Slef-awareness real or illusion

[Bahman]

We can without any doubt say that we experience certain things, like external world and internal world. Example of external world are, like space, objects, all other conscious beings. Example of internal world like, emotions and thoughts. There are two key qualities, namely self-awareness and free will which are impossible to experience them directly from which the later is harder to conceive. Most people believe on these two qualities yet not knowing an mental experiment who could lead to experience them. We most of the time experience other forms then assign those experience to ourselves deducing self-awareness, the most elaborate one like, I thought, I feel, the Iness itself cannot be directly experienced yet we still believe in it. I have a few question in this regard:

1. Is it possible to experience Iness? This seems logically impossible in causal universe since it is required a cycle that something cause itself therefore we become aware of our awareness. This means either causality is wrong or self-awareness is an illusion.
2. What is the use of self-awareness?
3. Is there any strong relationship between self-awareness and free will?

 

[GEddie]

NB. I am a nonphilosopher, so this might all be in error to an extent; bear with me.

1). Yes; but it arises more from physicality than from anything else. We have more bra(name removed by moderator)ower (consciousness potential) than it requires to operate our bodies; this allows a conscious awareness of our physical states: This is **me **breathing; this is **me ** wiggling my hands and toes, or nodding my head; etc.

As we grow more aware of our thoughts (we have to learn to think; one cannot think with an empty mind), this extends to mental awareness. This is me feeling happy or sad or angry, etc. Not everybody is as mentally self-aware as bodily self-aware.

2). Self-awareness helps us to survive bodily by motivating us to adjust for situations in which we have no instinct. The human body is a very poor animal (no reliable instincts; weak senses; no natural weapons; etc) and depends upon its mind to keep alive. But our mind has made our body the dominant large land animal on the planet. Self-aware thinking is a major part of our mind’s toolkit.

1. This one is harder, but I’d say yes, as without self **awareness, **there can be no self **control. **We have to be consciously aware of our desires before we can redirect them. That is why animals lacking self -awareness cannot sin.

ICXC NIKA

 

[ProdglArchitect]

We can without any doubt say that we experience certain things, like external world and internal world. Example of external world are, like space, objects, all other conscious beings. Example of internal world like, emotions and thoughts. There are two key qualities, namely self-awareness and free will which are impossible to experience them directly from which the later is harder to conceive. Most people believe on these two qualities yet not knowing an mental experiment who could lead to experience them. We most of the time experience other forms then assign those experience to ourselves deducing self-awareness, the most elaborate one like, I thought, I feel, the Iness itself cannot be directly experienced yet we still believe in it. I have a few question in this regard:

1. Is it possible to experience Iness? This seems logically impossible in causal universe since it is required a cycle that something cause itself therefore we become aware of our awareness. This means either causality is wrong or self-awareness is an illusion.
2. What is the use of self-awareness?
3. Is there any strong relationship between self-awareness and free will?

You seem to be a fan of pop-philosophy Bahaman, sadly, this philosophy you read about doesn’t appear to even be tangentially related to reality or logic…

I’m only going to address point #1. Specifically, you provide absolutely no supporting evidence or logic for your assertion. In fact, your assertion doesn’t make any kind of logical sense, so much so that it is difficult to formulate a response.

I’m going to adjust for grammar / syntax and tell you what I got out of what you wrote:

Is it possible to experience I**-ness? This seems logically impossible in a causal universe since it requires a cycle to exist in which something cause itself.** Thereafter, we become aware of our awareness. This means that either causality is wrong or that self-awareness is an illusion.

Bold: my modification to what you wrote, done in an attempt to express what I read.

What follows stems from my understanding of what you wrote.

Are you aware of yourself? Namely, do you have interior thoughts which relate to how you perceive yourself, as well as to how others perceive you? Have you ever though “I’m hungry, I should eat;” or “I’m thirsty, I should drink”? If so, you have expressed the most basic level of self-awareness, that is, the desire to survive. If you were not self-aware (that is, aware of your own life, the fact that you are alive) you would never have these inclinations because you wouldn’t be aware that there was anything to sustain.

