Hints of 'time before Big Bang'

[warpus]

That "cracked" me "up"

 

[Birdjaguar]

If you wish to argue that a wider selection of animals have the properties that are generally used to excuse a divide between animals an humans, I have no objection. But again this discussion can only be had if you use terms like self awareness in the same way as everyone else.

Ok, let's put everything else aside for the moment and assume that the mirror test is valid as a measure of self awareness. If so, do you accept that those animals that have passed it are as self aware as humans?

If not, why not?

 

[Souron]

Ok, let's put everything else aside for the moment and assume that the mirror test is valid as a measure of self awareness. If so, do you accept that those animals that have passed it are as self aware as humans?

If not, why not?

Of course. Self awareness is a boolean trait. Therefore all self aware things are equally self aware.

Now it may still not be the case that self awareness is the boundary at which we grant human rights.

 

[Birdjaguar]

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

As an atheist, I am inclined to agree that self awareness must be the product of known natural laws.

Of course. Self awareness is a boolean trait. Therefore all self aware things are equally self aware.

Now it may still not be the case that self awareness is the boundary at which we grant human rights.

If self awareness is a "fixed state" as you say (critters either are or aren't), can we assume that it exists independent of human recognition and things like the mirror test are just ways that we use to discover where it resides?

Or is it just a useful human construct that we use to classify things?

 

[Souron]

If self awareness is a "fixed state" as you say (critters either are or aren't), can we assume that it exists independent of human recognition and things like the mirror test are just ways that we use to discover where it resides?

Or is it just a useful human construct that we use to classify things?

I'm inclined to say the former, because the first statement is true, but I do not understand what you mean by "just a useful human construct".

 

[Birdjaguar]

I'm inclined to say the former, because the first statement is true, but I do not understand what you mean by "just a useful human construct".

I assumed you would feel that way and I agree with you, but wanted to check and make sure.

Now we have an established definition of self awareness:the ability to recognize self from non self, and that the mirror test is an acceptable way to test for it and you have said that either a critter has it or does not independent of any human recognition of it.

The wiki article below strongly implies (without citation) that passing the mirror test comes through learning.

At first, even animals that are capable of passing the mirror test respond as the orangutan described by Darwin. In fact, young children and people who have been blind from birth but have their sight restored initially react as if their reflection in the mirror was another person. All animals that are capable of passing the mirror test learn to do so from experience.

So the elephant learned to demonstrate its self awareness to us by spending time in front of mirror. Human babies fail the mirror test until sometime between 18-24 months. Does the baby become self aware in those months and is therefore able to pass the mirror test, or does it merely learn to demonstrate that already existing awareness in those months?

Depending on how you answer that question, given your frequent mention of moral issues, a follow up question might be: "If a person of any age repeatedly fails to pass the mirror test, are they still considered self aware? I'm thinking of those who are mentally ******ed or perhaps those with Alzheimers. It's not really on point, and I don't care if you answer it or not.

"...just a useful human construct."
Humans make up ways of classifying and organizing things to help us live in a complex and sometimes chaotic world. There are times when those groupings are convenient and not necessarily based on anything substantial. Both Science and religion are among the tools we use to organize the world and make sense of things.

 

[Souron]

Now we have an established definition of self awareness:the ability to recognize self from non self, and that the mirror test is an acceptable way to test for it and you have said that either a critter has it or does not independent of any human recognition of it.

I actually like the wording of the definition you gave in post 29 better: "a sense of separateness from one's surroundings." But there is no real difference between the two definitions.

The wiki article below strongly implies (without citation) that passing the mirror test comes through learning.

So the elephant learned to demonstrate its self awareness to us by spending time in front of mirror. Human babies fail the mirror test until sometime between 18-24 months. Does the baby become self aware in those months and is therefore able to pass the mirror test, or does it merely learn to demonstrate that already existing awareness in those months?

I don't know the answer to this question. Many people would probably claim that babies are in fact self aware at birth. But without proof this cannot be taken as fact. It is known that a babies brain develops significantly during this time, so it is possible in my book that consciousness is acquired after birth. Certainly long term memory isn't acquired until age 5, perhaps awareness is similar.

