What Are We?

[Dglgmut]

What are we?

I'm not sure whether objectivists believe in souls or a form of consciousness that exists separate from a physical form, but I'll try to lay out the possibilities in an open-minded fashion.

The debate is, typically, whether we are brains or non-physical entities (souls, spirits, consciousness or just some form of energy). We have two things to consider: the fact that we have information and the fact that we have ability.

The fact that we have information, such as our senses, thoughts, and emotions, would sway us away from the idea of us being brains. If we are physical things, and we assume that physical things are not conscious, what exception is made for us? And if all physical matter is essentially made up of tiny particles, which tiny particle is us?

The fact that we have ability--we can make choices, think and create physical actions--might suggest that we are physical beings. If all of our information comes from our brains, thoughts and feelings included, how are we able to make choices? What control could we possibly have?

If there is no relationship between a brain and a metaphysical observer/controller, then why should there be awareness at all? Could the operations of these brains not carry on without us?

From here I'll try to identify and solve the dilemmas of the metaphysical-self side of the argument:

The question is, how can we do anything but observe? Where does this question come from? If the brain is not aware, but rather provides awareness to something else, why would it ever question its own existence?

We are clearly involved in the observation and limited creation of our information.

How, though, can we be aware of ourselves?

If sensation provides no evidence of our selves, how do we know we exist? We are aware of our bodies, of our brains, but what exposure do we have to our "selves"?

We have absolutely no information about our selves, and therefor cannot possibly have self-awareness.

We do make choices. We do interact with the information we have. How can we do that without self-awareness?

We MUST do it unconsciously. We must be able to function on an unconscious level.

Is this wrong?

Edited August 14, 2011 by Dglgmut

[BaalChatzaf]

If you have stubbed your toe lately you know very well that you exist.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[basimpson22]

Hey Dglgmut,

I think I understand where you're coming from. There seems to be so much beyond our own awareness. I believe how we optimize self awareness is through methods that help us access our subconsciousness. I think that's the goal of many eastern religions and philosophies. They strive to heighten their awareness through the use of instruments such as meditation or exploring their dreams. I believe this is what spirituality is about(accessing our subconsciousness). To the typical Objectivist this sort of idea may seem irrational but I personally believe it is essential. The problem arises when one person forces their spirituality on another, but that's a differnt debate.

The fact that we have information, such as our senses, thoughts, and emotions, would sway us away from the idea of us being brains. If we are physical things, and we assume that physical things are not conscious, what exception is made for us? And if all physical matter is essentially made up of tiny particles, which tiny particle is us?

This is my favorite question. Our cells are constantly dying and being replaced by new ones. We are constantly changing physically and mentally.

[Dglgmut]

If you have stubbed your toe lately you know very well that you exist.

Ba'al Chatzaf

You know pain exists... Is pain you?

And Aristocrates: Nice point about religions that try to access self-consciousness... Sounds interesting.

To me it seems as though we unconsciously create awareness in order to observe what else we've made/can create.

Edited August 14, 2011 by Dglgmut

[anthony]

How, though, can we be aware of ourselves?

If sensation provides no evidence of our selves, how do we know we exist? We are aware of our bodies, of our brains, but what exposure do we have to our "selves"?

We have absolutely no information about our selves, and therefor cannot possibly have self-awareness.

We do make choices. We do interact with the information we have. How can we do that without self-awareness?

We MUST do it unconsciously. We must be able to function on an unconscious level.

Is this wrong?

"we...cannot possibly have self-awareness."

You really should speak for your self here - but if so, I think this is odd.

Aren't you introspecting continually?

Don't you build up a sum of knowledge about yourself?

Can't you make the 'unconscious', conscious?

Don't you imagine the effect of a particular choice, before you make it?

Yeah, there's a lot going on sub-consciously in us - but the FUN is in digging it up.

(Takes pracice, I guess.)

Tony

[Dglgmut]

"we...cannot possibly have self-awareness."

You really should speak for your self here - but if so, I think this is odd.

Aren't you introspecting continually?

Don't you build up a sum of knowledge about yourself?

Can't you make the 'unconscious', conscious?

Don't you imagine the effect of a particular choice, before you make it?

Yeah, there's a lot going on sub-consciously in us - but the FUN is in digging it up.

(Takes pracice, I guess.)

Tony

What you're looking at is your mind. You build up a sum of knowledge about your body and your mind; at no point do you receive any information of your self.

Any thought that comes into your head is, firstly, manipulated bits of memory, and secondly, an unexplainable action. How did you do it? Why did you do it? You can't answer either of those questions, because it happened on an unconscious level.

Some people believe that willing is an experience created by the brain... I wouldn't go that far. I'd say it's what you are, but not any part of your physical form (and therefore cannot be explained).

