Self-awareness and ignorance

[Rebis]

Reflecting on your point I agree in that sense: people are taken in by simple concepts, and evolution, inheritance and the like is as basic as it gets. Having said that, I haven't seen any scientist worth a grain of salt suggesting shit like that. And if they do, maybe they're just clouded in their bias and socialization as a kid. It'll not pass in the next generation.

 

[Inexorable Username]

Well, I hope you’re right! You have some very worthy points. We could get in to Darwinism, but that’s a rabbit hole I think neither of us has the time for - and I don’t disagree with all aspects of Darwinism. If anything, I think Darwin’s paradigm was guilty of lacking information, which is entirely fair, given the fact that he had none to go off of. To be fair, Darwin is the kind of man I have an immense amount of respect and appreciation for. If Darwin was alive today, I think he would have revised his own theory probably 5 or 10 times by now. Unfortunately, he died, and his brain died with him. The man was, in my mind, everything a scientist should be.He was a student of the world.
One of the BEST things that Darwin gave us, in my mind, is the perspective that we did, actually, evolve. I don’t think any reasonable person can dispute this. It is one of those incredible theories that has become, essentially, a fact.
So, I hope you don’t think that I have contempt for Charles Darwin. That’s absolutely not the case. It’s frankly astounding that our species produced this man! (Here I would dearly love to make a playful tongue face, but I know it will be conquered by a creepy green...thing...And I have yet to figure out how to disable this breed of emoji imposters)

We could argue the validity of some of the points of Darwinism, but good lord, I don’t think either of us signed up for that when we started this conversation. Instead, I’ll just make one point as to how I think we misuse the theory today.

We have a tendency to believe that genetic alterations happen because they benefited us as a species. What we’ve learned in the field of genetics seems to contradict this, to a degree.

The genetics responsible for our evolution were most likely random, chance mutations*, which proved to not be adversarial to our survival, so they ended up proliferating.
( * this information is based on knowledge I gleaned in conversations with two people educated in genetics. Not from studies I personally read)

Many people today, however, still treat evolution as though we brought it about by selecting the traits we felt were best. A lot of that can manifest in Evolutionary Biology. we have a habit of thinking that we evolved traits for a reason. That probably wasn’t the case. We probably evolved traits as a consequence of happenstance, and since they weren’t disadvantageous, they didn’t get bred our. That’s very different from thinking : We evolved to stand upright because of X.

This, though, is also a massively long discussion. You and I keep dancing around the edges of one of those, don’t we? Lol.

I appreciate your olive branch! Sorry I’m not playing the game properly with pretty quotes - no internet, and my phone doesn’t cooperate all that well with this forum.

In any case, I’m glad that you can see, in part, where I’m coming from...and I really hope that it won’t carry on to the next generation. Maybe this is just a consequence of the millennial arrogance? Perhaps generation Z will be more reasonable. I think they will be, in fact, so I’m predisposed to agree with you here...I’d still like to interview this high schooler that we have, though, about his peers, and see if I can figure out Generation Z’s tendencies. So far, my research suggests that they seem very pragmatic and practical. I’m excited. I hope they will usher in a new age of scientific respectability.

Maybe I can get overly pessimistic regarding this topic? I would like to think I’m analyzing it without bias, but I’m not stupid enough to think that could be the case. It’s a very good point that the apparent idiocy I’ve observed in some of our scientists may not carry on to the next generation. I hope that’s the case.

This has been a great discussion. :3
(Must is the cat-like smile lest I get invaded by little green men)

Oh! Also...I don’t think the people I’ve talked to are necessarily stupid. I think they’re motivated by natural tendencies that are genuinely good. We should defend what we believe in. I just think that when it comes to scientific theory, people have a tendency to take it too personally.

Joe Rogan, for instance. Have you ever heard of him? He’s a YouTuber and he’s fairly popular. He had a video which featured the host of the show Adam Ruins Everything, and it was very poorly conducted. At any rate, in the course of his Adam-bashing (his fans apparently hate this host, so it was a highly marketable opportunity), he made the rather pitiful argument that “Women are attracted to tall, muscular men” because that’s what we evolved to look for in a mate, and anyone who says otherwise is kidding themselves. He used the same bandwagon kind of reasoning to validate his stance on “alpha” and “beta” males.

