Am "I" who "I" really am?

[thegsg]

So this has been on my mind for several years now, so heck why not post this here... so iv'e been thinking were just a bunch of atoms put together so why do we have this sense of individuality. that animals and other non human organisms don't have. why do we see everything from a first person prospective? maybe its because this world is not real and were hooked up as batteries like in the movie "The Matrix"... or maybe its because of our "soul" well my lack of English skills prevent me from explaining my thoughts more deeply but i hope you get the question so any thoughts guys?

[Elfdude]

You're mistaken, what you are experiencing is an illusion of your conscious mind. All animals have a first person perspective, humans are unique in being able to imagine any other perspective as far as we know (although there's promising studies with dolphins and elephants it's very difficult to study directly). Humans essentially understand that they are themselves and understand that others are their own as well. Any animal which can understand it's looking at itself in a mirror presumably can understand that it is itself but no animal as of yet has been conclusively demonstrated to understand that others not only share differing viewpoints but can guess at what those might be. We have a vast imagination because we have a vast amount of brain material. Animals see our output and respond to it, and they do so perhaps even better than humans do, but animals can't imagine what our output might be. We can even take it steps further and imagine what others might imagine in response to our imaginings and so on.

What's important to note is that children are not born with this ability, it usually appears sometime around 4 when they begin to understand deception.

[Phier]

What's important to note is that children are not born with this ability, it usually appears sometime around 4 when they begin to understand deception.

With both of my children, I would say was pretty much there, as soon as they were able to talk.

[Elfdude]

With both of my children, I would say was pretty much there, as soon as they were able to talk.

Object permanence and variable perspectives can arise as early as 2, 4 is merely the average. Presumably giving them good stimulation while their children can significantly increase this because it's more about the critical mass of connections and braincells hitting X point. However it's possible that they were simply emulating you without any concept of what they were doing. Its also possible that emulation is the start of learning. A 2 year old for example typically finds snow white very uninteresting because to them since they know the apple is poisonous they wonder why snow white would ever eat the poisonous apple. By 4 this perspective has typically changed to understanding the witch is deceiving snow white in a way we all can be. Still these are merely averages and those averages are based off of average intelligence, I wouldn't be surprised if many of the people here were above average.

Humans are the only beings that are self-aware elfdude. My favorite example, birds building a nest, have no conception of what they're unthinkingly doing.

This is hardly true even for birds. Self awareness as far as science has investigated is not limited to humans, it's the ability to imagine alternate perspectives which is. Sorry but your line in the dirt is not a line based off of science but your own exaltation of humanity while bringing down everything around it. You share so many conflicting viewpoints on this that it is rather clear. Even my line in the dirt may or may not be present but testing for something far more complex than self awareness is damn difficult.

I'm afraid there is nothing 'decisive' about it at all. In fact it is highly ambiguous for any understanding of the animal psyche other than the most primitive one, that they realize they see their own body in the mirror. That proves absolutely nothing about being able to understand themselves and their own mental processes. Here is how a human aware of his mental processes acts: he builds a home in full awareness of all his steps. If something needs adjusting, he changes the steps. No animal has been able to "change the steps" of any part of its life.

Signifer I don't even know where this tangent is coming from but it's distinctly wrong on every level. Life is about adaptation, learning, responding to your environment. No life is the automaton you paint it to be because a brain does not work like a computer even on the simplest level in insects. Neural networks are not automatons and your attempt to describe life like that speaks only of your personal bias. When an animal can recognize itself in the mirror and begin styling it's hair its self aware.

Chimps, gorillas and orangutans do this. They even use mirrors as tools to clean their teeth. When a chimp builds their nest they do so based not on instinct (although all animals have instincts to build/find shelter including us) but based on their own personal learning from their troops. Troops invent novel ways to deal with novel environments.

The easiest way to find rays and hidden fish on the top layer of sand on the sea floor is to dig around in it. This is an obvious danger for the ocean is filled with poisonous barbed and spined creatures. Dolphins use sea sponges gathered around their noses to protect their faces as they dig in spiral patterns on the sea floor. This is a unique dolphin invention only appearing in a few related dolphin communities. This is adaptation the very thing life must be able to do to survive. Your idea does not make any sense on any level in light of the information and I'm afraid your attempts to separate the two ideas as black and white fail miserably.

