So that's why my wife always keeps complementing me on how self-aware I am!
She's all, "You've been staring at that mirror for hours now, Daniel. God, you're the most self-aware person I've met in my entire life!"
Now that I think of it, she might've said "self-absorbed," but that's basically the same, right?
Great read, and yeah: It doesn't seem quite fair to judge the animals' level of self-awareness by their interactions with man-made objects and assume that they're equally intentional and interested in it.
Fascinating. I would respectfully suggest that it’s harder to anthropomorphise fish (outwith Disney) for most landlubbers and non-aquarists (perhaps) so perhaps that’s why we feel that this is an odd finding?
Hi John! Yes, I think so too. In general, I think we tend to think of animal consciousness always in terms of how it relative to human consciousness. Doing so is likely to blind us to the many ways that animals might have experiences.
Excellent article. I think it comprehensively covers self awareness both in terms of its generality and specificity. I have often wondered about questions like "Do Animals Dream?" And if so, what about? I think this question is closely related to consciousness and the concept of self awareness. Would love to hear your thoughts on this some day.
Thank you so much! The research on animal dreaming is fascinating to me too. I have an article in the pipeline covering that topic! Spoiler alert -- it seems that animals do dream.
A theory that interests me is that reality, which consists almost entirely of space, has some property related to what we call intelligence. As example, the laws of physics are not a property of anything in reality, but are instead a property of reality itself. What if "intelligence" is like that?
In this theory, space is like a radio station broadcasting out the "intelligence" signal, and individual species and creatures are like radio receivers. The radio receivers vary widely in what part of the signal they can receive, how much of it they receive etc.
If this highly speculative theory has any merit, then we could say that self awareness, and intelligence more generally, is not really a property of the self aware entity. Self awareness would instead be a property of reality as a whole, like the laws of physics. As example, every "thing" in all of reality consists overwhelmingly of space. But the space within and between the atoms in our bodies is not our personal property.
Further....
If we keep in mind that almost all of reality is space, an unbroken field uniting everything everywhere, then the concept of "self", a "thing" considered separate and divided from all else, may begin to unravel.
I always have to look up words like that. Duh! :-)
"Panpsychism is a philosophical theory that states that reality is made up of many separate and distinct psychic beings or minds."
Hmm.... I'm more of the "all is one" school. As I understand it, if I do, division is not a property of reality, but rather a property of thought, the lens through which we observe reality. The division we perceive is conceptual, not real.
Sorry, Phil, I should have provided a definition. Yep, I think you've got panpsychism covered. It's the idea that consciousness is a fundamental property of the universe and it somehow combines to form a whole, or macro consciousness that we call mind.
It is interesting thinking that modern quantum field theory, which suggests that reality is fundamentally composed of quantum fields, rather than point-like particles. Perhaps there isn't division like we think there is. I find this idea so difficult to make sense of because it's so different to how we talk about things. By definition if we want to talk about something — there needs to be a separation between what we are talking about and everything else. We can't talk about something without distinguishing it from other things. Perhaps that's what you mean by thought?
Your idea is interesting because it might align with quantum field theory (although I know very little about quantum field theory). But it's difficult to reconcile an 'all is one' view with our everyday experience. It seems counterintuitive. Our consciousness doesn't seem to combine with other people's consciousness. There does seem to be a separation there.
You write, "It's the idea that consciousness is a fundamental property of the universe"
Oh, ok, that does sound like what I speculated. Thanks for the clarification.
One problem here is that we are using words that have always been used to define the properties of a "thing". And now we're talking about the possible property of "the everything". That's why I was putting "intelligence" in quotes. I don't know what word to use to describe a "related to intelligence" property of everything.
You write, "We can't talk about something without distinguishing it from other things. Perhaps that's what you mean by thought?"
Yes, that's it. An example could be wearing tinted sunglasses. Everywhere we look when wearing the glasses reality appears to be tinted. But the tint is a property of the tool being used to make the observation, not a property of what is being observed. So it may be with thought.
