Re: Article: On the Origins of Chemical Biodefense
- From: "John Edser" <edser@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2006 12:49:58 -0400 (EDT)
anon1@xxxxxxx wrote:-
I do like the more daring and challenging unique or broader
questions such as the origin of self-consciousness
What is your definition of "self-consciousness", such that you and others
can observe its presence or absence in some *other* being (not yourself)?
JE:-
A SELF CONSISTENT test for "self-consciousness" is quite simple. If you can
ask the question:
Do I have self-consciousness?
i.e. you can define both "self" and "consciousness" in an unambiguous way
and then ask this question, then you must have "self-consciousness". This is
because being conscious of self is absolutely required just to be able to
ask the question (which is just another example of "I think (NOT just emote)
therefore I am". IOW anything that is not self conscious can never know that
this is indeed the case or would even be able to enquire if this is or is
not, the case. This can be verified using animal experiments. Chimps can be
taught an extensive vocabulary using abstract symbols. They can be readily
observed to combine these symbols in unique ways but almost entirely to
communicate their need to obtain something for themselves. Of course they
recognize emotional change in others but appear to process this information
only with regard to how this affects them. They appear not to ask questions
and they never offer to exchange because this requires the conscious
_recognition_ of _another_ conscious entity JUST LIKE THEMSELVES. IOW even
though chimps can recognize themselves in a mirror they show little evidence
of a _consciousness_ of self. Like a human baby (which I argue is born
without "self-consciousness"), chimps remain utterly self centric.
Paradoxically, this excludes being _conscious_ of themselves because this
higher level of consciousness also requires being _conscious_ of others and
_their_ needs in exactly the same way that you become conscious of yourself
and your own needs. Remaining unconscious of others and their needs is
diagnostic of being non conscious of self. Chimps who are our closest
primate relative sharing 99% of their polypeptide coding genes with us show
little evidence that they allow other conscious entities to exist which have
similar needs to themselves which is how I would define
"self-consciousness".
You can argue that very few "self-consciousness" humans allow strangers
exactly the same rights that they grant themselves. Human rights are at
best, confined to what each one of us perceives to be members of our own
tribe. The intellectual challenge of our times is: can we break the ancient
tribal stranglehold on human rights, dramatically INCREASING our level of
SELF consciousness without invoking the red herring of altruism based on the
false logic of group selection?
Regards,
John Edser
Independent Researcher
edser@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
.
- Prev by Date: Re: Paper: From volcanic origins of chemoautotrophic life to Bacteria, Archaea and Eukarya
- Next by Date: Re: "Species"? Feces!
- Previous by thread: Re: Article: On the Origins of Chemical Biodefense
- Next by thread: Article: Genomes and the Tree of Life
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