However, going on gut I would speculate that babies are fully aware at birth.

Depending on how you answer that question, given your frequent mention of moral issues, a follow up question might be: "If a person of any age repeatedly fails to pass the mirror test, are they still considered self aware? I'm thinking of those who are mentally ******ed or perhaps those with Alzheimers. It's not really on point, and I don't care if you answer it or not.

The mirror test is a test for self awareness, but is not part of the definition. The test can have false positives and false negatives. It is possible to be self aware and repeatedly fail the mirror test, or even to pass the test without having consciousness. All people are probably conscious given we have the same internals. Therefore a person that repeatedly fails the mirror test may still be considered to be aware purely on the basis of being human.

"...just a useful human construct."
Humans make up ways of classifying and organizing things to help us live in a complex and sometimes chaotic world. There are times when those groupings are convenient and not necessarily based on anything substantial. Both Science and religion are among the tools we use to organize the world and make sense of things.

This is true, but though the categories are arbitrary they often do reflect boundaries that don't need humans to exist. For example a species is a human construct that arbitrarily segregates life on the basis of who can reproduce with whom. Nevertheless, this boundary exists independent of humans. Can you give an example of an arbitrary construct that is not based on anything substantial?

 

[Birdjaguar]

the ability to recognize self from non self

I actually like the wording of the definition you gave in post 29 better: "a sense of separateness from one's surroundings." But there is no real difference between the two definitions.

I like mine better too, but both suffer from the ambiguity of "recognize" and "sense".

So the elephant learned to demonstrate its self awareness to us by spending time in front of mirror. Human babies fail the mirror test until sometime between 18-24 months. Does the baby become self aware in those months and is therefore able to pass the mirror test, or does it merely learn to demonstrate that already existing awareness in those months?

I don't know the answer to this question. Many people would probably claim that babies are in fact self aware at birth. But without proof this cannot be taken as fact. It is known that a babies brain develops significantly during this time, so it is possible in my book that consciousness is acquired after birth. Certainly long term memory isn't acquired until age 5, perhaps awareness is similar.

However, going on gut I would speculate that babies are fully aware at birth.

I do not think we know the answer to that question yet, but each provides interesting scenarios. If a baby develops self awareness between 18 and 24 months because of brain development or some other reason, then there is a case for a gradient of self awareness that tracks that development. And that development could begin with birth and interaction with objects other than itself and end at the mirror test stage or perhaps even at age 10, or 12, or 33, or 55, or later. If self awreness develops over time, then at the person level it cannot be boolean. I think that such a thing would weaken the argument for boolean characteristics at the species level too.

Now, perhaps our baby is self aware from birth and just masters communicating that fact between 18-24 months. Since births are pretty variable nowadays and some babies come very early, birth is a lousy marker for noting the precense of self awareness. If we go earlier, then we need a point to mark the appearance of self awareness. With one exception any point you choose leads you to the development problem I raised above. The unborn child is growing and changing everyday building the various apparatus that will sustain its life and mind.

Could self awareness begin at...
Week 10 when 250,000 new neurons are made every minute?
Week 6 when the neural tube closes?
Week 5 when the heart starts to beat?
Week 4 when the brain, spinal cord, and heart begin to form? The baby is only 1/25 of an inch long.

Or perhaps the best choice: at fertilization. That eliminates the development problem and leaves us with questions like, "When does self awareness become useful to us?"

Now I realize that this re-raises the previous problem of individual cells having self awareness and Warpus' concern that such a thing is not possible.

I've got to go for now, but will address the rest of your post later.

 

[Birdjaguar]

This is true, but though the categories are arbitrary they often do reflect boundaries that don't need humans to exist. For example a species is a human construct that arbitrarily segregates life on the basis of who can reproduce with whom. Nevertheless, this boundary exists independent of humans. Can you give an example of an arbitrary construct that is not based on anything substantial?

Supernatural explanations for things. Astrology. Small superstitions that people hold. Many cultural ideas like religious and racial superiority, and national destiny. Sports team loyalty. Everyone organizes the world in very personal ways so that our lives make sense and we get closer to feeling satisfied with it. We create low level hierarchies and boxes and preferences based on the higher level tools we choose to use. Some use science as a tool of the first order; others religion; still others, group affiliation. And then we mix them all up too. So you have people who believe in science, god and the Steelers and depending upon the day of the week and season of the year different sides of their world come to the fore. How many science believers wore lucky shirts for the Super Bowl?