Edited August 14, 2011 by Dglgmut

[anthony]

[edit - double post]

Edited August 14, 2011 by whYNOT

[BaalChatzaf]

You know pain exists... Is pain you?

Who or What felt the pain?

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Xray]

The debate is, typically, whether we are brains or non-physical entities (souls, spirits, consciousness or just some form of energy).

If what we label as "brain activity" is basically a form of energy, do you see a problem in that?

If yes, what is the problem?

Edited August 14, 2011 by Xray

[anthony]

"we...cannot possibly have self-awareness."

You really should speak for your self here - but if so, I think this is odd.

Aren't you introspecting continually?

Don't you build up a sum of knowledge about yourself?

Can't you make the 'unconscious', conscious?

Don't you imagine the effect of a particular choice, before you make it?

Yeah, there's a lot going on sub-consciously in us - but the FUN is in digging it up.

(Takes pracice, I guess.)

Tony

What you're looking at is your mind. You build up a sum of knowledge about your body and your mind; at no point do you receive any information of your self.

Any thought that comes into your head is, firstly, manipulated bits of memory, and secondly, an unexplainable action. How did you do it? Why did you do it? You can't answer either of those questions, because it happened on an unconscious level.

Hi Dglgmut, (pronunciation please)

Still puzzled by your objection.

No, I do know "how I did it", and "why", at least some of the time. I'd find it frustrating not to have recourse to this.

I can only describe it as cultivating the capability to 'self-inspect' - to focus at a deeper level than conscious, rational, mind. I have often discovered why, for example, I DIDN"T react (feel, think) in a certain manner on occasion - not just why I DID.

It explains a lot that you call it the "unconscious", and I call it the "sub-conscious".

(As it is termed in Objectivism.)

It is knowable - if not all of it, all of the time - and from millions of 'bytes' of uncovered, internalized data, a concept does emerge of one's 'Self'.

You will have to take my word on this. (I have become more adept as I've got older, which does say something - I think, of habituation.)

Tony

Edited August 14, 2011 by whYNOT

[Dglgmut]

You know pain exists... Is pain you?

Who or What felt the pain?

Ba'al Chatzaf

I don't know why I argued against your first post... I never questioned our existence or our knowledge of our existence. It's not the fact that we exist that is a mystery, it's what we are.

We only know we exist because we know, as you say, "what's out there." None of "what's out there," is us. We cannot be aware of ourselves, we can only be aware of our awareness. We are aware that we are aware of "what's out there." All the information we have about ourselves is that we have information about other stuff.

Xray:

I don't see a problem. I've considered that we are the product of chemical reactions in our brains, and that would explain our awareness... However, it would not explain how we use our brains.

Tony:

Everything you say can easily be explained by saying: You are mistaking your self with your brain. You use your brain, but you don't control the information your brain gives you.

Edited August 15, 2011 by Dglgmut

[BaalChatzaf]

I don't know why I argued against your first post... I never questioned our existence or our knowledge of our existence. It's not the fact that we exist that is a mystery, it's what we are.

We only know we exist because we know, as you say, "what's out there." None of "what's out there," is us. We cannot be aware of ourselves, we can only be aware of our awareness. We are aware that we are aware of "what's out there." All the information we have about ourselves is that we have information about other stuff.

Everything we are made of is described in The Periodic Table of the Elements.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Selene]

I don't know why I argued against your first post... I never questioned our existence or our knowledge of our existence. It's not the fact that we exist that is a mystery, it's what we are.

We only know we exist because we know, as you say, "what's out there." None of "what's out there," is us. We cannot be aware of ourselves, we can only be aware of our awareness. We are aware that we are aware of "what's out there." All the information we have about ourselves is that we have information about other stuff.

Everything we are made of is described in The Periodic Table of the Elements.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Was that true when the periodic table had fewer elements than it does now?

[Dglgmut]

I don't know why I argued against your first post... I never questioned our existence or our knowledge of our existence. It's not the fact that we exist that is a mystery, it's what we are.

We only know we exist because we know, as you say, "what's out there." None of "what's out there," is us. We cannot be aware of ourselves, we can only be aware of our awareness. We are aware that we are aware of "what's out there." All the information we have about ourselves is that we have information about other stuff.

Everything we are made of is described in The Periodic Table of the Elements.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Was that true when the periodic table had fewer elements than it does now?

Lol...

It's like a magic potion. You put these elements together, and bam! Consciousness!

[Mikee]

Lol...

It's like a magic potion. You put these elements together, and bam! Consciousness!

You might find this interesting: http://worldsciencefestival.com/videos/democratic_system_in_our_heads

...or not.

