If this reality is a program, how "self" aware can you ever really be?

I believe consciousness creates the program.
RedDog:

My earliest "motion picture" memories seem to go back to 1969, "photographic memories" go back earlier.
It seems that back then I lived on a different planet. At some point, we packed up our things and moved to this world.
This world is nothing like the old one.

I'm of the opinion that consciousness here is a byproduct of this reality, and is generated by the brain/body/DNA system...
yet "I" am more than my consciousness and existed before my consciousness here became aware in lineal time of a
separate self. Most people have feelings that may morph into lineal memories of a time before they were in this
time/space body. It is those raw, unencoded feelings that seem to point to the truth of "I". Before we were in lineal
time and recorded memories in encoded space/time form.
It might be stated simply that we exist and existed in Continious form before we became discrete space/time forms.

I would hope this question about becoming truly "self aware" is something we all think about alot. I think that we are (as a creature in the universe) somewhat self aware -- or at least we have been given the capability for becoming self aware -- and we as individuals have achieved a certain amount of it.

The entire world existence is always uncertain, but self awareness is actually not uncertain ("is" just "is" but "am" is possibly devoid of all extension) Meaning, things cannot be what the mind alone perceives them to be, because even though in a constant state of change, it would be insane to suggest that every thing is imagination only. This is not a circular logic, rather it introduces the concept of extension, whereby extension means that things exist in space only as an extension of our perceptions. Yet empty space, which we perceive as nothing, is abhorrent to believe as something that exists. Thus this empty space is only an extension of those things that are contained in it and those things contained in it are extensions of our perceptions of what we perceive them to be. This state of extension is the existence of our corporeal (physical) world, as we perceive it. Yet the question remains, whether our perception is the least bit necessary in order for the corporeal world to exist, i.e. the age-old adage, "if a tree falls alone in the woods, will it make a noise?"

The probabilistic approach to self awareness therefore is the ancillary to intelligence where choice is the core. Laplace's Demon in that true intelligence, unlike computational intelligence, is not probabilistic; it is a choice. (Of course Laplace's demon is that hypothetical "demon." It was posited in 1814 by Pierre-Simon Laplace. It goes like this: if that demon could know the precise location and momentum of every atom in the universe at any one instant, then it could use Newton's laws to reveal the entire course of all cosmic events of the past, present, and future.) Would this kind of self awareness be the true definition of a "fully" sentient being?

Although probabilities can be used to influence the rate of learning, humans find these sorts of probabilities, like Laplace's Demon or Baye's theorems a little counterintuitive, because we do not actually calculate probabilities all that often in our decision making. Perhaps, rather than striving so hard for our own self-awareness, we should be trying to understand our forgetfulness -- or perhaps even our "self-forgetfulness" -- in order to really achieve this "awareness" not devoid of self, but the larger awareness which contains the self.

So, you are only as "self aware" as you "choose" to be. And choice is only as strong as your faith will allow it to be. So, if we can't even be sure of the existence of any corporeal things, even people we meet on the street, then, are simply extensions of the faculty of judgment alone, which is in the mind, and they are products of only what we believe we see with our eyes. Considering our world in the atomic theory, quantum theory, wave-matter theory, or really any theory in which you want to fathom your existence, it is now manifest that bodies themselves are not properly perceived by the senses nor by the faculty of imagination, but by the intellect alone; and since they are not really perceived by sight and touch, but only because they are understood or rightly comprehended by thought, nothing is more easily or clearly apprehended than that which we contrive with our own minds. But because it is vane and difficult to rid one's self of the concepts of reality that we have become accustomed, and lest we become convinced in our pride that it is our own self centered minds that are the cause of all existence, it will be desirable to tarry for some time at this stage, that, by long continued meditation, we may more deeply impress upon our memory this new knowledge. In other words, lets just stop and think about it for a moment, because a priori, we are thinking beings.

Throughout your position JDlaw, the word "choose" and "choice" are foundational premises. I'd have to agree, that in this reality the aspect of free will and choosing A or B, ie probablities are at the core of our "selves" here.

Since we are thinking beings there is an aspect of making a decision which is involved in our internal SELF dialog, that is a wonderful thought experiment to perform upon ourselves.

Try and determine where the thought is coming from. Attempt to become so self aware, as to differenciate between a reactive thought and an original thought. Then once you pinpoint your original thought, attempt to trace it back to where it came from.

Without going crazy. :-)

I think it is very important to remember, that even if this reality is programmed, it is still the only reality that we have to work with here -- which of course calls for a little self control. It sort of reminds me of the movie "A Beautiful Mind" -- Just because you "believe" in something, does mean you have to end up becoming institutionalized.

Consciousness: Ah yes. Where were we? We were talking precisely about your current topic. Mr. Galile had assured us that all causation is only what we empirically determine it to be. But now I am left wondering do I really control my own universe? And if I am in control, why can't my thoughts become pure action without physical intervention? Although we do perceive the one event following the other, we do not observe any necessary connection between the two. And according to this skeptical epistemology, we can trust only the knowledge that we acquire from our perceptions. Why can't we trust our imaginations? Ideas differ from impressions only by being less lively, and all ideas are copied from impressions. If a philosophical term is employed without any meaning . . . we need but inquire, from what impression is that supposed idea derived?" There is the physical side of causality where the sum of all probabilities determines the outcome which is the "improper causality" otherwise known as determinism. Then there are the spiritual components to causation where volition and purpose continually guide the outcome of the many variables, which is called the "proper causation" otherwise known as free-will.

Your own self-awareness, without the rest?


"The Arrow of time" suggests that things become more disordered toward the future ("entropy").

Ah! But, I do not rely on man made mathematical models to explain "consciousness;" I was using it to explain the concept of entropy. Do you know what the word entropy means?

To know what a word means is completely different than "knowing" what something is. That is why I can say things like "it is the only reality we have to work with here." It is because your concept of "is" is only what you perceive it to be. Your entire reality is the result of whatever your perceptions are. You could not tell the difference between a reality, where your world is actually physical, and a reality in which your brain is programmed to perceive a physical reality.

A.) What makes you think you are in control HERE?
Answer: I do not think I am in control here. That is my point. Even as to a supposed "self-awareness" -- I may not be in full control (some have argued "any" control).

B.) Asking the question of thoughts or consciousness creating action without physical intervention implies a deeper truth about selfhood, or you would not phrase the question that way.
Answer: This was not a question on your part, but a statement. But, I agree that thoughts can exist in our minds without a connection to the physical world.

Thus, when I think of the concept of "self-awareness," I choose to define it as a belief. Meaning, you have to believe you are self-aware in fact in order to be self-aware. Therefore, the "cause" of self-awareness is a choice. And a choice, is something that cannot actually be programmed according to classical logic -- or at least classical bivalent programming logic.

So, My question A.) is: Can a computer actually make a choice?
Answer: Being a star trek "geek," I will refer you to Kiri-Kin-Tha's first rule of metaphyics, "nothing unreal exists."