Hints of 'time before Big Bang'

[Perfection]

Question is, is that recognition as we experience it? I claim compared to our experience of recognition is far more then what's going on here. Is a computer with a program that scans images and can tell if it is a picture of itself or some other computer experiencing the same sort of thing as us when we look in the mirror or perform introspection? I say clearly not!

In any case, you're appealing to functionalism here to try to discredit functionalism which is sorta self-defeating.

 

[warpus]

I could write a computer program that recognizes itself (ie. recognizes its own compiled code), but that wouldn't make it self-aware or conscious in any way.

 

[Perfection]

Okay, do it!

 

[Birdjaguar]

Question is, is that recognition as we experience it? I claim compared to our experience of recognition is far more then what's going on here. Is a computer with a program that scans images and can tell if it is a picture of itself or some other computer experiencing the same sort of thing as us when we look in the mirror or perform introspection? I say clearly not!

Certainly it is not like what we experience, but as I said it would seem to be a lesser form of awareness and I would contend that as one moves up the chain of complexity from atoms and molecules to simple life and then to more complex life, the degree of self-awareness" increases.

As far as human made devices go, I would say they fall into a different category because we have created the device to do specific things. Whatever awareness you program into a piece of software, it is more similar to an alarm clock knowing to go off at 6:00 than it is to an elephant touching a dot on its forehead.

 

[warpus]

Okay, do it!

File f = new File("me.exe");
FileInputStream fis = new FileInputStream(f);
BufferedInputStream bis = new BufferedInputStream(fis);
DataInputStream dis = new DataInputStream(bis);

if (dis.readLine().substring(14) == ''MZ   ÿÿ") {
System.out.println("It's me!"); {
} else {
System.out.println("Who tf");
}

 

[Millman]

What's with this debate on self-awareness?

The topic of this thread is that they believe 'something' might have existed before the universe as we know it.

But if they can read something from the past in the present time it means we are viewing time constantly in incomplete parts.

Think of it like a history book in a school. Although you can't experience the history itself you can read back and get hints of what's it's like. This might be a bad analogy.

Life has found a way to time capsule so we can figure out one day where we come from otherwise there would be 'NO' clues as to our origins if you believe in that.

 

[Souron]

I kinda lost track of this as NESing took over my posting recently, but I was reading an article in Science NEWs and came across this tidbit that reminded me:



I find the wording quite appropriate for this. How is recognizing sef from non self not some form of consciousness or awareness?

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/feature/id/39616/title/It’s_written_all_over_your_face

Here self from non self is referring to recognizing different copies of itself, which is not what consciousness is about. It's akin to a person recognizing pictures of his own body, which most people can do, but it isn't a defining trait of being self aware.

Also the description is a metaphor. The molecules aren't actually aware of what they react with, they just react differently to identical molecules, compared to differing molecules.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Here self from non self is referring to recognizing different copies of itself, which is not what consciousness is about. It's akin to a person recognizing pictures of his own body, which most people can do, but it isn't a defining trait of being self aware.

Also the description is a metaphor. The molecules aren't actually aware of what they react with, they just react differently to identical molecules, compared to differing molecules.

You are assuming that awareness of self has a clearly defined border that is somewhere high in the animal kingdom.

I cannot think of any justification for a hard edge at all. It makes far more sense to have it on a continuum without an edge in either direction.

 

[Souron]

I didn't say it has a clearly defined border. The border is quite fuzzy. But yes it is high in the animal kingdom. Individual immune system cells are not self aware. They only act like they recognize other cells that have similar genetic markers.

 

[Birdjaguar]

I didn't say it has a clearly defined border. The border is quite fuzzy. But yes it is high in the animal kingdom. Individual immune system cells are not self aware. They only act like they recognize other cells that have similar genetic markers.

And some examples would be what? Please include some that are self aware and others that are not.

 

[Souron]

And some examples would be what? Please include some that are self aware and others that are not.

I was going to say that elephants are the best example besides humans, do to their having a death ritual, but wikipedia seems to have a more complete well sourced list.

[wiki]Self-awareness#Self-awareness_in_animals[/wiki]
[wiki]Mirror test[/wiki]

 

[Birdjaguar]

I was going to say that elephants are the best example besides humans, do to their having a death ritual, but wikipedia seems to have a more complete well sourced list.

[wiki]Self-awareness#Self-awareness_in_animals[/wiki]
[wiki]Mirror test[/wiki]

Elephants, apes, dolphins, magpies all seem to have passed the mirror test. But is such a test the only judge of self awareness?

Self-awareness is the concept that one exists as an individual, separate from other people, with private thoughts. It may also include the understanding that other people are similarly self-aware.

Self-awareness is a self-conscious state in which attention focuses on oneself. It makes people more sensitive to their own attitudes and dispositions.

Now the wiki definition is very anthrocentric, as if only humans could be self aware even though it does link to the mirroe test.

Now according tho the mirror test dogs are not self aware. But having watched a dog stop before crossing a busy street and then wait until the traffic was clear before crossing, I cannot believe that dogs are not. They look, make a choice to stop, wait and make another choice to go. They are aware that the cars are something other than themselves. They certainly see themselves as separate from, but in a changing environment.

Dogs certainly have feelings and can love a person. How is experiencing the joy and anguish of love not self awareness?

