h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

So, are consciousness and self awareness the same thing? Or, if different, are they related? Is one necessary for the other? Or perhaps an inevitable consequence of the other?

My question stems from the observations that, to our current knowledge, great apes, dolphins and elephants are self aware (using, for example, the classic mirror test).

If a being is self aware and that implies consciousness, then that removes yet another supposedly unique characteristic of humans that was thought to set them apart from other animals.

By definition being conscious implies being aware.

Awareness falls into just those areas that an organism is capable of sensing and many non human organisms have senses which our outside perameters Recognition of others as individuals infers self awareness. Humans are not alone in these abilities.

Perhaps it is the difficulty of determining that which is internal against external - can we trust our ability to sort it out - maybe it is self-delusion which sets us appart.

All human experience is subjective, reality is only a concept and therefore can not exist except theoretically. What we take for reality is just an accepted construct of high confidence probability.

>So, are consciousness and self awareness the same thing? Or, if different, are they related? Is one necessary for the other? Or perhaps an inevitable consequence of the other?<

I'm not certain that self-awareness is a valid concept, nor that it is a requirement for consciousness

Awareness, like consciousness, typically implies a subject/object relationship.

I, (subject), am aware of, or conscious of, some thing (object)

Self-awareness could be defined as a variety of awareness in which there seems to be a conscious experience of a personal entity or 'free agent', choosing, selecting, performing, deciding etc

For example, as I type this, I may seem to be conscious of or aware of my 'self' choosing words, composing phrases, typing, etc.

But this 'self' only exists by implication, as a transient concept arising from the apparent continuity of events which the neural system interprets, dualistically, as cause/effect

On closer inspection, the words, phrases and the physical act of typing combine in a seamless process, without any conscious awareness of a 'self' acting to produce them.

The 'self' arrives late on the scene, as a fiction to explain where all this stuff came from

I think the 'feeling' of individuality developed as adaptation along with, and probably as an inevitable result of neurophysiological evolution, and that it is not exclusive to our species

I think it just may have exceeded it's design specs when our imaginative capabilities blossomed


The impossible question arises: "Can there be consciousness, or awareness, without a 'self'?"


>All human experience is subjective<

Therefore, if 'I' is subject, it cannot be objectively experienced, as any kind of 'object', or thing, including 'self', in isolation from any other 'object'

The 'self' I seem to be aware of is not, therefore, my 'self' at all, but is a complete fabrication, composed of experience and memory.

'To be' is to be related. The 'autobiographical self' exists only in relation to 'others' -- every thing else 'out there'

There is no 'I-entity' to be conscious, or 'self', of which to be aware, for the same reason the eye cannot see itself.

I do not have awareness; I am awareness.

I am not conscious; I am consciousness.

There is no objective reality, because reality, being the inclusive totality of what is, cannot be experienced objectively, and there is no separate 'I' to experience 'it'.

The only possible reality is awareness

I think there may be a semantic problem with 'self awareness'.

I am sure we are aware of ourselves even if it is just an expression of our basic needs.

'Self awareness' however implies some form of understanding as to our individuallity in a socially complex dynamic. Without which relationships could not develop.

Either a semantic problem or a misunderstanding, yes.

Awareness of being an individual within the social context arguably has adaptive value.

The feeling we might call 'self-awareness' does not, I think, develop relationships, but develops from the experience of relationship

The feeling of self-awareness cannot, I think, develop in isolation, but results from our functioning as a part of a social unit -- relationship

What I'm asking is, can consciousness exist in the absence of that feeling?

Is 'self-awareness' purely a social construct?

If it is not, what else is it?

And even: Is the 'self' of which we are/aren't aware no more than an expression of basic needs?

When I am hungry, there is awareness of hunger Is it necessary for there also to be 'self-awareness', or does the physiological state of hunger precede, or in some way help create the awareness of a 'self' being hungry?

Can there be the feeling of hunger without the experience or awareness of a 'self'?

When I was at college one lecturer told us he had the answer to the 'nature nurture' debate / problem. His answer was yes there is an answer, but it could not be teased out!

Can any feeling exist without an awareness of self or is it like watching the tree whilst hunting rabbits.

Similarly the construct of self awareness is impossible to investigate outside of a social setting. This is true for any social organism where in a dynamic exists.

Without the dynamic, self becomes meaningless, but it does not follow that self awareness can not exist. Just that it can not be demonstrated.

A student may have grasped a concept intuitively, but just because they can not articulate the concept does not mean they lack understanding.

We are trying to know the unknowable.