You write, "But it's difficult to reconcile an 'all is one' view with our everyday experience."
Indeed it is. A place to start perhaps is to recognize that the human experience is typically to be "lost in thought". And so if thought is introducing an illusion of division, that illusion would be very compelling.
We can observe how thought is attempting to divide this topic in to either "all is one" or "separation is real". What if both are true?
Next week's article will be all about panpsychism. I'll try my best to outline the key arguments for and against. There's a lot to discuss about this fascinating but counterintuitive topic. Looking forward to reading your thoughts.
Apologies for the off topic: I'd be interested in learning more about what thought is. Not the content of thought, the nature of thought. How does it work? What is a thought? When your time permits. Thanks!
Hi Phil! I love this question. It’s probably one of my favourites. It’s a huge question, I don’t think I could possibly do it justice in a comment, so it might be better to outline the complexity of the question in an article (or 6). The short answer is it’s a hotly debated topic. There are plenty of theories, philosophical and scientific. The main split seems to be between those who think thoughts are physical things, those who think thoughts are processes, and those who think thoughts don’t exist. We have to be very careful with definitions on this topic.
Ok great, thanks. An article or six is a good idea.
Based on nothing, my first guess is to be inclined towards process, and don't exist. If thoughts are a pattern of relationships, then they would be real, but non-existent in the sense of having no weight or mass of their own. But of course I really have no idea.
Thanks, Nick. It's interesting you say that, because I was thinking (with some changes) I might use something like this as part of a book chapter. One day.
Super interesting as always Suzi
Thanks, Matthew!
So that's why my wife always keeps complementing me on how self-aware I am!
She's all, "You've been staring at that mirror for hours now, Daniel. God, you're the most self-aware person I've met in my entire life!"
Now that I think of it, she might've said "self-absorbed," but that's basically the same, right?
Great read, and yeah: It doesn't seem quite fair to judge the animals' level of self-awareness by their interactions with man-made objects and assume that they're equally intentional and interested in it.
Still, go Team Fish! Take that, Dogs.
🤣 Totally the same thing! Go Fish!
Fascinating. I would respectfully suggest that it’s harder to anthropomorphise fish (outwith Disney) for most landlubbers and non-aquarists (perhaps) so perhaps that’s why we feel that this is an odd finding?
Hi John! Yes, I think so too. In general, I think we tend to think of animal consciousness always in terms of how it relative to human consciousness. Doing so is likely to blind us to the many ways that animals might have experiences.
Excellent article. I think it comprehensively covers self awareness both in terms of its generality and specificity. I have often wondered about questions like "Do Animals Dream?" And if so, what about? I think this question is closely related to consciousness and the concept of self awareness. Would love to hear your thoughts on this some day.
Also, loved the artwork in this one!
I'd like to take the credit, but it's Midjourney.
Well, it's your idea. So we can always have an intellectual property debate 😛
Thank you so much! The research on animal dreaming is fascinating to me too. I have an article in the pipeline covering that topic! Spoiler alert -- it seems that animals do dream.
This is sort of related...
A theory that interests me is that reality, which consists almost entirely of space, has some property related to what we call intelligence. As example, the laws of physics are not a property of anything in reality, but are instead a property of reality itself. What if "intelligence" is like that?
In this theory, space is like a radio station broadcasting out the "intelligence" signal, and individual species and creatures are like radio receivers. The radio receivers vary widely in what part of the signal they can receive, how much of it they receive etc.
https://www.tannytalk.com/p/intelligence-is-intelligence-a-property
If this highly speculative theory has any merit, then we could say that self awareness, and intelligence more generally, is not really a property of the self aware entity. Self awareness would instead be a property of reality as a whole, like the laws of physics. As example, every "thing" in all of reality consists overwhelmingly of space. But the space within and between the atoms in our bodies is not our personal property.
Further....
