The Self

[nebulaJP]

Another way to put this is, do you have to reasonably conclude that you are aware of experience, or is it simply undeniable and obvious? That is what I mean by 'know'.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Here I'm breaking down 'experience' into components:

Awareness of awareness itself (the experience of being aware)
Awareness of the current thought
Awareness of the current sensation
Awareness of the current perception

This is all we know.

All right. You come across as some sort of epistemological skeptic, and that may be why you are either a solipsist or something close to that.

I don't know how to argue you out of that. All I can tell you is that awareness of "current sensation" and "current perception" over many years convincingly (to many people, if not you) tells the tale that we sense and perceive entities that are not themselves mental in nature. This conclusion is entirely possible through human reason.

After all, being conscious suggests being conscious of something, even if it is just awareness of one's thought processes. It doesn't take much to conclude that something does not have to be itself purely mental. Try shutting your eyes. What does that tell you? When I shut my eyes, that tells me quite a bit.

I'm not a solipsist. My metaphysical view is the same as the one an infant would describe if it were able. Infants don't know anything about human bodies, personhood, objects, minds, etc. An infant hasn't yet correlated the sensation of moving its hand in front of its face with the perception of seeing a hand move in front of its face, so it makes no distinction between the perception of seeing a hand and the perception of seeing say, a rattle. All it knows is uninterpreted, non-conceptualized, pure experience.

If that's not solipsism, it's close. Perhaps a form of Idealism.

One thing about 'minds'. We don't know them, we don't experience them, they don't exist, other than as a conceptualization of the 4 things listed above, i.e. as a conceptualization of experience.

I don't see any reason not to conclude that I have a mind that actually exists. Of course I conceptualize my mind. However, I see no reason to think that this conceptualization doesn't have an existing referent. I infer the existence of my mind, and I don't have to experience "mind" directly to make that inference.

We might not conceptualize the term "mind" in the same way, so communication may be difficult here.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

Another way to put this is, do you have to reasonably conclude that you are aware of experience, or is it simply undeniable and obvious? That is what I mean by 'know'.

That awareness has something to do with my existence is certainly undeniable and obvious. It is perhaps slightly less obvious that what I experience is not limited to purely subjective psychological phenomena, but also a product of (for instance) the influence of the senses on my psychology, but that is so fundamental to human experience that it still strikes me as undeniable or very nearly so.

BTW, knowledge to me means far more than what is undeniable or obvious. It includes the product of reasoning about what one experiences, e.g., conclusions of scientific investigation.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[nebulaJP]

That awareness has something to do with my existence is certainly undeniable and obvious. It is perhaps slightly less obvious that what I experience is not limited to purely subjective psychological phenomena, but also a product of (for instance) the influence of the senses on my psychology, but that is so fundamental to human experience that it still strikes me as undeniable or very nearly so.

BTW, knowledge to me means far more than what is undeniable or obvious. It includes the product of reasoning about what one experiences, e.g., conclusions of scientific investigation.


eudaimonia,

Mark

You do agree then that awareness of experience is what you know most of all. Without this, you wouldn't know anything else. Awareness is at the forefront of everything else you know.

And you know, to a lesser degree, that what we know undeniably, this living, animated 'stuff' called experience, arises from a combination of energy and 'dead', inanimate, 'un-experiencing', unaware stuff called matter.

I would like to posit a different model. Awareness of awareness (awareness's awareness of itself), not matter, is primary. Within this, experience arises in the form of the current thought, the current sensation and the current perception.

Since we know awareness of awareness undeniably, and only know this supposedly non-living stuff called matter as a reasonable conclusion/interpretation of experience, why would we say that the former is secondary to and arises from the latter?

If you want a scientific explanation for experience, then I would say that there is an aware quantum network in a fourth dimension, and experience (sans awareness's awareness of itself, which is fundamental) is the digital output of processing on this network. All observed phenomena can be explained by this, whereas in the physicalist model, many phenomena cannot be explained and are tossed in the 'unexplainable at the present time' category. I posted this article in Paradoxum's thread 'What is Physical?' but I'm re-posting it here.

 

[Eudaimonist]

And you know, to a lesser degree, that what we know undeniably, this living, animated 'stuff' called experience, arises from a combination of energy and 'dead', inanimate, 'un-experiencing', unaware stuff called matter.

