What is self-awareness?

[Papoon]

I feel certain that we will never know what self awareness is. Science can't tell us. Religion can't tell us. Philosophy can't tell us.Meditation can't make it comprehensible.
That can be infuriating, humbling, disturbing, amazing, and for many impossible to accept.
It's just the way it is.
How a person deals with that pretty much defines their character.

 

[mystic64]

I feel certain that we will never know what self awareness is. Science can't tell us. Religion can't tell us. Philosophy can't tell us.Meditation can't make it comprehensible.
That can be infuriating, humbling, disturbing, amazing, and for many impossible to accept.
It's just the way it is.
How a person deals with that pretty much defines their character.

Just for fun, what would it mean for an artificial intelligence (a mind/intelligence created by computer science) to become "self-aware"? And Papoon I like what you said about "meditation can't make it comprehensible." !

 

[mystic64]

So, what is your personal definition of your "self?"

It all depends on what level you want to look at things. On the conceptual mind workings reality level I define "self" as the sum total of my personality programming and how it interacts with my physical and intellectual environment at any given point in time. On the "non" conceptual mind workings reality level "self" does not exist so therefore does not have a need for a definition.

So Gambit, what is your personal definition of "self" ?

 

[mystic64]

An awareness of one's self, but in only as much as we can know ourselves. We're always evolving, growing, changing...so in as much as we can know ourselves at any given moment.

Congrats !

 

[EtuMalku]

Personal Identity of the self depends on consciousness, not on substance. We are the same person to the extent that we are conscious of our past and future thoughts and actions in the same way as we are conscious of our present thoughts and actions. If consciousness is this "thought" which doubles all thoughts, then Personal Identity is only founded on the repeated act of consciousness.

Now, the next question should be; "What is 'S'elf Awareness?
*Self with a capital 'S' as in a higher self, an Isolate Intelligence separate from gross realm and the objective universe

 

[Gambit]

So Gambit, what is your personal definition of "self" ?

It appears to be both the subject and object of perception.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

It appears to be both the subject and object of perception.

Can we really perceive our "self", or is it actually just what's happening in our mind at any one time?

 

[Gambit]

Can we really perceive our "self", or is it actually just what's happening in our mind at any one time?

Do you believe self-awareness is illusory?

 

[Deidre]

Can we really perceive our "self", or is it actually just what's happening in our mind at any one time?

But isn't that the essence of perception?

 

[Papoon]

Can we really perceive our "self", or is it actually just what's happening in our mind at any one time?

Is there really a mind, or is it just what"s happening in our self at any one time ?

 

[Papoon]

For that matter, is there 'any one time' ?
Is there any evidence for the inherent existence of 'moments' ?
I have never experienced one myself.

 

[Papoon]

*Self with a capital 'S' as in a higher self, an Isolate Intelligence separate from gross realm and the objective universe

One and the same. Is there a capital O Ocean which is not the waves and currents ?

 

[EtuMalku]

One and the same. Is there a capital O Ocean which is not the waves and currents ?

Not at all . . . any focus upon oneself presupposes the separateness of that self from everything else. We perceive something in our own state of being that does not seem to be explainable in terms of the objective universe. We are not satisfied that we can be explained or defined merely in terms of electro-chemical equations, even very elaborate ones. There is, we feel, something else within us - something unique to each being and ultimately more essential than our objective, physical substance. First identified as the Ba by the ancient Egyptians, it became the psyche of the Greeks and eventually the “soul” in modern language and higher Self of the Western Left Hand Path.

We can distinguish between the natural and the non-natural - something that would be a logical impossibility if the consciousness itself could not extend beyond the natural.

 

[raw_thought]

Can objectivity and subjectivity coexist in our perception of the self? Can I perceive the perceiving self without being seperate from it?

 

[Papoon]

Not at all . . . any focus upon oneself presupposes the separateness of that self from everything else. We perceive something in our own state of being that does not seem to be explainable in terms of the objective universe. We are not satisfied that we can be explained or defined merely in terms of electro-chemical equations, even very elaborate ones. There is, we feel, something else within us - something unique to each being and ultimately more essential than our objective, physical substance. First identified as the Ba by the ancient Egyptians, it became the psyche of the Greeks and eventually the “soul” in modern language and higher Self of the Western Left Hand Path.

We can distinguish between the natural and the non-natural - something that would be a logical impossibility if the consciousness itself could not extend beyond the natural.

Exactly. It is the 'focus on oneself' which is one and the same as 'the natural world'.
Ba, or The Higher Self, is the reification of unfabricated mind.
Transcendence is the natural state when the noetic act of 'being someone' is not active.

 

[Sunstone]

Can objectivity and subjectivity coexist in our perception of the self? Can I perceive the perceiving self without being seperate from it?

In a normal state of consciousness, the way you perceive yourself is in relationship. That is the importance of relationships. By contrast, directly perceiving the self through, say, introspection is comparatively useless.

 

[raw_thought]

If being aware of yourself has a purpose or not is not the issue. The question is,"can you be aware of yourself?"
The fundamental questions (by definition ) do not address purpose.They ask about meaning.
Purpose by definition refers to something beyond itself. For example, the purpose of life is not life. It might be to procreate ,or whatever . Anything that refers to something else cannot be fundamental .

 

[Papoon]

If being aware of yourself has a purpose or not is not the issue. The question is,"can you be aware of yourself?"
The fundamental questions (by definition ) do not address purpose.They ask about meaning.
Purpose by definition refers to something beyond itself. For example, the purpose of life is not life. It might be to procreate ,or whatever . Anything that refers to something else cannot be fundamental .

Yes. Purpose is the noetic act of becoming, and one cannot become what one is.

 

[atanu]

In a normal state of consciousness, the way you perceive yourself is in relationship. That is the importance of relationships. By contrast, directly perceiving the self through, say, introspection is comparatively useless.

Oh no. Not useless. That is the first step towards removal of the conceptual notion "I am this body".

 

[Gambit]

Can objectivity and subjectivity coexist in our perception of the self? Can I perceive the perceiving self without being seperate from it?

The subject of perception and the object of perception are united as one during meditation.