If we keep in mind that almost all of reality is space, an unbroken field uniting everything everywhere, then the concept of "self", a "thing" considered separate and divided from all else, may begin to unravel.
Hi Phil! Thanks for your detailed comment. Your ideas are interesting. They seem a lot like panpsychism. Would you agree?
I always have to look up words like that. Duh! :-)
"Panpsychism is a philosophical theory that states that reality is made up of many separate and distinct psychic beings or minds."
Hmm.... I'm more of the "all is one" school. As I understand it, if I do, division is not a property of reality, but rather a property of thought, the lens through which we observe reality. The division we perceive is conceptual, not real.
https://www.tannytalk.com/p/article-series-the-nature-of-thought
As evidence, space. A single unified field uniting all things at every scale.
My understanding of Panpsychism comes from the single sentence above, so I may not be getting it.
Sorry, Phil, I should have provided a definition. Yep, I think you've got panpsychism covered. It's the idea that consciousness is a fundamental property of the universe and it somehow combines to form a whole, or macro consciousness that we call mind.
It is interesting thinking that modern quantum field theory, which suggests that reality is fundamentally composed of quantum fields, rather than point-like particles. Perhaps there isn't division like we think there is. I find this idea so difficult to make sense of because it's so different to how we talk about things. By definition if we want to talk about something — there needs to be a separation between what we are talking about and everything else. We can't talk about something without distinguishing it from other things. Perhaps that's what you mean by thought?
Your idea is interesting because it might align with quantum field theory (although I know very little about quantum field theory). But it's difficult to reconcile an 'all is one' view with our everyday experience. It seems counterintuitive. Our consciousness doesn't seem to combine with other people's consciousness. There does seem to be a separation there.
You write, "It's the idea that consciousness is a fundamental property of the universe"
Oh, ok, that does sound like what I speculated. Thanks for the clarification.
One problem here is that we are using words that have always been used to define the properties of a "thing". And now we're talking about the possible property of "the everything". That's why I was putting "intelligence" in quotes. I don't know what word to use to describe a "related to intelligence" property of everything.
You write, "We can't talk about something without distinguishing it from other things. Perhaps that's what you mean by thought?"
Yes, that's it. An example could be wearing tinted sunglasses. Everywhere we look when wearing the glasses reality appears to be tinted. But the tint is a property of the tool being used to make the observation, not a property of what is being observed. So it may be with thought.
You write, "But it's difficult to reconcile an 'all is one' view with our everyday experience."
Indeed it is. A place to start perhaps is to recognize that the human experience is typically to be "lost in thought". And so if thought is introducing an illusion of division, that illusion would be very compelling.
We can observe how thought is attempting to divide this topic in to either "all is one" or "separation is real". What if both are true?
Thanks for the clarification, Phil!
Next week's article will be all about panpsychism. I'll try my best to outline the key arguments for and against. There's a lot to discuss about this fascinating but counterintuitive topic. Looking forward to reading your thoughts.
Apologies for the off topic: I'd be interested in learning more about what thought is. Not the content of thought, the nature of thought. How does it work? What is a thought? When your time permits. Thanks!
Hi Phil! I love this question. It’s probably one of my favourites. It’s a huge question, I don’t think I could possibly do it justice in a comment, so it might be better to outline the complexity of the question in an article (or 6). The short answer is it’s a hotly debated topic. There are plenty of theories, philosophical and scientific. The main split seems to be between those who think thoughts are physical things, those who think thoughts are processes, and those who think thoughts don’t exist. We have to be very careful with definitions on this topic.
Ok great, thanks. An article or six is a good idea.
Based on nothing, my first guess is to be inclined towards process, and don't exist. If thoughts are a pattern of relationships, then they would be real, but non-existent in the sense of having no weight or mass of their own. But of course I really have no idea.
I rally like this article. I feel like you are building toward something with this one. Can’t wait to see what is coming next!
Thanks, Nick. It's interesting you say that, because I was thinking (with some changes) I might use something like this as part of a book chapter. One day.