That's isn't the way that I would phrase it, but we can go with that for now. I'm an emergentist, if that is what you are getting at.

Since we know awareness of awareness undeniably, and only know this supposedly non-living stuff called matter as a reasonable conclusion/interpretation of experience, why would we say that the former is secondary to and arises from the latter?

I would say that because of what we have learned through science, and even simple life experience, about our own biologies.

I see no reason to think that if our recognition of our mental awareness is epistemologically most certain that it should therefore be metaphysically most basic. One does not lead logically to the other in any convincing way to me.

If you want a scientific explanation for experience, then I would say that there is an aware quantum network in a fourth dimension, and experience (sans awareness's awareness of itself, which is fundamental) is the digital output of processing on this network. All observed phenomena can be explained by this, whereas in the physicalist model, many phenomena cannot be explained and are tossed in the 'unexplainable at the present time' category. I posted this article in Paradoxum's thread 'What is Physical?' but I'm re-posting it here.

Aware quantum network in a fourth dimension... Why not just say "Goddidit"? Anything can be "explained" through invented concepts.

I'm not precisely a "physicalist", but I'll stick with "unexplainable at the present time" when not everything really can be explained at the present time.

Edited to add: I find it odd that you are opposed to "physicalism", but nevertheless reference quantum phenomena, which is an idea coming from "physicalist" science.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[nebulaJP]

Aware quantum network in a fourth dimension... Why not just say "Goddidit"? Anything can be "explained" through invented concepts.

I think you may be generalizing too much there. If you look at the article, you will see that these specific questions (copied and pasted from the article) are answered in great detail, which is not the case with 'Goddidit'.

a. Why don’t protons decay like neutrons?
b. Why is the universe matter not anti-matter?
c. Why do neutrinos have mass?
d. How can point-particles spin? How do electrons "half spin"?
e. Why are neutrinos left-handed?
f. Why do quarks have one-third charges?
g. Why do leptons and quarks have three family generations, then no more?

 

[nebulaJP]

Question: Does awareness need thought in order to be aware of itself? IOW, do you have to think in order to be aware that you are aware?

By 'think' I mean to be aware of a flow of 'inner' words, images, sounds etc.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Question: Does awareness need thought in order to be aware of itself? IOW, do you have to think in order to be aware that you are aware?

By 'think' I mean to be aware of a flow of 'inner' words, images, sounds etc.

That's a good question. I can't say that I have a settled view on that matter.

My initial impression is that the answer is yes. The reason is that you need to be able to distinguish between what is produced by the senses and what is produced within one's own mind.

I don't know how natural this distinction is. By this, I mean that I don't know if babies automatically make this distinction, or if this must be learned. I'm guessing that it's learned, but this is an empirical matter.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[brightlights]

Here I'm breaking down 'experience' into components:

Awareness of awareness itself (the experience of being aware)
Awareness of the current thought
Awareness of the current sensation
Awareness of the current perception

This is all we know.

Apparently not. In making this statement you're claiming to know much more. You've just claimed to know what's epistemicaly possible. And this knowledge doesn't come from sense experience. This is either presupposed and irrational or apriori or based on something else?

 

[nebulaJP]

Apparently not. In making this statement you're claiming to know much more. You've just claimed to know what's epistemicaly possible. And this knowledge doesn't come from sense experience. This is either presupposed and irrational or apriori or based on something else?

If we say something like 'the sky is blue today' or '1 + 1 = 2', or anything else we consider to be true, isn't that just the current thought? I'm aware of the current thought that considers those 4 things to be all we can possibly know.

Add: I'm not saying I know it's true that those 4 things are all we can know. I only know awareness of the thought: "it's true that those 4 things are all we can know".

 

[nebulaJP]

That's a good question. I can't say that I have a settled view on that matter.

My initial impression is that the answer is yes. The reason is that you need to be able to distinguish between what is produced by the senses and what is produced within one's own mind.

I don't know how natural this distinction is. By this, I mean that I don't know if babies automatically make this distinction, or if this must be learned. I'm guessing that it's learned, but this is an empirical matter.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Is there a difference between 'your awareness of your awareness' and 'your awareness of your existence'? If so, what is the difference?