I’ll just say, straight out, that there is no cycle like the one you allude to. Our awareness is the result of our souls, expressed through the mechanisms of the brain. Our souls are created by God, therefore causality is not breached. Even if we remove theology from the equation, and work on a purely natural sense, self-awareness would be a result of the brain’s awareness of it’s own existence, this is not a casual loop, however, because that awareness was not necessary for the creation of the brain. A man and a woman had relations, resulting in the creation of a new life, which then resulted in the development of the muscle structure known as the brain, which then developed self awareness as it developed into its full state. Again, there is no breach of causality here.

 

[Qoeleth]

To some degree, self-awareness is an illusion.

If “I” am aware of “I”, then am I also aware of the “I” that is aware of the “I”? If I am, then there is necessarily an infinite regress of ‘I’'s.

Hopwever, we can be aware of our ‘I’ of a previous time (e.g. by reflecting on how we felt five minutes ago). But we cannot really be aware of the current ‘I’, in its totality (just as the ‘eye’ cannot see itself).

There is a case for separating the “I” from the “me”. We only perceive the ‘me’, but not the real ‘I’.

Perhaps there is no ‘I’, just a series of states…

 

[Bahman]

Are you aware of yourself? Namely, do you have interior thoughts which relate to how you perceive yourself, as well as to how others perceive you? Have you ever though “I’m hungry, I should eat;” or “I’m thirsty, I should drink”? If so, you have expressed the most basic level of self-awareness, that is, the desire to survive. If you were not self-aware (that is, aware of your own life, the fact that you are alive) you would never have these inclinations because you wouldn’t be aware that there was anything to sustain.

I can without doubt say that I experience things but I can only deduce from this fact that I do exist. The problem is that I couldn’t reach to this conclusion without logical thinking hence I don’t call this self-awareness since we use logical thinking instead of bare awareness to close the loop. Lets use the example you provide to see where we could go from here: “I feel hungry”. To be correct I had to say “hunger is experienced” since the concept self-awareness is already included in the sentence “I feel hungry” through using “I”. “hunger is experienced” is the only reality that we could agree upon it on the first step. How we conclude from an experience like “hunger is experienced” that we are self-aware. We as logical animal complete cycle of self-awareness using logical thinking instead of the experience itself. From here we deduce that “there must be a being that could experience things” then define “I” as the being hence we conclude that “I do exist”. So as you can see we reach to the conclusion using experience as a half of circle and logical thinking as second part in order to close the cycle.

I’ll just say, straight out, that there is no cycle like the one you allude to. Our awareness is the result of our souls, expressed through the mechanisms of the brain. Our souls are created by God, therefore causality is not breached. Even if we remove theology from the equation, and work on a purely natural sense, self-awareness would be a result of the brain’s awareness of it’s own existence, this is not a casual loop, however, because that awareness was not necessary for the creation of the brain. A man and a woman had relations, resulting in the creation of a new life, which then resulted in the development of the muscle structure known as the brain, which then developed self awareness as it developed into its full state. Again, there is no breach of causality here.

Self-awareness is a cycle since it is awareness that should lead to awareness itself. We however complete the cycle one half through experiencing the other half through logical thinking. Putting soul aside for a moment, there is one question arising at this point, how we were able to close the cycle knowing that our universe is casual? Accepting soul as part, one arises to another question that why we couldn’t experience our awareness in first place since soul is not causal hence it could lead to self-awareness at the first place so we don’t need to strive on experiencing something else to deduce awareness at the end.

 

[Bahman]

To some degree, self-awareness is an illusion.

If “I” am aware of “I”, then am I also aware of the “I” that is aware of the “I”? If I am, then there is necessarily an infinite regress of ‘I’'s.

Hopwever, we can be aware of our ‘I’ of a previous time (e.g. by reflecting on how we felt five minutes ago). But we cannot really be aware of the current ‘I’, in its totality (just as the ‘eye’ cannot see itself).

There is a case for separating the “I” from the “me”. We only perceive the ‘me’, but not the real ‘I’.