Why do those birds build the same retarded nest, incapable of building a roof, a multi-room nest, use more robust materials, provide heat and plumbing? Why have the apes never worn clothes to keep themselves warm, draw or paint, build bows and use spears? Because they have no idea what they're doing, and you haven't shown anything to the contrary.

Not only is this tangent unrelated to the topic at hand (none of those things demonstrate self awareness) but you're wrong on several aspects. Individual birds have preferences for what type of materials they use for their nests, the size, the shape, the individual design. Social birds do design multiroom nests with robust materials. Have they figured out fire? No, but to be fair it took us how many years to develop heating and plumbing? Not to mention the number of times humanity did away with it due to lost information... I guess we weren't human then?

Chimps do use spears, sticks and stones, gorillas do use sticks and stones. Apes do not need clothes but if you give them a blanket they'll immediately understand it's use and advantages over their woven leaf blankets. Apes do understand art but go figure in the wild they don't have much use for it. Apes can be taught to understand how to build and use fire. As for showing anything to the contrary I have to scoff at this whole heartedly. I've shown you peer reviewed studies on this subject dozens of times now. Not one of these things is unknown and a simple google search will net you what I'm talking about almost immediately. Ask yourself if it's really me who hasn't shown anything to the contrary but rather you? I suspect you're projecting onto others here.

It's very simple. The soul, i.e. the mind, relies on the mechanical brain, and is obviously incapable of functioning without it, but that does not mean they are interchangeable. Here's a good analogy:

Say there's a CD player, and a CD disc of music. You put the CD into the player, to play the music. Obviously the music is highly, maybe even completely dependent on the normal functioning of the player, but that does not mean that the player and the music are interchangeable, or that the player is where the music originall comes from.

Our base programming is determined by our genetics as far as we can tell. To assume that there's CD in the player when one is already provided by nature is both redundant and violates Occam's razor. You are welcome to believe this but don't make the mistake of thinking it's anything other than a unsubstantiated belief.

All these neurological tests you cite have been able to do is to disable parts of the brain (CD player), and show how the the proper sound of music relies on the normal functioning of the player. Well of course if you smash the player the music will come out distorted! That's a no-brainer! But scientists, having complete access to the player, haven't been able to create any music, and that's the point I'm trying to make.

This is a lie. Scientists cannot currently completely model the brain. The processing power of the brain is akin to the the internet if it were 10x more complex. We can model smaller brains though and play 'music' on them. For example we can hook a rat brain up to a robot and show that the neurons (even barely functional as they are) lead to the robot learning based off of it's environment. If simple neurons can accomplish this and severely hindered neurons at that then your entire thesis falls apart. You unfortunately do not know the science in this field and your attempts to prove otherwise simply fall on their face from the outset. You're making appeals to plainly wrong ideas for no apparent reason other than your own personal distaste for the natural world and your raging boner for your own personal explanation.

We don't even have mathematical models that properly describe how neural networks work. Networking theory and random number theory are the formative attempts at just that.

[SigniferOne]

Humans are the only beings that are self-aware elfdude. My favorite example, birds building a nest, have no conception of what they're unthinkingly doing.

[Vizsla]

birds building a nest, have no conception of what they're unthinkingly doing.

How do you know this?

[Tankbuster]

That might be true for birds, but several mammals do at least have a "first person perspective", which is an important part of self-awareness. The mirror test quite decisively shows this to be the case.

Now, as to the question of where this sense of consciousness comes from: all the evidence is that it is located in various parts of the brain such that the case for a supernatural element is effectively debunked (at this point). All the elements of human consciousness that were once attributed to a soul, have been located in various parts of the brain, and we are able to consistently manipulate our own consciousness through various natural mechanisms. Whether it's through drugs, various sicknesses, tumors, temporal lobe damage, magnetic stimulation, it has been comprehensively shown that a human's experience is in direct relation to the chemical atmosphere in his brain. The proponents of a soul simply are not able to explain why, if we are dealing with a supposedly supernatural entity here, it is so dependent on the natural world to the point where it is indistinguishable from a natural process.
In addition, supernatural explanations have difficulty explaining the fact that we encounter primitive forms of consciousness and self-awareness in other animals with large brains.