 

[Souron]

I like mine better too, but both suffer from the ambiguity of "recognize" and "sense".

It's not an ambiguity. We can both understand what we mean when we use these terms. The trouble is that there is no direct way to measure if a creature has this kind of perception.

I do not think we know the answer to that question yet, but each provides interesting scenarios. If a baby develops self awareness between 18 and 24 months because of brain development or some other reason, then there is a case for a gradient of self awareness that tracks that development. And that development could begin with birth and interaction with objects other than itself and end at the mirror test stage or perhaps even at age 10, or 12, or 33, or 55, or later. If self awreness develops over time, then at the person level it cannot be boolean. I think that such a thing would weaken the argument for boolean characteristics at the species level too.

You make a good point, but the possibility that consciousness is spontaneously acquired cannot be totally ignored.

Now, perhaps our baby is self aware from birth and just masters communicating that fact between 18-24 months. Since births are pretty variable nowadays and some babies come very early, birth is a lousy marker for noting the precense of self awareness. If we go earlier, then we need a point to mark the appearance of self awareness. With one exception any point you choose leads you to the development problem I raised above. The unborn child is growing and changing everyday building the various apparatus that will sustain its life and mind.

Could self awareness begin at...
Week 10 when 250,000 new neurons are made every minute?
Week 6 when the neural tube closes?
Week 5 when the heart starts to beat?
Week 4 when the brain, spinal cord, and heart begin to form? The baby is only 1/25 of an inch long.

Or perhaps the best choice: at fertilization. That eliminates the development problem and leaves us with questions like, "When does self awareness become useful to us?"

Now I realize that this re-raises the previous problem of individual cells having self awareness and Warpus' concern that such a thing is not possible.

These critical points in human embryonic development have nothing to do with self awareness. You could guess that a large brain is required for consciousness, and therefore claim that if a embryo's brain is large enough, it should be considered potentially consciousness, possibly implying a right to life. Certainly having no brain precludes consciousness. That is the only boundary that really makes sense.

Also it is possible that an embryo does not think in the womb, in which case we can ignore the question of whether it could be self awareness at that stage of development, since the embryo remains in an unconscious state.

 

[Birdjaguar]

It's not an ambiguity. We can both understand what we mean when we use these terms. The trouble is that there is no direct way to measure if a creature has this kind of perception.

I don't know. If the interjection of something new into a static environment changes the behavior of a creature, couldn't that measure recognition or

You make a good point, but the possibility that consciousness is spontaneously acquired cannot be totally ignored.

While it can't be ignored completely, is spontaneous change something that we see in nature above the celluar or molecular level? And "spontaneous" may be the wrong word for it. That would imply that self awareness could appear anytime and any place without warning. "Instantaneous" might be better. Now wouldn't this require a threshold be reached like a minimum number of neurons or an amount of electricl charge or something?

These critical points in human embryonic development have nothing to do with self awareness. You could guess that a large brain is required for consciousness, and therefore claim that if a embryo's brain is large enough, it should be considered potentially consciousness, possibly implying a right to life. Certainly having no brain precludes consciousness. That is the only boundary that really makes sense.

Ok so a brain is required for consciousness or self awareness. How much of a brain? Our brain has several significant parts all the way from the spinal cord to the pre frontal lobes. Are all those necessary?

At 10 weeks an embryo becomes a fetus and is the size of a small strawberry. Its brain is about half that size. Is that large enough?

Also it is possible that an embryo does not think in the womb, in which case we can ignore the question of whether it could be self awareness at that stage of development, since the embryo remains in an unconscious state.

And so our definition grows:

--a large brain
--thinking
--consciousness
--a sense of separateness from one's surroundings

Is "thinking" electrical activity or exactly what?
And what do you mean by "conscious"? Able to respond to something outside it? Awake? Or is it just a synomym for self aware at the moment?

Are your "new" requirements of a large brain, consciousness and thinking, in order to be self aware actually based on some science or is it just part of the commonly accepted definition?

