’s our endless speculation that drives us. We may never fully comprehend what lies beyond our limited sensory experience, but the very act of questioning connects us to something greater—a mystery that beckons us with the promise of infinite beauty and truth. Through our beliefs and our pursuit of the unknown, we strive to glimpse a reality where every detail is perfect, whole, and complete—a reality where existence is an endless journey toward transcendence.

Perhaps we are meant to reach beyond this mortal realm, to experience an existence that surpasses the mere survival of our bodies, evolving into a state where all is understood and peace is eternal. Whether this ultimate state awaits us in an afterlife or emerges as a future evolution of consciousness, the journey of self-awareness remains our most profound quest—a path that promises to lead us toward perfect bliss, where we are no longer bound by time, space, or sensory input.

And so, I continue to speculate, to question, and to explore. In this search, I believe we are uncovering something greater than ourselves—a truth that, while it may forever elude complete comprehension, calls us onward with its silent, infinite invitation.

1 Like

I believe the most beloved thing to God is the intellect.
Through it, God may fully manifest on his creation (Theophany) and thus reflect his image, be known - we believe God was a hidden treasure and he decided to be known, so he created the universe and it hosted us and so he ultimately became known.

There’s no evidence for consciousness as an holistic effect of neural networks, at least not that l’m aware of. I would therefore class this popular view as pseudoscience, sorry.

Also pseudoscience is evolution via gene mutation i.e. evolution as we commonly think of it today. There’s no sound science behind it. Have fun!

1 Like

I understand that you hold a deeply theological perspective regarding God’s intellect and creation, and I respect your commitment to those beliefs. However, there are a few points I’d like to discuss further.

First, while you suggest that consciousness can’t be reduced to neural networks, I would encourage considering the growing body of scientific research that supports the idea that consciousness is indeed tied to brain function, even if we don’t fully understand it yet. Neuroscientists have made significant strides in linking specific brain regions and activities to conscious experiences, although the true nature of consciousness remains one of the greatest mysteries in both science and philosophy.

As for evolution, it’s crucial to differentiate between scientific theories and belief systems. Evolution through natural selection is supported by extensive empirical evidence from genetics, paleontology, and observed patterns in nature. While I understand that some view it from a creationist perspective, the scientific consensus strongly supports evolutionary theory as the most robust explanation for biodiversity. Dismissing it as pseudoscience overlooks the considerable evidence and research that has built over more than a century.

I’m always open to engaging in a thoughtful discussion about these profound topics. The exploration of consciousness, the nature of God, and the origins of life are areas where science and philosophy can often complement each other, even if they approach the questions from different angles.

Let’s continue to engage with respect and openness, as these are essential to any meaningful dialogue on such complex and important matters.

You can read more about this subject here

Hi there!

Please may l see your evidence for consciousness arising from brain function? I know it’s tied to brain function but that’s not the same thing. Tying it to brain function could make it before or after. I insist that consciousness is before - it does not arise from brain function, holistically or otherwise. As far as l’m aware. Please show me otherwise.

As for evolution: Evolution as we know it doesn’t occur via natural selection. It’s weird because Darwin got the ball rolling by calling it natural selection.

Natural selection is good science and is demonstrable in the laboratory. Natural selection does not create any new information, it is a change in frequency of what already exists.

Evolution by gene mutation (the ball started rolling in 1943 when DNA was found to be the genetic material in cells) is very bad science. It is not demonstrable in the lab, and there are many ways it could be e.g. by replicating thousands of generations of bacteria etc.

Please feel free to show me otherwise. Stack exchange is full of fallacies on this subject. As for the fossil record, it’s full of errors and at least one natural history museum curator has gone on record admitting such (re: horse evolution from the cony).

Respect and openness all the way, but still by all means please destoy my viewpoint with facts.

1 Like

Sorry i thought you were linking to Stack Exchange. The link you showed was very basic and didn’t really say anything as to the origin of consciousness. Sorry. In fact it hypothesised the soul, which you know, is my POV.

Copy and paste three choice examples of evolution and l’ll disprove them. Then l gtg for bit.

Yes. I will try every possibly resource. I will venture through and through. Give me a month.

No need, just three will do, now. Google. I have a life sciences degree so am fairly literate in this field. Though somewhat rusty stil l’m more or less on top of things.

One of my dissertations was neuroscience-related.

General sense is best. 3 months it is.

No no, just three examples, it needn’t take long, a 10 minute Google search. I can disprove them in the same time too heh.

I have personal appointments. I cannot now.

OK speak soon, but l do want to leave this site within a few days as l have commitments too and so l can’t keep posting here (not being moody, but l was saying it even before you arrived).

What would really help me is if you could potentially summarize your expectations. Until then, I must go. See you soon!

I expect you to name one thing e.g.

  1. Bacteria were bred and found to have developed the ability to metabolise citric acid. Article reference (abstract only): htttps://elsevier.com/article2323/abstract [made up URL don’t click]
  2. Horse evolution shows that horses began as small animals and as they evolved, their skeletons in higher and higher strata increased in size and gradually became more like the modern horse, that can’t have been natural selection surely?
  3. I don’t know what else. Surprise me.

Bye for now!

@Cody_LovesPhilosophy Hi there, apologies but l have to leave the forum for a scheduled long break now. I hope you google the anti-evolution dialogue. Creationism has sadly become a noun and thus is heavily focussed on Xtian views, but there’s a basic scientific dialogue in there, against evolution, and l approve of it wholeheartedly. So far l’ve seen nothing to counter the anti-evolution dialogue.

As l say, it’s confusing because it all began with Darwin’s Natural Selection - which is actually 100% scientific and demonstrable in the lab. But natural selection only filters out what already exists, that’s a bait and switch for gene mutation evolution, which requires de novo gene creation and has zero basis, and hasn’t been proven in the lab, and it easily good, it doesn’t require millions of years e.g. fruit flies, bacteria, algae, plant life, can replicate quicker.

Quick survey of possible objections:

  1. If a bacteria suddenly gains the ability to metabolise citric acid, then that’s just like saying a table with a crack in it can now be used to hold a ruler or pen. The test l suppose is: does this ability now make it more likely to survive the given environment? And is the ability inheritable? So far all l’ve surmised is “no”.

  2. Horse evolution is faked, there are small horse ancestors existing alongside larger so-called descendants and / or the smaller ones lived right on the other side of the world and had no audit trail taking them from one end of the world to the other. Crucially though: they were different species. The small horse is a species called Hyrax i.e. cony, i.e. a rock rabbit, a rodentlike creature that isn’t actually a rabbit and certainly a different species to horse altogether, and the confusion means even today in some languages horse is called Kony. Still, this falsehood is in the textbooks

Bye for now, maybe speak another time but for now l’m going for a long while.