 

[brightlights]

If we say something like 'the sky is blue today' or '1 + 1 = 2', or anything else we consider to be true, isn't that just the current thought? I'm aware of the current thought that considers those 4 things to be all we can possibly know.

Add: I'm not saying I know it's true that those 4 things are all we can know. I only know awareness of the thought: "it's true that those 4 things are all we can know".

But from experience we can all attest that there is much knowledge that lies dormant within us that is not part of our current thoughts. If I ask: what's the capitol city of the United States? You know the answer. You knew the answer. But it was knowledge that was dormant within you -- currently unused. Yet you can call it up when need arises. Therefore there is much that we know that's not including in our current thought.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

If we say something like 'the sky is blue today' or '1 + 1 = 2', or anything else we consider to be true, isn't that just the current thought? I'm aware of the current thought that considers those 4 things to be all we can possibly know.

Add: I'm not saying I know it's true that those 4 things are all we can know. I only know awareness of the thought: "it's true that those 4 things are all we can know".

1) Even if this is metaphysically true, it is not very useful. I have far more knowledge beyond the current thought. How does memory factor into your worldview?

2) Furthermore, what is a "current thought". When does a current thought begin and end and flow to the next current thought? We perceive continuity in our consciousness. If I say, "The sky is blue today and 1+1=2" does that qualify as a "current thought"? If I say, "The sky is blue today and 1+1=2 and the capital of the USA is Washington DC", does that qualify as a current thought? Where does it end?

 

[nebulaJP]

1) Even if this is metaphysically true, it is not very useful. I have far more knowledge beyond the current thought. How does memory factor into your worldview?

2) Furthermore, what is a "current thought". When does a current thought begin and end and flow to the next current thought? We perceive continuity in our consciousness. If I say, "The sky is blue today and 1+1=2" does that qualify as a "current thought"? If I say, "The sky is blue today and 1+1=2 and the capital of the USA is Washington DC", does that qualify as a current thought? Where does it end?

In my view, awareness is synonymous with 'now'. Now isn't the present moment because there are no moments. Time doesn't exist. Everything that happens happens now. Time is a very useful concept for describing change (which always happens 'now'), though.

Memories are just thoughts happening now. We're describing 'knowledge' differently. I mean know undeniably. Everything that we believe about ourselves and the world could be wrong but the four things I listed are undeniable, IMHO.

 

[nebulaJP]

But from experience we can all attest that there is much knowledge that lies dormant within us that is not part of our current thoughts. If I ask: what's the capitol city of the United States? You know the answer. You knew the answer. But it was knowledge that was dormant within you -- currently unused. Yet you can call it up when need arises. Therefore there is much that we know that's not including in our current thought.

When you recall dormant knowledge or a memory, isn't it always the current thought? We've never experienced a memory as anything other than the current thought because the current thought is the only kind of thought there is.

Relatively, we can know a lot of stuff. I think I was referring to absolutely - what we can know undeniably.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Is there a difference between 'your awareness of your awareness' and 'your awareness of your existence'? If so, what is the difference?

Yes, my awareness of my awareness is only an awareness of one aspect of my existence, not of my entire existence. When I look down at my body, I am extrospectively aware of my existence, and especially aware of my physicality. When I focus on recognizing my own awareness, I am introspectively aware of my mental processes, though this is of course indirect awareness of my brain processes, which have a physical aspect.

I can be aware that I am aware of my body, in which case I am engaging in introspection and extrospection at the same time, however, I am fully able to make this distinction. The two even "feel" like different activities. For instance, I am never confused between what I see and what I imagine.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Noxot]

humans have to imagine things all the time because we are an animal that does not have the full capacity to understand everything it goes through and so it has to reduce the entire experience of what it goes through into useful deductions. it is plainly obvious that we have to use our imagination in some sense because we are not even fully aware of everything going on that is confined to the smallest of areas such as within our own ecosystem that we call "human being".

imagination and logic are the same thing to me, they are the brains thoughts about things. though what some people call logic is separated from imagination when they define what they define as logic as to be real and what they define imagination to be is often associated with what is not real even though they are both just the brain thinking about stuff in different ways. so the brain thinks about stuff and what it believes/deduces to be true he might call it logic and what he believes/deduces to not be real he will call that imagination. imagination and logic, depending on your definition of various things and perceptions about various things, will be different things.

