“Cows look calm, but really they are gay nymphomaniacs"

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
An image recognition program sophisticated enough to recognise itself without cheating may well be self-aware.

Even though that same program, when fed a different file, would recognize something else?

The problem is that recognition of self is simply a problem of recognizing some object in an image - be it a human or a piece of gum.

[Whaleboy]

first, their brains are practically similar to mean, and since self-awareness is an emergent property of the functioning of the brain,

This works on the presumption that a similar brain is a sufficient condition to consciousness and knowable consciousness, a latter term that's under debate in the first place.

second, other humans have come up with the concept of self-awareness before me - and I've adopted the convention that if something TELLS me it is self-aware, without obviously being "rigged" to (like a program that's just printf("I am self-aware"), then it is self-aware. I find it highly unlikely that a nonsentient being would come up with the concept of self-aware.

Well is consciousness the only pre-requisite? If you break it down to a matter of contextual perception, namely yours, then you could be projecting your own feelings of consciousness onto others. But it is almost impossible to provide a counter which proposes a reason for Solipsism (namely that I am the only consciousness) since that argument only relies upon their being doubt... so you need to attack (or concede to) the notion of doubt here... thus far you have failed to provide a sufficient refutation.

The best reasonable answer to Cartesian doubt is provided by Wittgenstein, that is that context (yay) of a statement provides the means by which it should be interpreted. I could talk about "morality" or "freedom" in, shall we say, a piece about computer science... both of those concepts are demonstrably false but that's something a red herring to the context itself. By this, it makes no sense to talk about doubt of consciousness since we all agree that I am conscious, as are you.

In my opinion however this fails to account for the fact that contexts as Wittgenstein uses them are fluid and not static, a change in one effects the other, which accounts for the limitations of language rather than uses them as a premise, so doubt still holds.

[Snotty]

I did actually read your arguement before criticising it

The reason it is thin is because you are basing it on an assumption, and one that is easily countered because we have no way of proving it either way. Your assumption is based on similar biology, but we really do have similar brains to the primates at least (perhaps our frontal lobe development is the key, but we have no way of knowing really).

Your other reason is based on the ability for other humans to express their self awareness, which is a product of language. We have never fully figured out what animals have got to say for themselves, if anything, but their inability to accurately communicate (in a way that we can understand!) does not make them de facto un-self aware. I am sure humans are self aware, then I see no reason why a feral child would be un-self aware. Unless perhaps conciousness is a product of language after all.....

Overall, your justification is weak when measured against the seriousness of what you are justifying, which would be consigning entire species/races to enslavement and an untimely demise due to their lack of language or lesser intelligence. A little over dramatic I know, but thats the moral point behind my arguement. If you guys want to play philosophy to squeeze out the narrowest of logical reasoning then I will leave you to your fun

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Even though that same program, when fed a different file, would recognize something else?

How is this a counter?

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
The problem is that recognition of self is simply a problem of recognizing some object in an image - be it a human or a piece of gum.

No. It requires the knowledge of who yourself are. Otherwise one piece of gum is just the same as another one.

[Whaleboy]

Snotty

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
How is this a counter?

See my next response:

No. It requires the knowledge of who yourself are. Otherwise one piece of gum is just the same as another one.

Eh, this knowledge is in the form of the image file(s) (or whatever it uses to store the knowledge of it's shape, etc. to determine if it is in the image). However, the program is exactly the same whatever source file you use - so clearly self-awareness isn't something like being able to recognize an IMAGE of oneself. In fact, a self-aware being that couldn't recognize itself is entirely conceivable.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Snotty
The reason it is thin is because you are basing it on an assumption, and one that is easily countered because we have no way of proving it either way. Your assumption is based on similar biology, but we really do have similar brains to the primates at least (perhaps our frontal lobe development is the key, but we have no way of knowing really).

Degree of similarity. Given how absurd self-awareness is, I'd hesitate to attribute it to ANYTHING without compelling evidence - which is provided to me in the form of the enormous similarity in the structure of human brains AND the fact that I KNOW they are similar enough to be self-aware, since other people came up with the concept before me (and I highly doubt a non-self aware being could or would come up with the concept).

Your other reason is based on the ability for other humans to express their self awareness, which is a product of language. We have never fully figured out what animals have got to say for themselves, if anything, but their inability to accurately communicate (in a way that we can understand!) does not make them de facto un-self aware.

It does if your default assumption is non-self-awareness. Without evidence I won't assume they are self-aware. The fact that I currently can't collect this evidence doesn't mean I should assume they ARE such until further notice, any more than my lack of God's phone number means I should believe in him.

[Boris Godunov]

I'm still waiting for your explanation of how self-awareness just magically appeared in man. Did homo erectus have it? Australopithicus? The logical course of your claim that self-awareness is binary does not make any sense in the light of evolution. Was one human born one day with full self-awareness from non self-aware parents?