It appears that under those rules birth may be the boundary you require and upon that event humans become self aware. That seems very tenuous to me.

Lots of creatures have large brains, think and are conscious. According to you they lack the "sense of separateness from their surroundings." Now if self awareness is learned, could we teach (and maybe we already have) self awareness to creatures who almost "get it"?

I am sorry if this is a bit rambling.
.

 

[Souron]

I don't know. If the interjection of something new into a static environment changes the behavior of a creature, couldn't that measure recognition or

That would make anything that can be blown up by a bomb have the ability to recognize stuff.

Minimally recognition requires thought.

While it can't be ignored completely, is spontaneous change something that we see in nature above the celluar or molecular level? And "spontaneous" may be the wrong word for it. That would imply that self awareness could appear anytime and any place without warning. "Instantaneous" might be better. Now wouldn't this require a threshold be reached like a minimum number of neurons or an amount of electricl charge or something?

Yeah, it would be a threshold of some sort.

Ok so a brain is required for consciousness or self awareness. How much of a brain? Our brain has several significant parts all the way from the spinal cord to the pre frontal lobes. Are all those necessary?

At 10 weeks an embryo becomes a fetus and is the size of a small strawberry. Its brain is about half that size. Is that large enough?

We currently have a way of knowing when exactly consciousness becomes possible.

Regarding Large Brain: Here the definition isn't growing. A large brain is just a criteria by which we can speculate that consciousness is present. Basically we are saying that if something is physically similar to the conscious apparatus of an adult human, then it might be conscious. This is a much less direct test than the mirror test, so it is much more fallible. But it spares us the trouble of preforming the mirror test on animals with small brains, for example.

Regarding Thinking:Thinking is part of self awareness only in so far as it is part of recognition or the ability to "sense". Trying to find a physical definition of thinking is not useful for our purposes, because it is only loosely related. It would be useful to have a physical definition of recognition, but we don't have this.

And what do youself awareness is not learned, passing the mirror test is. So you can't teach self awareness. mean by "conscious"? Able to respond to something outside it? Awake? Or is it just a synonym for self aware at the moment?

I said "unconscious", by which I meant not awake. I also meant to imply not dreaming. I think we can agree that a sleeping, non dreaming human is still self aware when awake, but doesn't qualify as aware in that state.

It appears that under those rules birth may be the boundary you require and upon that event humans become self aware. That seems very tenuous to me.

If we assume that an embryo is not unconscious, and that babies are self aware, then yes birth is the boundary. The boundary is tenuous in that these assumptions are not fully supported. But since they are the generally considered true, birth is the defacto boundary.

Lots of creatures have large brains, think and are conscious. According to you they lack the "sense of separateness from their surroundings." Now if self awareness is learned, could we teach (and maybe we already have) self awareness to creatures who almost "get it"?

Self awareness is not learned, passing the mirror test is; a conscious being may take several tries to figure out what a mirror does. So you can't teach self awareness.

I am sorry if this is a bit rambling.
.

You are rambling, but you are also understanding. I think you can see why calling cells conscious is so far left field in my eyes.

 

[Birdjaguar]

You are rambling, but you are also understanding. I think you can see why calling cells conscious is so far left field in my eyes.

Yes I do see your plight. The box you are trapped in is a terrible place. Here take the keys....

I will get back to the rest tomorrow when I am less distrcted by other things.

 

[Souron]

Yes I do see your plight. The box you are trapped in is a terrible place. Here take the keys....

And step out into the fuzzy abyss that you live in? I think I prefer my solid ground and well defined edges, thank you.

 

[warpus]

Could self awareness begin at...
Week 10 when 250,000 new neurons are made every minute?
Week 6 when the neural tube closes?
Week 5 when the heart starts to beat?
Week 4 when the brain, spinal cord, and heart begin to form? The baby is only 1/25 of an inch long.

Or perhaps the best choice: at fertilization. That eliminates the development problem and leaves us with questions like, "When does self awareness become useful to us?"

Now I realize that this re-raises the previous problem of individual cells having self awareness and Warpus' concern that such a thing is not possible.
.