[SigniferOne]

That might be true for birds, but several mammals do at least have a "first person perspective", which is an important part of self-awareness. The mirror test quite decisively shows this to be the case.

I'm afraid there is nothing 'decisive' about it at all. In fact it is highly ambiguous for any understanding of the animal psyche other than the most primitive one, that they realize they see their own body in the mirror. That proves absolutely nothing about being able to understand themselves and their own mental processes. Here is how a human aware of his mental processes acts: he builds a home in full awareness of all his steps. If something needs adjusting, he changes the steps. No animal has been able to "change the steps" of any part of its life. Why do those birds build the same retarded nest, incapable of building a roof, a multi-room nest, use more robust materials, provide heat and plumbing? Why have the apes never worn clothes to keep themselves warm, draw or paint, build bows and use spears? Because they have no idea what they're doing, and you haven't shown anything to the contrary.

The proponents of a soul simply are not able to explain why, if we are dealing with a supposedly supernatural entity here, it is so dependent on the natural world to the point where it is indistinguishable from a natural process.
In addition, supernatural explanations have difficulty explaining the fact that we encounter primitive forms of consciousness and self-awareness in other animals with large brains.

It's very simple. The soul, i.e. the mind, relies on the mechanical brain, and is obviously incapable of functioning without it, but that does not mean they are interchangeable. Here's a good analogy:

Say there's a CD player, and a CD disc of music. You put the CD into the player, to play the music. Obviously the music is highly, maybe even completely dependent on the normal functioning of the player, but that does not mean that the player and the music are interchangeable, or that the player is where the music originall comes from.

All these neurological tests you cite have been able to do is to disable parts of the brain (CD player), and show how the the proper sound of music relies on the normal functioning of the player. Well of course if you smash the player the music will come out distorted! That's a no-brainer! But scientists, having complete access to the player, haven't been able to create any music, and that's the point I'm trying to make.

[LegionnaireX]

Why do those birds build the same retarded nest, incapable of building a roof, a multi-room nest, use more robust materials, provide heat and plumbing?

You don't give birds enough credit. Crowes have been shown to demonstrate insight learning (one of the highest forms of learning) in various scenarios:

Why have the apes never worn clothes to keep themselves warm, draw or paint, build bows and use spears? Because they have no idea what they're doing, and you haven't shown anything to the contrary.

First of all, apes don't need clothing because they live near the equator in humid rainforests. Clothing is entirely unnecessary and it would be for humanity as well had we not lost our fur coat. And FYI, apes are known to use primitive tools.

Say there's a CD player, and a CD disc of music. You put the CD into the player, to play the music. Obviously the music is highly, maybe even completely dependent on the normal functioning of the player, but that does not mean that the player and the music are interchangeable, or that the player is where the music originall comes from.

I supported this notion back when I was religious because I felt it was the only way to reconcile science with faith in a soul. However, the analogy fails. A soul is supposed to be able to exist outside of the body in keeping with the religious notion of the soul. What good is a soul if it cannot function independently once the body dies? Not to mention there is no evidence for this at all. You are speculating.

[Helm]

"Am "I" who "I" really am?"

Yes you are, now all you have to do is find out who you really are, that's where it gets tough.

[thegsg]

"Am "I" who "I" really am?"

Yes you are, now all you have to do is find out who you really are, that's where it gets tough.

LOL its just a "clever" title (for me at least) so dont pick on it

[godol shmok]

Why should animals not have self-awareness?

[Helm]

Why should animals not have self-awarness?

They only have general awareness, apart from dolphins and great apes. If an animal an use a mirrior it's self aware.

[godol shmok]

They only have general awareness, apart from dolphins and great apes. If an animal can use a mirrior it's self aware.

