MyKell

Oh yeah,
That's the question I've been wanting to ask for a long time! What behavioural paradigms should we use to study consciousness in lower animals like rats and bats. I mean, I'm familiar with tests for working memory (the 8-arm radial maze, operant conditiong), spatial memory (Morris water maze), and fear conditioning. Are working memory tests considered tests for conscioness??

John Page

*I* forget! zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Amos

Are you asking me? I never did know. I just like the old sheep herders metaphor.

Nowhere357

Thank you, everyone. After a too-long diet of thumpers, I feel like I've gone from hunter to prey. Fight or flight!

Mykell points out that I left Self undefined. I don't think the dictionary has a definition for capital 'S' Self. I define it as a particular example of "an awareness" (used as a noun).
The definition for "an awareness" (concious knowledge) doesn't say anything about m/e in s/t, but I think it is fair to interpret it as being entirely subjective.

Doubledutchy agrees the Self is not subject to direct scientific verification, and points out the same is true of other postulated entities (electrons, etc.). I think then it is reasonable to say that emergent theory is sufficient to explain the Self.
There is a property of the Self that seems to me to be extremely fundamental and profound. This property causes a lump of matter to proclaim self-awareness. (More basically, I think, this property causes a lump of matter to appear to possess awareness.)
However, when I introspect, I see that I not only appear to have awareness, I not only proclaim self-awareness, I actually do have awareness. I actually am self-aware. That is, I not only seem to have a Self, I actually do have one!
I think, emergent theory explains why creatures act self-aware, but doesn't explain why they are self-aware. So I think, then it is reasonable to say that emergent theory is insufficient to explain the Self.
If the difference between "appearing" and "having" is not profound, then the Self is emergent. If the difference IS profound, then the Self is MORE than emergent.

Here is a thought experiment:
I see no reason to assume that a match flame, or a mechanical robot, has a Self. Those things can be completely explained by science. Here I think, well it makes no sense to assume that a person has a Self, either.
Assume science has advanced to the point where flame, robot, and person have been fully explained. Now imagine one of them has a Self. I see no way to determine (scientifically) which has the Self. Each has been fully explained already, and there is no reason to assume the sudden addition of anything new. In other words, science seems unable to confirm the existence of Self, whether it (the Self) exists or not! (I think, if one of them were to exhibit signs of free will (when it hadn't before) then I could finally safely decide which has the Self.)


Shadowy Man talks about religion as an attempt to say that our inner world actually has some existence in the outer world. If I understand you correctly, this implies that because religion is such a lousy guide to reality, and because religion is so concerned with the inner world, then the idea that the inner world has existence in the outer world is without merit. I would say that religion has corrupted spirituality, but that is not enough reason to discount the idea of spirituality as important.


John Page notes that my argument is just that the Self is sujective, science is objective. I think that is sufficient to show science cannot explain all of reality, yes. In addition, there is the profound difference between the Self, and all other emergent or transient entities.

John talks about the verification problem. Another keyword to try! I have a lot of catching up to do, and appreciate the help.

Next John and Mykell poke at me with a mind probe, good naturedly I hope.

The "concious1" is the emergent Self, if I understand you correctly. Using the analogy of the on/off switch, is it unreasonable to suppose that MAYBE it is like a radio switch? That is, the on/off switch creates a "concious1" not only as emergence from the organism, but also by allowing the organism access to some form of (pre-existing) energy (like tuning in a radio station). Well, I bet the "switch" and "radio switch" have already been well thought out - where can I go to learn more?


Amos says "So in the end, that which at one time was 'bedrock fact' (Nowhere357) is an illusion after all."
You know my answer, right? I'd start with "that wasn't helpful", move on to "well I guess that's how you meant it" and finish with "you think the earth is flat?".
I would also point out that I've not claimed, nor do I believe, that personal identity survives death. It seems like people have that unspoken assumption, but I'm probably just feeling defensive.


Finally, John re "no issue" and (and I don't think you do, either) : I guess you're right. Please take a look at my basic "Reality Map", and comment.

Take a piece of paper. Label it "Natural Universe" or "All of Reality".
Draw a cirle. Label it "the Self".
Label outside the circle "Physical Reality" or "Outer Reality".
Label the inside of the circle "Mental Reality" or "Inner Reality".

This diagram allows a place for everything I'm aware of (literally). The things inside the circle (numbers, love) are different in kind (follow different laws) than the things outside the circle (rocks and fire).
The diagram is easy to expand in many ways. For example, we are aware of physical reality through our senses, so we could draw a larger circle, encompassing the first, and label it "body".

Anyway, this is what I base the idea of "science can't see all of reality" on. I figure we use reason to understand Reality, science to understand physical reality, and ???? to understand inner reality. This is clearly the place that religion claims to fill.

Maybe I just need to change the labels?

John Page

If you have an adequate understanding of the science that fully explains everything, including the phenomenon of Self, then you would so be able to determine.
...and this profound difference is?
Yes. Radios don't appear to have selves. Although I don't think the book fully lives up to its title, I suggest Dennett's "Consciousness Explained".
Try labeling the paper "Representation of a conceptual model of the universe, i.e. all that exists. You could structure the space in the circle however you want, put whatever divisions you think are most appropriate. I'm sure you've tried a few and so have I and I think this exercise tells the "experiencer" that our mind is doing the structuring and how you make the divisions is a function of what we perceive - a peope perceive things separately.

I'll cut short here, I think I've made my point that your model is neither right nor wrong but would encourage you to consider what your labels really mean and whether they don't unnecessarily perpetuate an impression of dualism.

Cheers, John

Amos

Well lets try to bend the world around us a little and see if we can make it round.

The illusiory "I" belongs to our ego identity which has no right to exist after we find our "true" identity. Because both these two identities are needed to make dreaming possible it is impossible to dream when the true idenitity has survived the death of the ego identity. That should give you everything at once.

I am not claiming that the above is fact for me but I am just relating to you that that is why people have that unspoken assumption. It is much like W. Woodsworth said "our souls have sight of that immortal sea" which makes it difficult to convince them otherwise.

Shadowy Man

That's exactly my point! You can still have spirituality (which exists in our inner world) without religion. One can still seek inner peace, connectedness with one's surroundings, and study the human condition without believing that some part of our essence has a physical existence outside of our bodies and minds.

MyKell

Of course I would point that out. You really do have to define terms in the topic you are discussing. Words have different meanings according to the context you are using them. For instance, "information" has various meanings depending if it's being used in biology, physics, information theory, etc...
So yeah, come up with your conceptual understanding of the "SELF" so that we know what you are trying to discuss...

Nowhere357

Of course. You are entirely correct. The definition was left out by accident - note other basic terms were defined, and I think my posts show awareness and concern for careful communication. So, thanks for your help.