[basimpson22]

Dr. Tononi says the cortex is a bunch of specialist talking to each other. I actually thought about mentioning this earlier in the thread. Lately, I've been looking into eastern philosophy and I'm not sure who exactly to attribute this to, but certain philosophies suggest that each individual cell in our body has a separate consciousness and that our consciousness is a result of the collection, rather "integration" (as Dr. Tononi suggest), of these individual consciousnesses. Also, they include plantlife in this definition of consciousness. The argument they use for plantlife is the fact that some plant species will stop spreading roots once they detect the roots of another plant of the same species nearby. Perhaps there is a scientific explanation for this?

Edited August 15, 2011 by Aristocrates

[Xray]

You might find this interesting: http://worldsciencefestival.com/videos/democratic_system_in_our_heads

...or not.

I found it very interesting. Thanks for the link, Mikee.

Dr. Tononi says the cortex is a bunch of specialist talking to each other. I actually thought about mentioning this earlier in the thread. Lately, I've been looking into eastern philosophy and I'm not sure who exactly to attribute this to, but certain philosophies suggest that each individual cell in our body has a separate consciousness and that our consciousness is a result of the collection, rather "integration" (as Dr. Tononi suggest), of these individual consciousnesses. Also, they include plantlife in this definition of consciousness. The argument they use for plantlife is the fact that some plant species will stop spreading roots once they detect the roots of another plant of the same species nearby. Perhaps there is a scientific explanation for this?

It looks like more primitive organisms (like the plants in your above example) are able to process sensory input as information relevant for their survival, but I would hesitate to equate this with the highly complex interactions and integrations occurring in the human brain, which we linguistically label as "consciousness".

Since language often turns out to be insufficient when it comes to generating precise lexical symbols for highly complex activities, older labels like "consciousness" may still be in use while neurological research has already discovered new horizons.

Edited August 15, 2011 by Xray

[9thdoctor]

What are we?

"Luminous beings are we, not this crude matter".

Yoda

[Dglgmut]

Lol...

It's like a magic potion. You put these elements together, and bam! Consciousness!

You might find this interesting: http://worldsciencefestival.com/videos/democratic_system_in_our_heads

...or not.

Well, when you look at something with your eyes, the point in the middle is infinitely small... And so really, the whole image is in your peripherals. Certain things are just more clear than others.

We take in tons of information without even trying. Even when we try to block things out, and focus on one thing, that one thing is really tons of information itself.

Actually, and I think this might be an already well known idea, consciousness relies on receiving tons of information at once... What the hell would one piece of information be anyway? (and I'm talking within the present, or a single frame as that doctor called it)

Xray, plants don't receive as much information as we do, or rather, the life of the plants does not receive as much information as we do... But if we lost all forms of memory, would you consider us to be conscious? We couldn't think... but we'd still be very much aware.

It's just different doses of the same thing.

Edited August 15, 2011 by Dglgmut

[BaalChatzaf]

What are we?

"Luminous beings are we, not this crude matter".

Yoda

Ummmmm. Matter are we and that is what makes us luminous. Matter is energy.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Dglgmut]

Ummmmm. Matter are we and that is what makes us luminous. Matter is energy.

Ba'al Chatzaf

So, we are matter, which is energy.

However, we are all singular things, and the energy that we are made of is all the same.

It sounds like we're almost in agreement...

We can certainly be the energy that creates this objective reality, but to say we have an awareness of self, then, is not to say we are our brains, but to say we are everything. Not only would that mean we have a very limited awareness of self, but that our awareness of self is subjective...

We have information. That is absolutely true. Why not start from there?

[Xray]

What are we?

I'm not sure whether objectivists believe in souls or a form of consciousness that exists separate from a physical form, but I'll try to lay out the possibilities in an open-minded fashion.

Objectivsts would definitely reject the idea of consciousness existing independently of a physical substrate.

For without this substrate providing the physical basis, how is something like "consciousness" to develop at all?

The debate is, typically, whether we are brains or non-physical entities (souls, spirits, consciousness or just some form of energy).

I think it is a good idea to work with "energy" as the basic cosmic principle, and proceed from there, examining in what way we humans (via the filter of our senses) perceive this energy as manifesting itself to us in different forms.

In connection with the 'sensory scope' we humans move in, sometimes the term "mesoscopic" is used, to differentiate it from macro- and microscopic.

What we perceive as natural entities in our direct surroundings (like trees, rivers, animals etc.) are forms of energetic systems that are important for our survival.

We have two things to consider: the fact that we have information and the fact that we have ability. The fact that we have information, such as our senses, thoughts, and emotions, would sway us away from the idea of us being brains. If we are physical things, and we assume that physical things are not conscious, what exception is made for us? And if all physical matter is essentially made up of tiny particles, which tiny particle is us?