Or perhaps this sort of thing is different for everyone, and the brain must develop sufficiently in order for the "self-awareness threshhold" to be breached?

I really don't think there's a magic line there that applies to everyone.

It's kind of like statistics. If you roll 2 dice often enough, you'll eventually get 2 sixes, but even though there is no magical line defining the number of rolls you'll need in order to get 2 sixes, there nevertheless exists a threshold of sorts that can be evaluated using simple laws of statistics and probability (ie. you can figure out how many rolls you can expect to have to make to reach your goal of 2 sixes, but this is only a guideline)

I don't think we have the technology yet to figure out this "guideline", nor do I think it's as simple as saying "you need 3188632868 cells". It will vary from person to person and is dependent on complicated neural processes.

 

[Birdjaguar]

That would make anything that can be blown up by a bomb have the ability to recognize stuff.

Loose language on my part, sorry. What I was getting at was something like this: A dog in in a room and hears the sound of a familiar car engine pulling up to the house. He gets up and goes to the door wagging his tail in anticiaption of someone arriving there shortly. The car sound enters the dog's environment and he recognizes it as something other than himself (a car with a person in it) and changes what he is doing in response. How is that not recognition of the dogs separateness from what is around him?

Minimally recognition requires thought.
Yeah, it would be a threshold of some sort.

We currently have a way of knowing when exactly consciousness becomes possible.

And when is that?

Regarding Large Brain: Here the definition isn't growing. A large brain is just a criteria by which we can speculate that consciousness is present. Basically we are saying that if something is physically similar to the conscious apparatus of an adult human, then it might be conscious. This is a much less direct test than the mirror test, so it is much more fallible. But it spares us the trouble of preforming the mirror test on animals with small brains, for example.

So there is no need to test magpies for self awarenees because their brains are too small? How about African grey parrots?

Regarding Thinking:Thinking is part of self awareness only in so far as it is part of recognition or the ability to "sense". Trying to find a physical definition of thinking is not useful for our purposes, because it is only loosely related. It would be useful to have a physical definition of recognition, but we don't have this.

By "physical definition" do you mean the electro chemical properties that occur when something is recognized? We certainly don't have such a thing for "self aware" and yet you have a definition you seem to cling tightly to.

I said "unconscious", by which I meant not awake. I also meant to imply not dreaming. I think we can agree that a sleeping, non dreaming human is still self aware when awake, but doesn't qualify as aware in that state.

But a sleeping, non dreaming human will respond to changes in its environment. Turn on a light, make a noise stick it with a pin and it may awake. Even in that state a person recognizes intrusions from outside itself and responds.

If we assume that an embryo is not unconscious, and that babies are self aware, then yes birth is the boundary. The boundary is tenuous in that these assumptions are not fully supported. But since they are the generally considered true, birth is the defacto boundary.

"Generally consider true" is not much of a defense. If you ask the same question in India where most of the people are Hindu, you will probably get a very different answer. As of this week a gallup poll says only 39% of Americans believe in evolution. It is "generally not considered true". Should we accept that as fact?

Birth is a "convenient" boundary and nothing more. Using it is not too different than saying "To be self aware you need to be human." It is a hard line that is easy to understand.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Or perhaps this sort of thing is different for everyone, and the brain must develop sufficiently in order for the "self-awareness threshhold" to be breached?

I really don't think there's a magic line there that applies to everyone.

It's kind of like statistics. If you roll 2 dice often enough, you'll eventually get 2 sixes, but even though there is no magical line defining the number of rolls you'll need in order to get 2 sixes, there nevertheless exists a threshold of sorts that can be evaluated using simple laws of statistics and probability (ie. you can figure out how many rolls you can expect to have to make to reach your goal of 2 sixes, but this is only a guideline)

I don't think we have the technology yet to figure out this "guideline", nor do I think it's as simple as saying "you need 3188632868 cells". It will vary from person to person and is dependent on complicated neural processes.

I don't disagree. But if self awareness as you define it "comes on" at some point, even if at different points for different people, my question is: is it a zero to 100% change at some instant, or does it build slowly and at some instant we recogize it as being 100%.