i honestly don't know how someone could say "I am never confused between what I see and what I imagine." though in different situations various peoples interpretation of what is going on is closer and others further away. for instance, it is true that we learn to read subtle signs on the human face to attempt to comprehend what is going on but we are not always accurate and thus one could say we "imagined it" or "that we used our logical ability but came to a false conclusion". no doubt this can happen a lot with internet conversations as well and a ton of other things.

no doubt I tend to not understand a lot of things that people say but I have my own contemplation of what they wrote. someone who would understand more clearly what the expression of "I am never confused between what I see and what I imagine." said would be able to more clearly express what he means when he said such. if I saw God saying such a thing I would think, "ofc, what God imagines is the same thing that he sees." which is unlike humans, which see something and then imagine what it is based on a non-total experience and explain things with limited words and expressions. God explains things by all of reality, the explaining and the reality of it not separate things, all of reality is a self contained ( no real inside or outside, but also real inside and outside) contemplation of God that goes on forever or the Logos of God ectect. so humans tend to confuse reality when what they think our universe, our logical reasoning ability, our world, ectect is reality. but in truth it is only but a tiny fragment of reality. they don't even know if they phase through different alternate universes or not! they don't even understand how many dimensions are cooperating to create the experience they are having!

 

[nebulaJP]

Yes, my awareness of my awareness is only an awareness of one aspect of my existence, not of my entire existence. When I look down at my body, I am extrospectively aware of my existence, and especially aware of my physicality. When I focus on recognizing my own awareness, I am introspectively aware of my mental processes, though this is of course indirect awareness of my brain processes, which have a physical aspect.

I can be aware that I am aware of my body, in which case I am engaging in introspection and extrospection at the same time, however, I am fully able to make this distinction. The two even "feel" like different activities. For instance, I am never confused between what I see and what I imagine.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Is awareness a mental process? How much thinking ability do you need to be aware? Is a fly aware of danger when you try to swat it, even if it doesn't conceptualize the situation as that?

In my view, it's impossible for awareness to not be aware of itself, because it is awareness, just like it's impossible for the sun to not light itself up.

This means that your awareness is always aware of itself, even when you are in deep, dreamless sleep. Only thoughts, sensations and perceptions can be recalled as memories, so that is why there is no memory of being aware of your existence during dreamless sleep, when there is no brain activity.

When we're awake, it's the same, we are always aware of ourselves, or know ourselves as awareness, whether we are thinking about it or not.

 

[nebulaJP]

Apparently not. In making this statement you're claiming to know much more. You've just claimed to know what's epistemicaly possible. And this knowledge doesn't come from sense experience. This is either presupposed and irrational or apriori or based on something else?

The way I'm using the word know, it doesn't mean necessarily to know that something is true. You can also know a falsehood as a falsehood. I basically mean those 4 things are all we are ever aware of, ever come into contact with, all we ever experience or 'know'.

In the case of 1 + 1 = 2, we know superficially that the equation is correct but we never come into contact with a one, two, plus or equals sign directly. We only experience (or know) awareness of the symbols and concepts involved as the current thought.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Is awareness a mental process?

Yes.

How much thinking ability do you need to be aware? Is a fly aware of danger when you try to swat it, even if it doesn't conceptualize the situation as that?

The fly might not be "aware of danger" in the sense that we would be, however, it would be aware of a fly swatter hurling towards it and might feel something equivalent to fear.

In my view, it's impossible for awareness to not be aware of itself, because it is awareness, just like it's impossible for the sun to not light itself up.

I'm talking about reflective awareness, such as sitting, perhaps meditating, and thinking: "Isn't it amazing that I am aware?" When living unreflectively -- such as when playing sports, perhaps, and fully mentally engaged in that activity -- you are aware, but not reflectively aware that you are aware.

IMV, in the case of unreflective awareness, it is enough to say that one is aware. There is no need for recursion.

This means that your awareness is always aware of itself, even when you are in deep, dreamless sleep. Only thoughts, sensations and perceptions can be recalled as memories, so that is why there is no memory of being aware of your existence during dreamless sleep, when there is no brain activity.

At least you admit that there is such a thing as brain activity.


eudaimonia,

Mark