And since you admit it's a property of language, did man not become self-aware until he had the actual language to say, "I am?" That's a pretty meaningless definition of self-awareness, as it's just contingent on having the right vocabulary.

If self-awareness is biological trait (rather than a metaphysical one), then it had to have evolved, as all biological traits do. So therefore the fact that we have self-awareness, that we evolved from other species and that other species exhibit behavior that is congruous with self-awareness all lead one to the likelihood that other species do indeed possess it, at varying levels of cognizance.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
I'm still waiting for your explanation of how self-awareness just magically appeared in man. Did homo erectus have it? Australopithicus?

Self-awareness, free with pre-Neolithic Max Factor compacts. Mrs. Agh Australopithecus was first to have it, on recognising that she looked markedly better than Mrs. Ugh Australopithecus in the new range of raw ochre eye shadow and giant elk blood & mammoth fat rouge.

[Odin]

Kuci is stuck in the Platonic,Typological, Essentialist, Cartesian, BS view of human self-awareness and consciousness.

F*ck you Plato for putting a strangle-hold on science with typological thinking.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Snotty
If you guys want to play philosophy to squeeze out the narrowest of logical reasoning then I will leave you to your fun

Glad to see you have figured out what was happening in this thread

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
I'm still waiting for your explanation of how self-awareness just magically appeared in man. Did homo erectus have it? Australopithicus? The logical course of your claim that self-awareness is binary does not make any sense in the light of evolution. Was one human born one day with full self-awareness from non self-aware parents?

That has to happen at some point. Either an organism is self-aware or it is not. While clearly there may be degrees of awareness (presumably lesser degrees would be like being asleep, or simply not being aware of as much sensory information), there is a complete gap between self-aware and not.

And since you admit it's a property of language, did man not become self-aware until he had the actual language to say, "I am?" That's a pretty meaningless definition of self-awareness, as it's just contingent on having the right vocabulary.

I never said it's a property of language. Where'd you get that idea?

Something could be self-aware without language, but if it lacks language then I have no way of telling - so I assume it isn't. Just like, absent evidence, I assume there is no God.

In advance of your argument: babies, before they can speak, are self-aware, because I know of many, many humans that present what I consider primary evidence of self-awareness - communication of the concept - and so I assume all things with a brain practically similar to those that have presented this primary evidence should also be self-aware. However, no monkey has provided me with this primary evidence - it doesn't matter that they can't, since my default assumption is non-self-awareness and one way or another I do NOT have evidence for them - so I have no reason to presume that their lesser similarity to my brain is sufficient for self-awareness.

If self-awareness is biological trait (rather than a metaphysical one), then it had to have evolved, as all biological traits do.

It's an emergent property of matter. Dualism is incoherent idiocy.

So therefore the fact that we have self-awareness, that we evolved from other species and that other species exhibit behavior that is congruous with self-awareness all lead one to the likelihood that other species do indeed possess it, at varying levels of cognizance.

That it had to evolve doesn't mean that it had to exist in some "lesser form" in our ancestors going all the way back to the last branching off of species.

[Whaleboy]

Thanks for addressing my post Kuci, really I'm not an attention whore

[Odin]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

Dualism is incoherent idiocy.

DUH!

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
This works on the presumption that a similar brain is a sufficient condition to consciousness and knowable consciousness, a latter term that's under debate in the first place.

Actually, it works on the presumption that it's an emergent property of matter - so all that matters is the configuration. Now, if it weren't for the fact that I have what I consider direct evidence of self-awareness from OTHER humans, too (they came up with it before me, so it's highly likely they actually were self-aware), then I wouldn't say that other humans' brains are necessarily sufficiently similar. But I do so I do.

Well is consciousness the only pre-requisite? If you break it down to a matter of contextual perception, namely yours, then you could be projecting your own feelings of consciousness onto others. But it is almost impossible to provide a counter which proposes a reason for Solipsism (namely that I am the only consciousness) since that argument only relies upon their being doubt... so you need to attack (or concede to) the notion of doubt here... thus far you have failed to provide a sufficient refutation.

The best reasonable answer to Cartesian doubt is provided by Wittgenstein, that is that context (yay) of a statement provides the means by which it should be interpreted. I could talk about "morality" or "freedom" in, shall we say, a piece about computer science... both of those concepts are demonstrably false but that's something a red herring to the context itself. By this, it makes no sense to talk about doubt of consciousness since we all agree that I am conscious, as are you.

In my opinion however this fails to account for the fact that contexts as Wittgenstein uses them are fluid and not static, a change in one effects the other, which accounts for the limitations of language rather than uses them as a premise, so doubt still holds.

Eh, there are a number of key terms there that I don't know. English, please?

Thanks for addressing my post Kuci, really I'm not an attention whore

I never saw it until you mentioned it.