 

[warpus]

Ok dogs, you might have a case, but cells?

you make quite a leap there, mr. jaguar

 

[Birdjaguar]

Ok dogs, you might have a case, but cells?

you make quite a leap there, mr. jaguar

It is quite a leap in thinking, you're right. It comes down to how we define "self aware". If we define it as being able to respond to changes in one's environment, then lots of doors suddenly open. If we define it narrowly to protect humanity from interlopers, then hsitory has taught us that such definitions will most likely fail as the elephants, dolphins, apes and magpies have shown and dogs you have aluded to.

If you accept dogs, how about cats, then how about rabbits etc. Rather than try to draw a line that is very difficult to defend, I would rather just make it a continuum along which the degee of awareness changes as one moves up and down it. More awareness would provide for greater ability to use that awareness to affect ones situation. Cells can be very responsive to changes around them, they are just limited in how they can respond.

 

[warpus]

I still haven't seen you argue in any sort of convicing way that cells are self-aware, in any sort of useful meaning of the word.

I mean, you can re-define self-aware to make anything fit the criteria, but that's just not very useful.

 

[Souron]

Birdjaguar, I can't respond to you in any way except to repeat what I said before. You are using the word so broadly, that things classified as the opposite of aware would be instead classified as aware by your definition. Therefore the definition is useless.

Awareness has a specific definition: the ability to recognize self from non self. Atoms, molecules, cells, they cannot do this. Humans can.

 

[Birdjaguar]

I still haven't seen you argue in any sort of convicing way that cells are self-aware, in any sort of useful meaning of the word.

I mean, you can re-define self-aware to make anything fit the criteria, but that's just not very useful.

Birdjaguar, I can't respond to you in any way except to repeat what I said before. You are using the word so broadly, that things classified as the opposite of aware would be instead classified as aware by your definition. Therefore the definition is useless.

Your objections are similar, so I will not respond separately.

What would you say is a useful definition of "self aware" then?

Clearly, with the addition of elephants, apes, dolphins and birds to the self aware list, our previous assumptions have gone by the wayside. One approach to the problem is to have a test for it, like the mirror test and then only include those critters that past the test. This merely defines self aware as a "high test score" making the definition more restrictive and therefore less useful.

There was a time when being human was defined as having tool making ability, or having specific higher cognitive skills. Those old fashioned notions are rapidly fading away as we learn more about other species.

Some folks would like to draw a hard line: "Only humans are self aware." Period, end of story. Science does not seem to accept that anymore and it is getting harder and harder to draw another hard line that divides self aware critters from those that are not. I'd love to hear your suggestions though.

Are dogs self aware even if the fail the mirror test? Is self awareness more complex than the mirror test? Or is it simpler?

The easiest would be to draw it a the life/non life border and say that life creates self awareness.

Awareness has a specific definition: the ability to recognize self from non self. Atoms, molecules, cells, they cannot do this. Humans can.

that is a pretty big jump from atoms and cells to humans. What about all the things in between?

Your definition hinges on what it means to "recognize".

2: to acknowledge or take notice of in some definite way:

It seems to me that when a cell comes in proximity of another cell and then it reacts to that proximity by doing something, it has recognized "self from non self". Explain to me how that is not so.

Now you say that a broader definition is less useful because it changes the staus quo and things thought of as non self aware suddenly become self aware. By broadening the definition, new ways of thinking about things are possible and new comparisons can be made. By allowing magpies to be included among the self aware, we have to think aobut ourselves and other living things differently. The wider definition enhances the opportunity for discovery, not limit it.

 

[warpus]

I could program a function in C++ to recognize itself. That doesn't really make it self-aware, does it?

 

[Souron]

I could program a function in C++ to recognize itself. That doesn't really make it self-aware, does it?

A function isn't a physical thing, so calling it or not calling it self aware does not tell us anything about the consciousness of physical entities.

 

[Souron]

Birdjaguar the definition of consciousness is strait forward, you quoted it yourself earlier in this thread. The only thing blurry about it is that it is hard to know that another thing is self aware. But that does not make the definition itself blurry.

Are dogs self aware even if the fail the mirror test? Is self awareness more complex than the mirror test? Or is it simpler?

The mirror test proves self awareness, but it does not define it.

The easiest would be to draw it a the life/non life border and say that life creates self awareness.

Then why bother calling it consciousness. The border between life and non life is the ability to reproduce using internal machinery. This is not the same as the border between awareness and non awareness.

Your definition hinges on what it means to "recognize".

I think we can agree what it means to recognize something.

It seems to me that when a cell comes in proximity of another cell and then it reacts to that proximity by doing something, it has recognized "self from non self". Explain to me how that is not so.

Cells can't think. All they do is detect the chemicals of adjacent cells, and react in a manner predicted by the laws of chemistry. It's not even cells doing the detecting, but the chemicals on their surface. A cell is only considered a separate thing because it is useful for us as humans to model it that way. But the line is much more blurry than we make it out to be. When you take an real look at it, a cell is just an drop of water, surrounded by a thin layer of oil.

Now you say that a broader definition is less useful because it changes the staus quo and things thought of as non self aware suddenly become self aware. By broadening the definition, new ways of thinking about things are possible and new comparisons can be made. By allowing magpies to be included among the self aware, we have to think aobut ourselves and other living things differently. The wider definition enhances the opportunity for discovery, not limit it.

Changing the dictionary does not induce new thought, it just makes you harder to understand.