Now, to be clear, I do think that women are choosey about mates and I do think that males struggle for dominance. I also think that most peoples’ interpretations of how these aspects manifest is crude, at best, and bullshit at worst. Excuse my French. (Maybe that’s not a good expression to use on a multicultural forum though)

What bothers me about this attitude is the fundamental belief of society that males demonstrate a wolf-pack dominance, and that the biggest, strongest males are the best breeding candidates, and whoever doesn’t agree with this concept is an absolute moron and science-denyer. This is one of those situations where if you dare comment to the contrary, you will get set upon.

Obviously, there’s many situations like that, and more credible ones than a YouTuber example...but the fact that the community is so aggressive about concepts such as this - well, it’s an issue. It causes a lot of problems, and inspires a lot of unnecessary studies and research because of public appeal. It’s one example of how scientific arrogance is a cultural issue.

 

[Grayman]

It sounds like you are debating on whether you want to watch TV or sit in your thinking chair.... But judging on how you asked the question I think you should watch a little more TV and something really meaningless.

Kind of, except self-awareness is not taken away by TV. It's more of a question whether you'd like to be a cog in the grand scheme of the universe or a self-aware sentient being in this modern world of communication. If you were the cog you wouldn't even ask this question, if you were the latter you can ponder the why of everything in existence. Like the concept of cruelty, is that present in beings that don't document history? What about eternal love?

So self awareness is about questioning things you cannot control and cannot change? I suspect a cog cannot choose to become self aware because a cog cannot even ponder enough to recognize the choice. But if you even do recognize the choice, can you even choose? Can you even become a cog? If you cannot make yourself enjoy and find value in things without mind and without the fluttering of thoughts, are you as in control and aware as you like to think you are?

Perhaps you only feel as if you are more aware because you hear your internal voice so much. I think true awareness is in recognizing the silent part of yourself. It is the part that knows without language. It can solve problems without a sound. It is a feeling and a sense of being with all that surrounds you. It is recognizing the self in ways that language could never define.

 

[Inexorable Username]

It sounds like you are debating on whether you want to watch TV or sit in your thinking chair.... But judging on how you asked the question I think you should watch a little more TV and something really meaningless.

Kind of, except self-awareness is not taken away by TV. It's more of a question whether you'd like to be a cog in the grand scheme of the universe or a self-aware sentient being in this modern world of communication. If you were the cog you wouldn't even ask this question, if you were the latter you can ponder the why of everything in existence. Like the concept of cruelty, is that present in beings that don't document history? What about eternal love?

So self awareness is about questioning things you cannot control and cannot change? I suspect a cog cannot choose to become self aware because a cog cannot even ponder enough to recognize the choice. But if you even do recognize the choice, can you even choose? Can you even become a cog? If you cannot make yourself enjoy and find value in things without mind and without the fluttering of thoughts, are you as in control and aware as you like to think you are?

Perhaps you only feel as if you are more aware because you hear your internal voice so much. I think true awareness is in recognizing the silent part of yourself. It is the part that knows without language. It can solve problems without a sound. It is a feeling and a sense of being with all that surrounds you. It is recognizing the self in ways that language could never define.

I hope this doesn’t come across as rude to anyone...but we may need to bring up the fact that self-awareness is a state, not a practice. To be self-aware is, essentially, to be capable of introspection. It’s not a very complicated concept.
However, practicing introspection insofar as it relates to one’s own identity - that is a massively complicated concept.

I just feel like maybe the conversation is heading in a direction that could easily lead to confusion on this front. A person could have mental retardation and still possess self-awareness. It isn’t something someone needs to actually develop, as a skill. I don’t know of any instance where a being may choose whether to be self-award.

Now...there’s definitely such a thing of being more aware of yourself - as in, being more introspective, or in touch with your inner nature, or knowing who you really are...those things would fall into the category of “self perception”. They are not the same as the psychological theory of self-awareness. If we’re to speak scientifically, that distinction is important.