There are examples from a grand ape communication project in California where the grand ape makes jokes about herself. These cases are very special and have certainly aspects that are conditioned partially because of the environment in which they take place. Nevertheless, they show that more complex forms of self-awareness have come up in evolution before homo sapiens and that (self-)awareness has also something to do with the means of expression an individual representative of a species has got from nature or is able to learn, be it in the field or under the conditions of an experiment.
------------------
I would think one aspect that might be worth mentioning here is that (self-)awareness stands in relation to the ability to play. It looks to me as experiments like the mirror experiment can have aspects of a game to the probands and they certainly do so to the experimentators. A game can include an awareness of yourself as another (your mirror image). The ability to be aware of yourself as another "thing, person in a mirror" says something about the "ethically" awareness of a "subject". That leads to the question, what is an ethical subject. Can an animal in an experiment experience itself as an ethical subject?

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

Siggy is right. First, brainy-mechanical materialism is a fallacy which cannot distinguish the consciousness from the object of consciousness. The mind manifests itself through the brain, and is not the brain. To use a good analogy:

In so far as you insist on talking about the brain instead of the mind . . . the series of brains, observing and observed, is rather like the procession of oozlem birds. Each bird consumes the one behind it. But how do you deal with the last bird in the procession, or how does it deal with itself?

. . . if you start from the brain and say it "constructs" the world it is aware of, you seem to leave out of account the fact that the brain as an object of observation is itself part of a world which you yourself have constructed. Surely you have got to start with the art of construction and not with the brain!

(Worlds Apart)

Second, Materialists really deceive themselves when they think they can apply Ockham's Razor to cut down non-material causes when concerning the mind. To do so would result in an insufficient explanation.

Third, people vastly deceive themselves when they compare the mind, and to an extent the person, with the mechanical faculties of a computer. The only thing that resembles mechanical operations in our mind is our practical intellect, and that's only one part of it. By wiping out everything and turning man into a practical machine, they can then apply explanations of a banal, utilitarian and evolutionary character to it, but that's akin to me cutting off all the limbs of humanity, and telling them humanity never had them in the first place.

Fourth, the fact that certain primates have a very primitive tool use, again, proves nothing except their limited practical intellect has made certain progress on this case. I mean, people will come screaming "brain size, brain size!", but then size doesn't really matter much. Neanderthal man was positively inferior to Homo Sapiens in technical capabilities, yet their brains were bigger; ditto for many cases which exist in nature. Women also have smaller brain sizes than men, but their technical faculties are none less impaired. And this. Etcetera.

Fifth, the influence of genetics on consciousness is marginal at best. Physicalist notions are all too aware of the effects of the mind over the brain, yet they cannot really fathom its inner complexities. People don't become depressed because they have a chemical imbalance, they have chemical imbalances because they are depressed, etc... etc... etc... The tragic side of materialistic approaches to this, is that they manage to dope the brain, but never solve the problem at its root.

Aaand there's also the 5 year old problem. All the explanations above are mere conjecture. We don't know what makes a 5 year old a conscious being, while a one year old is not. Certainly, the number of "brain connections" proves nothing at this point, if there's nothing to be connected, or if people aren't specific about what their effect is - a computer has zillions of "connections" understood here as transistors. Yet it is still a computer, and not a human being.

In sum, the materialistic argument that we are just a more complex computer fails on many fundamental accounts.

[LegionnaireX]

Siggy is right. First, brainy-mechanical materialism is a fallacy which cannot distinguish the consciousness from the object of consciousness. The mind manifests itself through the brain, and is not the brain. To use a good analogy:

It appears to be a bunch of random philosophical ponderings that don't make any sense. Your quote seems to be based on the idea that the brain cannot perceive itself, therefore the mind must exist independently of the brain. This is all built on the false pretense that the brain cannot perceive itself. First of all, why can't the brain perceive itself? Second of all, if the brain cannot perceive itself, why can the mind perceive itself?

Second, Materialists really deceive themselves when they think they can apply Ockham's Razor to cut down non-material causes when concerning the mind. To do so would result in an insufficient explanation.

And what might that be? That a person's state of consciousness, their emotions and their decision making abilities are all demonstrably linked to brain chemistry, negating the need for an invisible, undetectable third party whose properties are not studiable by science?