Ta for the replies - am thinking on this. Have written several posts but they got a bit confused! So trying to clarify my thinking first.

But in the meantime
"There is no objective reality, because reality, being the inclusive totality of what is, cannot be experienced objectively, and there is no separate 'I' to experience 'it'."

I () disagree. Objective reality needs no 'I' to experience it. Indeed, it may not be possible for any 'I' to do so. We can find some evidence in the realms of shared subjective experience to point to the existence of objective reality. And there are logical problems with there being no objective reality and only subjective reality.

Going into philosophical deep speak - could we just have a lump in the lino (vinyl) or even a nailing jelly (jello) to the ceiling issue here?

Objective reality is unknowable, subjective reality might on occasions get close, but the fit is also unknowable. We have to put up with subjective reality.

Self is unknowable for much the same argument, worse if it includes illusions and delusions.

Then there is the agreed aspects of self we jointly acknowledge with others.
There is the self only we know about and do not share
Then there is the hidden self which we can not know or is buried or is inaccessible.

There is also the aspect of yourself to which you are denied which resides with those who know you and they don't reveal.

Ah, bod, I seem to have got into an objective/subjective discussion again. Sorry!
I think we can get clues to objective reality. I think it must exist. I can't prove it, but the evidence is, I feel, enough for me to consider the possibility as worth keeping.
Whether it is totally unknowable, or just presently unknowable I am not sure. If/when, for example, we know the pathways and processes which process the information from our senses to create our internal world view then we could at least see what changes are made during the processing.

As for the self, I am not so sure there is a core identity. PErhaps rather a collection of masks, or filters which we slect from as we deem appropriate to the situation.

One thing I find fascinating is the issue of what 'gets through' to our conscious mind. One I have seen a study on is motion blindness, which is fascinating to study but, no doubt, horrible to have. At least one such study has indicated there may be an issue with size of effect. In that study the person with motion blindness reported 'almost seeing' some of the motion images. The ones almost seen were the ones which produced the largest response from the motion detection area of the brain. So it seems that motion was detected, just not passed on to the relevant conscious parts of the brain.

But it is all speculation. Doesn't mean we shouldn't discuss it and look for new insights.

You mentioned perception - what of those area of reality which are outside our perception, we can never be sure of the totality - hence unknowable.

Objective reality inplies some outside omniscience which we can not achieve because we live in the reality which is therefore subjective.

On the subject of perception - sight has many channels of perception eg. it is possible when there is no damage to the eye and optic nerve that local particular brain damage can render a person blind, but they are still able to perceive movement and catch thrown objects.

yep - blindsight - another fascinating conditiom. This is because there are more than one routes for the output of the optic nerve to the brain. One goes via the upper brain - leading into the conscious areas and one goes directly to brain centres such as the motor cortex. You have things such as the ocular reflex system which has no conscious input (it is this system that makes your eyes move to peripherally seen movement or events).

Hmmm, perception. There are things outside our perception, it is true. We don;t have, for example, the eltrosensitivity of sharks. Our magnoception is severly limited to the point of not really being present. Yet other animals are able to use this and sense stuff that we can't. This, to me, puts the lie to subjectivity as everything. Just cos we can;t sense it doesn't mean it isn;t there. You can get hurt by a radioactive field you cannot sense. It is clearly there, regardless of your subjective perception.

"Objective reality inplies some outside omniscience"
No. objectivity implies a reality that is not altered by subjective inerpretation. Any perceptual system must process the information to make sense of it. Objective reality is the 'pure' reality without all the filters present. It exists whether or not something perceives it.

" which we can not achieve because we live in the reality which is therefore subjective."
No, we live in an objective reality. But we only perceive a subjective version thereof. Or at least, the evidence we have points to this. It is entirely possible, I think, to be able to perceive objective reality. But to do so might end up being a sort ot Total Perspective Vortex. As I say above, we don't fully understand the processing, and therefore the artifacts created, of our perceptual systems. Evidence that we perceive a subjective reality is provided by examples where individuals perceive something which is not perceived by others.
Our filters are there to protect us from sensory overload.

I take your point about objective reality existing, it is just that because we exist within it and are by definition subjective organisms who influence reality we can not know it fully either as individuals or as a 'group'.

Because all reality is dynamic we can only experience it as a transient phenomenon and it would only possible to map an objective moment in reality and even then only partially unless we could be sure we had accounted for all possible forms of perception.

This is before we look beyond our patch and consider the potential for other realities in other dimensions.

You end up like the author, was it Proust, who took longer to write about his early years than the years themselves.

Who would wish to tackle such a project and how would it be managed?