 

[Grayman]

It sounds like you are debating on whether you want to watch TV or sit in your thinking chair.... But judging on how you asked the question I think you should watch a little more TV and something really meaningless.

Kind of, except self-awareness is not taken away by TV. It's more of a question whether you'd like to be a cog in the grand scheme of the universe or a self-aware sentient being in this modern world of communication. If you were the cog you wouldn't even ask this question, if you were the latter you can ponder the why of everything in existence. Like the concept of cruelty, is that present in beings that don't document history? What about eternal love?

So self awareness is about questioning things you cannot control and cannot change? I suspect a cog cannot choose to become self aware because a cog cannot even ponder enough to recognize the choice. But if you even do recognize the choice, can you even choose? Can you even become a cog? If you cannot make yourself enjoy and find value in things without mind and without the fluttering of thoughts, are you as in control and aware as you like to think you are?

Perhaps you only feel as if you are more aware because you hear your internal voice so much. I think true awareness is in recognizing the silent part of yourself. It is the part that knows without language. It can solve problems without a sound. It is a feeling and a sense of being with all that surrounds you. It is recognizing the self in ways that language could never define.

I hope this doesn’t come across as rude to anyone...but we may need to bring up the fact that self-awareness is a state, not a practice. To be self-aware is, essentially, to be capable of introspection. It’s not a very complicated concept.
However, practicing introspection insofar as it relates to one’s own identity - that is a massively complicated concept.

I just feel like maybe the conversation is heading in a direction that could easily lead to confusion on this front. A person could have mental retardation and still possess self-awareness. It isn’t something someone needs to actually develop, as a skill. I don’t know of any instance where a being may choose whether to be self-award.

Now...there’s definitely such a thing of being more aware of yourself - as in, being more introspective, or in touch with your inner nature, or knowing who you really are...those things would fall into the category of “self perception”. They are not the same as the psychological theory of self-awareness. If we’re to speak scientifically, that distinction is important.

A state gives an impression that it is binary but I don't think it is. I think it is an ability that varies in degree.
The most basic form of self-awareness is being able to look at yourself in a mirror and recognize that that is you. To know that when you speak that that is your voice. The next level is to be able to recognize the existence of your thoughts and feelings and such. Deeper than that is the ability to recognize the triggers and levers that drive those feelings and thoughts....

It should be noted however that the in the OP mentioned "control" in relation to awareness.

In understanding a thing, you can gain some control of that thing. It is why I believe he mentioned control along with self awareness. He/She focuses a lot on understanding him/herself and and has derived a sense of control as a consequence. Likely a sense of greater control than others may possess.

 

[Rebis]

Firstly this is a hypothetical question, as we know there's no way to eliminate self-awareness or for semantical purposes "self-perception". With our advanced language we have an endless amount of references points to the themes of life: Love, sadness, happiness, fear, death, adversity.... and so on that we can relate poems we've just read to those deep archetypal emotions. These reference points are not experential and are a product of self-perception and interpreting a body of text. We can experience these intense emotions from a simple interpetative experience imaging ourselves in the position of a forsaken soul facing adversity, a heartbroken lover surrounded by the visual environment the poet has crafted: A crescent moon in the corner of the window, fighting against others operating as a force of adversity . Without advanced self-perception and use of language for reference points wouldn't be subject to this high degree of emulation which puts our existence in the core of most stories.

This is what I define as self-awareness. As a scalar, the higher degree of self-awareness leads to more self-regulation: That is not to say that a person cannot be self-percepting without taking action (this would be self-regulation), but to percieve is to interpret and muse, conjuring possible actions to take in response to stimulus. I am aware of my sadness and I am aware of what makes me happy so I attempt to change that. Being self-aware naturally leads to a lot of consciously decided responsibility in this world.