Fourth, the fact that certain primates have a very primitive tool use, again, proves nothing except their limited practical intellect has made certain progress on this case.

It proves that apes share the same ability to learn new ways of performing a task as humans do. This means that the Great Apes have the foundation for learning that our ancestors once also had. It means that humans and apes learn in the same way.

I mean, people will come screaming "brain size, brain size!", but then size doesn't really matter much. Neanderthal man was positively inferior to Homo Sapiens in technical capabilities, yet their brains were bigger; ditto for many cases which exist in nature. Women also have smaller brain sizes than men, but their technical faculties are none less impaired. And this. Etcetera.

Neanderthals were not positively inferior as far as technical capabilities go. They controlled the use of fire, sewed clothing and used stone tools as early Homo sapiens did. The main difference is a lack of evidence for ritualism among the Neanderthals. As far as brain size goes, you are correct that cranial capacity is not all there is to intelligence. The size of the cerebral cortex is a better measure of intelligence, as that portion of the brain is linked to higher brain function.

People don't become depressed because they have a chemical imbalance, they have chemical imbalances because they are depressed,

Depression itself is a chemical imbalance, that affects a person's state of consciousness. I'm not an expert, and I don't know how one acquires such an imbalance, but to chalk it up a "soul" which cannot be independently verified is bad science.

Aaand there's also the 5 year old problem. All the explanations above are mere conjecture. We don't know what makes a 5 year old a conscious being, while a one year old is not.

Unfortunately for you the answer to that question supports my point of view. Brain development (which has a direct effect on state of consciousness) is responsible for the difference between a 1 year old and a 5 year old. Just as brain development are responsible for the difference between a 16 year old and a 50 year old. The human brain does not stop developing until the mid 20's, where the portion of the brain responsible for decision making is the last to develop. That is why teenagers do stupid .

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

And what might that be? That a person's state of consciousness, their emotions and their decision making abilities are all demonstrably linked to brain chemistry, negating the need for an invisible, undetectable third party whose properties are not studiable by science?

Unproven, untold, insufficient.

It proves that apes share the same ability to learn new ways of performing a task as humans do. This means that the Great Apes have the foundation for learning that our ancestors once also had. It means that humans and apes learn in the same way.

Non-sequitur.

First, the mind is not just about "performing tasks".

Second, your first statement is obvious. A dog can see, and lie down. So does a human. And what does that prove...?

Neanderthals were not positively inferior as far as technical capabilities go. They controlled the use of fire, sewed clothing and used stone tools as early Homo sapiens did. The main difference is a lack of evidence for ritualism among the Neanderthals. As far as brain size goes, you are correct that cranial capacity is not all there is to intelligence. The size of the cerebral cortex is a better measure of intelligence, as that portion of the brain is linked to higher brain function.

Lol, anyway, "brain size is not a determining factor in intelligence, yet brain size is a determining factor in intelligence!". Lol.

Depression itself is a chemical imbalance, that affects a person's state of consciousness. I'm not an expert, and I don't know how one acquires such an imbalance, but to chalk it up a "soul" which cannot be independently verified is bad science.

No. People become depressed because of, ehrm, "psychology". Chemical imbalances are a result of this state of mind. Notice here how the materialist blatantly misses the vital links: if I become depressed because of existential futility, does that mean I'm bemoaning existential futility, or am I really bemoaning a chemical imbalance which makes futility inacceptable?

Unfortunately for you the answer to that question supports my point of view. Brain development (which has a direct effect on state of consciousness) is responsible for the difference between a 1 year old and a 5 year old. Just as brain development are responsible for the difference between a 16 year old and a 50 year old. The human brain does not stop developing until the mid 20's, where the portion of the brain responsible for decision making is the last to develop. That is why teenagers do stupid

Funny how you provide a vague example of pedestrian reasoning. First you reiterate without a "why", that your stance is right. Then you attribute relative things such as practical experience to what is positively not linked to mere brain development, and then you commit the fallacy of using the term "teenager". Well, sorry to burst your bubble, but "teenagers" are an invention of 20th century commercialism. Before that, people were widely considered to be mature at age 15.