I think the contradiction that bothers you can be eliminated by modifying the above a little:

"Physical things can develop consciousness if certain conditions are met (they have to be living entities which have reached a certain stage in their biological development)."

The fact that we have ability--we can make choices, think and create physical actions--might suggest that we are physical beings. If all of our information comes from our brains, thoughts and feelings included, how are we able to make choices? What control could we possibly have?

I see no contradiction there. For the fact that our brain stores and processes many different pieces of information does not preclude our choosing from the information that which we consider as important in a specific situation.

I've considered that we are the product of chemical reactions in our brains, and that would explain our awareness... However, it would not explain how we use our brains.

Maybe it makes more sense here to shift the focus on "For what do we use our brains?".

The primary use is to ensure our survival. In the course of Evolution, the human brain has developed into a highly complex instrument, but the basic cerebral program "survival" has remained the same.

Edited August 16, 2011 by Xray

[Dglgmut]

What are we?

I'm not sure whether objectivists believe in souls or a form of consciousness that exists separate from a physical form, but I'll try to lay out the possibilities in an open-minded fashion.

Objectivsts would definitely reject the idea of consciousness existing independently of a physical substrate.

For without this substrate providing the physical basis, how is something like "consciousness" to develop at all?

The debate is, typically, whether we are brains or non-physical entities (souls, spirits, consciousness or just some form of energy).

I think it is a good idea to work with "energy" as the basic cosmic principle, and proceed from there, examining in what way we humans (via the filter of our senses) perceive this energy as manifesting itself to us in different forms.

In connection with the 'sensory scope' we humans move in, sometimes the term "mesoscopic" is used, to differentiate it from macro- and microscopic.

What we perceive as natural entities in our direct surroundings (like trees, rivers, animals etc.) are forms of energetic systems that are important for our survival.

We have two things to consider: the fact that we have information and the fact that we have ability. The fact that we have information, such as our senses, thoughts, and emotions, would sway us away from the idea of us being brains. If we are physical things, and we assume that physical things are not conscious, what exception is made for us? And if all physical matter is essentially made up of tiny particles, which tiny particle is us?

I think the contradiction that bothers you can be eliminated by modifying the above a little:

"Physical things can develop consciousness if certain conditions are met (they have to be living entities which have reached a certain stage in their biological development)."

The fact that we have ability--we can make choices, think and create physical actions--might suggest that we are physical beings. If all of our information comes from our brains, thoughts and feelings included, how are we able to make choices? What control could we possibly have?

I see no contradiction there. For the fact that our brain stores and processes many different pieces of information does not preclude our choosing from the information that which we consider as important in a specific situation.

I've considered that we are the product of chemical reactions in our brains, and that would explain our awareness... However, it would not explain how we use our brains.

Maybe it makes more sense here to shift the focus on "For what do we use our brains?".

The primary use is to ensure our survival. In the course of Evolution, the human brain has developed into a highly complex instrument, but the basic cerebral program "survival" has remained the same.

Thanks for going over everything.

I don't doubt that we are not consciousness; we are simply conscious. A banana is yellow, though it is not yellowness.

You say that we are brains, and we have consciousness.

However, like I said in my last post, we are singular. In reality, there is likely no singular thing, as everything is made up of smaller things. So really, there are no "things," there is only "stuff."

I am under the impression that our brains are not conscious, but provide us consciousness.

It'd make sense to say we do not have a self the same way it make sense to say a box cannot be inside itself. You can't be something you have... and so you cannot have something you are.

Something interesting to me: We create our thoughts, and yet we need our brains to recieve them.

[BaalChatzaf]

Can physical causes have any other than physical effects?

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Xray]

I don't doubt that we are not consciousness; we are simply conscious. A banana is yellow, though it is not yellowness.

Correct.

Rand's sentence "Consciousness is conscious" (ITOE, p. 59) makes no sense either. It's like saying "Hunger is hungry".

You say that we are brains, and we have consciousness.

To clarify: I did not state it like that.

We possess highly developed brains that enable us to have consciousness, but I don't equate our brains with what we are.

However, like I said in my last post, we are singular. In reality, there is likely no singular thing, as everything is made up of smaller things. So really, there are no "things," there is only "stuff."

This addresses the issue of categorizing. Again, I'd suggest approaching this from a biological basis.

Categories are groupings by similarity, and the ability to categorize is essential for our survival.

It is true that every entity can be divided into smaller entities, but in order to survive, ruminating about this while being faced with a dangerous animal in the jungle (instead of choosing either fight or flight), would have disastrous results.

So what you call "stuff" is actually pretty organized into categories in the human brain, and not only there: For example, a lion perceiving both a rat and a gazelle has no problem identifying which category is more likely to yield a copious meal.

Edited August 16, 2011 by Xray