So the question could be transmuted into another form: If the constant force of change which is percieved by a person in this advanced world of simulations (books, movies, TV, Games, VR) is a mixed bag between enjoyment and despair, love and loss, euphoria and anhedonia. If one that has experienced this level of self-awareness and emulation could simply forfeit the ability to reflect in such a way that they are regulated by natural cycles: Life, death, observing nature rather than controlling and manipulating forces. To observe the world as it is rather than the construct you create. I see a grey rock, a red toad. I do not think about their properties in an abstract sense, I just experience that moment, followed by the next moment, so on and so forth.

 

[Inexorable Username]

Perhaps the difference between self-awareness and self-perception is an important one to make? Maybe it is more than an issue of semantics.

When we talk about scientific self-awareness, we talk about very concrete abilities. Recognizing yourself in a mirror, for instance. These abilities can be observed without personal bias, for the most part.

When we talk about self-perception, we talk about interpreting our psychology. That, inherently, has bias.

I think there is actually a significant difference. I don’t want to be long-winded about it here, but I might mock up a white board on it later.

Bottom line though, I think it’s important to make a distinction between perception and awareness. One has bias by default, the other is scientific. One is introverted, the other, extroverted.

Looping them together as one thing can cause an unrealistic certainty of the accuracy of your own self-assessment (because calling it awareness gives the feeling that it is not a biased asessment).

The Buddhists meditate to achieve self-awareness, but in doing so, they actively shut out the ego and the thinking part of the mind. They absorb the physical sensation of life, rather than question themselves from the inside out.

Anyways, like I said, I would need to diagram this out.

 

[Grayman]

Perhaps the difference between self-awareness and self-perception is an important one to make? Maybe it is more than an issue of semantics.

When we talk about scientific self-awareness, we talk about very concrete abilities. Recognizing yourself in a mirror, for instance. These abilities can be observed without personal bias, for the most part.

When we talk about self-perception, we talk about interpreting our psychology. That, inherently, has bias.

I think there is actually a significant difference. I don’t want to be long-winded about it here, but I might mock up a white board on it later.

Bottom line though, I think it’s important to make a distinction between perception and awareness. One has bias by default, the other is scientific. One is introverted, the other, extroverted.

Looping them together as one thing can cause an unrealistic certainty of the accuracy of your own self-assessment (because calling it awareness gives the feeling that it is not a biased asessment).

The Buddhists meditate to achieve self-awareness, but in doing so, they actively shut out the ego and the thinking part of the mind. They absorb the physical sensation of life, rather than question themselves from the inside out.

Anyways, like I said, I would need to diagram this out.

It is the opposite. Buddhists meditate to achieve enlightenment. In reality, they deplete their awareness in an effort to reduce suffering. Suffering is a condition of our awareness. It has nothing to do with the ego as we define ego. They wish to delete the concept itself of 'self'. They are not trying to rid themselves of their perception of how they see themselves.
They wish to live a life of pure experience without a thought of what was or will be but to live in just what is. To see it as nothing more or less that that experience without the weight of more.

 

[Grayman]

Perhaps the difference between self-awareness and self-perception is an important one to make? Maybe it is more than an issue of semantics.

When we talk about scientific self-awareness, we talk about very concrete abilities. Recognizing yourself in a mirror, for instance. These abilities can be observed without personal bias, for the most part.

When we talk about self-perception, we talk about interpreting our psychology. That, inherently, has bias.

I think we agree.. .
Self-awareness is your capacity for introspection. Self-Perception is the interpretation of what was introspected.

 

[Grayman]

This is what I define as self-awareness. As a scalar, the higher degree of self-awareness leads to more self-regulation: That is not to say that a person cannot be self-percepting without taking action (this would be self-regulation), but to percieve is to interpret and muse, conjuring possible actions to take in response to stimulus. I am aware of my sadness and I am aware of what makes me happy so I attempt to change that. Being self-aware naturally leads to a lot of consciously decided responsibility in this world.

No I wouldn't want to change it, to answer the question of the thread. Why would a person want to give up the ability? I think any suffering that comes from 'regulating' oneself is due to a false perception of oneself. The standard has been set too high. A true and objective perception of self would lead to acceptance.