As for brain development and 50 year olds. Well, if you keep a 50 year old hermetically sealed and well fed, he will still be far more stupid than a 50 year old who is forced to earn his living. Even if the maturation of their brains occurred with no problem at all.

All incredibly banal .

[LegionnaireX]

Unproven, untold, insufficient.

Are you suggesting that chemistry's influence on state of consciousness is unproven? Have you ever drank coffee? Gotten drunk? Taken any form of drugs or medicine? This truth is clear as day.

Non-sequitur.

First, the mind is not just about "performing tasks".

Second, your first statement is obvious. A dog can see, and lie down. So does a human. And what does that prove...?

It proves that non-human animals are capable of complex thought.

Lol, anyway, "brain size is not a determining factor in intelligence, yet brain size is a determining factor in intelligence!". Lol.

You do know that different parts of the brain are responsible for different aspects of behavior, mobility etc? I would suggest you give yourself an elementary understanding of the brain before we continue this discussion.

No. People become depressed because of, ehrm, "psychology". Chemical imbalances are a result of this state of mind. Notice here how the materialist blatantly misses the vital links: if I become depressed because of existential futility, does that mean I'm bemoaning existential futility, or am I really bemoaning a chemical imbalance which makes futility inacceptable?

I'm not a Psychiatrist so I don't know the specifics of what "causes" the chemical imbalance, but your suggestion that people's "minds" produce the chemical imbalance vs. the chemical imbalance affecting one's "mind" is absurd. I've had depression before. I know what caused my depression: a feeling of loneliness and inadequacy. However, it was the chemical imbalance that created a chronic feeling of sadness and suicidal thoughts. As soon as medicine was prescribed to correct the imbalance, such thoughts and feelings subsided. Chemistry affects state of mind, not vice versa.

Funny how you provide a vague example of pedestrian reasoning. First you reiterate without a "why", that your stance is right. Then you attribute relative things such as practical experience to what is positively not linked to mere brain development, and then you commit the fallacy of using the term "teenager". Well, sorry to burst your bubble, but "teenagers" are an invention of 20th century commercialism. Before that, people were widely considered to be mature at age 15.

So what? Both ages are abritrary. Fifteen year olds are no more qualified to be called "mature" than an independent, working 19 year old should be called a "teenager." However, science has shown that all regions of the brain have not fully developed until someone is in their mid 20s. It doesn't take a psychologist to see that people in their teenage years make some pretty stupid decisions with great frequency relative to people 5-10 years their senior. This is most likely due to a combination of factors, including brain development and a lack of life experiences and self reliance up to that age.

[Phier]

Due to a lack of proper evolutionary training, the religious side really misses out on the best place to insert god into the mix of human evolution.

Humanity has been around for some 200,000 or more years, some will even say up to 500,000.

Now let's think of that 200,000 years what have we done for the 200,000 years? Pretty much Jack divided by squat. It's only been the last 10,000 years or so that we can see real civilization, real culture, real things we recognize as human.

This phenomenon is known as is the great leap forward. About 60,000 years ago humans seem to get it for the first time. This is where we first start to see things like clothing and real ritual artifacts appear. Something happened to the humans at this point, being I'm evolutionist I will assume that there was a mutation that allowed our brains to unlock so to speak. We left the realm of clever animal into what is human.

I would guess that during the same period is when being self aware at the level we're talking about here happened. This mutation quickly spread, and due to its obvious advantage it spread quickly. Incidentally 60,000 years ago is about the first time humans left Africa, I doubt that was a coincidence.

If I wanted to spread religious philosophy that did not interfere with scientific philosophy I would focus on this great leap forward is the point where humans were no longer animal creatures but God's creatures.

If I were an evil man I would be tempted to use that for my cult.

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

I guess, that we can explain this by not fanatically restricting the bounds of acceptable knowledge down to extremely narrow boundaries. This way, we won't have to fall into the same question once and once again: is the mind a product of the brain, or is the brain a product of the mind ?

This has nothing to with devotionism.