In the first case it is on or off like a light. In the second, the bulb slowly begins to glow and, at some point, we can see the light and say "look there's a light" even though it has been glowing for some time below our ability to recognize it.

 

[Souron]

Loose language on my part, sorry. What I was getting at was something like this: A dog in in a room and hears the sound of a familiar car engine pulling up to the house. He gets up and goes to the door wagging his tail in anticiaption of someone arriving there shortly. The car sound enters the dog's environment and he recognizes it as something other than himself (a car with a person in it) and changes what he is doing in response. How is that not recognition of the dogs separateness from what is around him?

But a sleeping, non dreaming human will respond to changes in its environment. Turn on a light, make a noise stick it with a pin and it may awake. Even in that state a person recognizes intrusions from outside itself and responds.

The ability to respond to external stimuli, or to develop an association between a sound and and event is not sufficient for free will.

Self awareness is not so much about recognizing stimuli as recognizing oneself.

Here's an alternate, equivalent definition of Self awareness for you: "having a concept of self". This is just a rewording of the other two definitions we have.

The rest of the discussion seems to have side tracked. I will respond to it, but it isn't directly related to what we are disagreeing on, unless you can tie it together to make a point.

And when is that?

Dunno.

So there is no need to test magpies for self awarenees because their brains are too small? How about African grey parrots?

I'm not a biologist. I don't know anything about brain sizes and their exact relation to cognitive ability. I'm just saying that there is a development boundary at which we shouldn't bother testing for consciousness.

By "physical definition" do you mean the electro chemical properties that occur when something is recognized? We certainly don't have such a thing for "self aware" and yet you have a definition you seem to cling tightly to.

That's correct.

"Generally consider true" is not much of a defense. If you ask the same question in India where most of the people are Hindu, you will probably get a very different answer. As of this week a gallup poll says only 39% of Americans believe in evolution. It is "generally not considered true". Should we accept that as fact?

Your right. I am not trying to make an argument out of when a baby becomes conscious.

Birth is a "convenient" boundary and nothing more. Using it is not too different than saying "To be self aware you need to be human." It is a hard line that is easy to understand.

I have already presented reasons why birth may be a good non-arbitrairy line. Not proof, but reasons.
Humanity is not a hard line either. The definition of humanity become rather arbitrary when you compare us to our evolutionary ancestors.

 

[Birdjaguar]

The ability to respond to external stimuli, or to develop an association between a sound and and event is not sufficient for free will.

Free will is not so much about recognizing stimuli as recognizing oneself.

Here's an alternate, equivalent definition of free will for you: "having a concept of self". This is just a rewording of the other two definitions we have.

It appars to me that you are just circling your wagons around a more and more complicated definition of sef awareness. first it was " a sense of separation" and now we have thinking, free will, big brains etc. very little of which appears to be supported by anything other than the definition you choose toi employ.

I can accept that self awareness may be requirement for free will (and that topic is a very slippery slope), but I see no reason that free will need be a requirement for self awareness.

You seem to have ruled out the mirror test as a test for self wareness. Is that the case or do you accept it as a valid test for self awareness?

I'm not a biologist. I don't know anything about brain sizes and their exact relation to cognitive ability. I'm just saying that there is a development boundary at which we shouldn't bother testing for consciousness.

Well bird brains are quite small and very different than large mammal brains. If you accept the mirror test then at a minimum that boundary is no higher than birds.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Could self awareness begin at...
Week 10 when 250,000 new neurons are made every minute?
Week 6 when the neural tube closes?
Week 5 when the heart starts to beat?
Week 4 when the brain, spinal cord, and heart begin to form? The baby is only 1/25 of an inch long.

Or perhaps the best choice: at fertilization. That eliminates the development problem and leaves us with questions like, "When does self awareness become useful to us?"

When the foetus has developed a cerebral cortex.

How many neurons fire is totally irrelevant. When the brain develops, heart starts to beat as well. What happens to those signals is. Without a cerebral cortex they're just electric pulses without meaning. It's the grey matter that's needed to make sense of them.

This happens in the 22nd week, or the fifth month. Now I do agree that a significant margin of error needs to be introduced, like 2 or 3 weeks, to err on the side of caution.

How do we determine when a person has deceased? By the very same principle.