Acceptance like acknowledging a rock is a rock. A person cannot be upset at rock for being what it is. Not complacency. A rock can also be chisled into a knife.
In other words, because we have more agency than other creatures or people even we assume we have agency in things we really have none. This leads to us assigning blame or being disappointed.

 

[Rebis]

Surely acceptance isn't eternal as people change over time?

I tend to not say when I agree with people's point as it's technically redundant to the content of the discussion, but yes I think if you do accept yourself then self-regulation isn't a conscious descision. I suppose you're right given the conditions, but it seems the first response of the question would align with others who haven't reached individuation, which is common among the ambitious.

However, we do have archetypal compulsion for growth: growth is a proponent of self-awareness where one reflects on his condition in the present, his condition in the past, and the emulation of other people's behaviour. I think we have more agency in the sense of the complexity of our society and if I were to use plato, the representation of form through media simulations exposes us to nuanced extremes. Growth can be represented in a plethora of forms, yet each form has a moral/practical axis: Personal growth, Emotional growth, Ideological growth, Interpersonal/Relationship growth. All within their domains: Personal growth relating to trauma, general fitness, mental performance and so on.

I have worded this question rather abstractly, it was a leaf in a breeze without a fleshed out premise. I think I would desire it in a way where self-regulation, which I believe happens to all in varying degrees as individuation is best measured as a standard to approach rather than a finalised form. We've waged war on nature mainly because of our self-awareness and creativity: We've created things that aren't necessary for biological/social functions, yet through self-perception we value them as essential to our existence. Instead of being regulated by evolution and nature we've manipulated the forces of the world for our own service, and really, at the expensive of our seas, habitat, climate; everything.

When thinking of this question I envision an animal: Of course it's self-aware, but it is not a product of self-perception, self-perception in relation to the culture we experience. It is limited in its advanced abilities for self-regulation. For the most part it has a simple life which isn't too demanding on the environment. They're small in numbers, they don't create catastrophic destruction because of self-perception. Not that an animal thinks of an environment, but the level of simplicity they operate ensures no globally pronounced effect. An animal dies because it is frail and weak, that is the natural cycle: with us we hold onto the life ot our elders so dearly with pharmaceuticals, specific diets, expensive equipment. We sustain the young who are deeply sick.

I think the war we're fighting is control of the universe, which I assume any animal would want if it was conscious. You could say that is the meaning of our species or any other preceding apex predators: To control our environment. Our self-awareness is not efficient, while the cycles that change this world are: Evolution happens over a long, long time. Climate processes like the carbon cycle are supposed to happen over millions of years, the sands drifting from the sahara to the amazon to fertilise soil, water reaching oasis in the middle of the desert. So on and so forth. These cycles are efficient because they've taken millions of years to adapt ever so slowly.

So my question is really in relation to the above: For nature to regulate life rather than humans regulating nature. To become a cog in the clockwork instead of trying to manipulate our interconnected climate through reductionist logic. I would say it would be peaceful, but I doubt we'd know of peace if there was no war: There is no moral compass fighting for food. I usually jump between the two perspectives dpeending on the emphasis of the other.

 

[Rebis]

I also think self-perception is a product of cultural roles: I can be happy that work isn't the end all, but society still enforces rules which I must abide by. So while self-perception can lead me to a state of individuation, this perception is superseded by cultural roles which add a layer to acceptance of myself. We are naturally adapting the concept of the self in relation to social order, which emerges a new layer of self-acceptance in relation to the whole. All I want is shelter, food, water and a partner. To a large degree, all of these innate desires to all members of the animal kingdom are influenced by society. Food is globalised through supermarkets, I could plant my own food but that's a difficult procedure. If I wanted specific foods I would need a greenhouse which would require dependency on the state through electricity. Partners are influenced by social conventions, evidently. Shelter is hard to claim in a country where land is permitted by the state.

I Actually talked about this in another post: if I could isolate the self and create a dual-function personality where I have an externalised and internalised form, both independent of each other. The reality is the internal form is limited in scope by external influence. However, in a purely social setting which biological functions are not a factor then one can accept himself truly as social conventions (rather than economical ones) can be ignored.