Perhaps there is no ‘I’, just a series of states…

Or “I” am aware “I” is a close cycle at first place which is not possible in casual world therefore self-awareness is a close cycle hence self-awareness is an illusion.

 

[GEddie]

To some degree, self-awareness is an illusion.

If “I” am aware of “I”, then am I also aware of the “I” that is aware of the “I”? If I am, then there is necessarily an infinite regress of ‘I’'s.

Hopwever, we can be aware of our ‘I’ of a previous time (e.g. by reflecting on how we felt five minutes ago). But we cannot really be aware of the current ‘I’, in its totality (just as the ‘eye’ cannot see itself).

There is a case for separating the “I” from the “me”. We only perceive the ‘me’, but not the real ‘I’.

Perhaps there is no ‘I’, just a series of states…

“I” is simply the active case of “me”, while “me” is simply “I” in passivity.

We ought not make a philosophy out of the vagaries of language. The first person singular doesn’t work the same in every language.

ICXC NIKA

 

[GEddie]

Self-consciousness is not an illusion, but the unified self probably is.

One could say that one’s autonoetic mind is the integrator of all Body’s perceptions and the mental processes, everything that makes up one’s “me”, and translates this into action, performed by “I.”

But there is no unified self, just a solid body and onboard mind generating a seamless stream of consciousness.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Qoeleth]

“I” is simply the active case of “me”, while “me” is simply “I” in passivity.

We ought not make a philosophy out of the vagaries of language. The first person singular doesn’t work the same in every language.

ICXC NIKA

Well, I would say “I” is the subject (nominative) case, and “me” the object (accusative, ablative and dative) case…Active and passive, of course, a voices, not cases, and pertain to verbs. Sorry for the slip into pedanticism…

But, seriously, the point is that the “me” is the object of perception, which is not precisely the same as the subject. In other words, we see something of ourselves, but we don’t see ourselves as we actually are (at least perfectly or completely). So, we become are of a certain self, but it is not necessarily our true or complete self.

 

[Robert_Sock]

The “self” is an illusion that simply does not exist.

“If only we were completely dead to self, and free from inner conflict, we could savour spiritual things, and win experience of heavenly contemplation.”
-The Imitation of Christ, Book 1, Chapter 11

 

[justice99]

How about look at it from this angle:
awareness goes hand in hand with knowledge. To be aware of something may entail to possess knowledge of that thing.
I believe we are given primary knowledge automatically of the things or stimulus around us only that of which our physical senses can detect.
Eg. One doesn’t know that a spirit may be standing beside him because he can’t SEE the spirit so is not aware of the spirit.
From the bible, Adam and Eve only became aware that they were naked after eating the forbidden fruit.
This leads to the conclusion that self awareness (Adam and Eve did not know they were naked but if given the idea prior to eating the forbidden fruit, perhaps they would have thought they were clothed, the point is partial self awareness does not exist) implies complete knowledge of self.
We know that only God knows everything, hence my verdict: self awareness is an illusion
.
Also am pretty sure SLEF awareness is an illusion, lol

 

[John_Lazarus]

The “self” is an illusion that simply does not exist.

Speak for your"self".

I know* I* exist. I try not to think about it too much, since that existence frightens me (for want of a better term). But I know I am “in here”.

It’s not cogito ergo sum. It’s kind of hard to put into words, I just know on a wordless, non-logical, even possibly non-intellectual level that I exist.

I don’t know if that’s what you all mean by “self-awareness”. I generally don’t get involved in philosophical discussions, as I have no education in philosophy, I am not familiar with all the jargon and terms of art,and I can’t refer to Heidegger or state according to Kierkegaard or quote Plato. In terms of philosophical arguments, I’m not even bringing the proverbial knife to a gunfight, I’d be lucky to produce a banana.

Just sometimes these pronouncements – like that the self is an illusion – sometimes they stick in my craw. I guess I’m really bugged ever since I got stuck on a long subway ride with a self-described existential nihilist who was going on and on about how love did not exist.

Sorry, just had to vent. We now return you to your regularly-scheduled discussion.

 

[GEddie]

The only thing that frightens me about my being is that it has to end.

ICXC NIKA