evolution

[The Grand Nudger]

Buggy whips were also a transient non durable phenomena. I'm only speaking to the demonstrable and quantifiable utility of self awareness and abilities A. Again - evolutionarily speaking..global survival is a non factor. A thing needs only assist the members of some breeding population to be considered selectively advantageous. We may all still die, we might be transient and non durable ourselves on some time scale. I'd be surprised if we weren't. I'd be even more surprised if humans (or whatever we're calling ourselves by then) lost self awareness as a heritable trait (a constellation of traits amounting to, really) before that point. Assuming we make it long enough for that to be a possibility.

Though I do like wondering whether this thing, or other abilities premised upon it, will eventually be our undoing, ofc.

[Anomalocaris]

Buggy whips were also a transient non durable phenomena.  I'm only speaking to the demonstrable and quantifiable utility of self awareness and abilities A.  Again - evolutionarily speaking..global survival is a non factor.  A thing needs only assist the members of some breeding population to be considered selectively advantageous.  We may all still die, we might be transient and non durable ourselves on some time scale.  I'd be surprised if we weren't.  I'd be even more surprised if humans (or whatever we're calling ourselves by then) lost self awareness as a heritable trait (a constellation of traits amounting to, really) before that point.  Assuming we make it long enough for that to be a possibility.

Though I do like wondering whether this thing, or other abilities premised upon it, will eventually be our undoing, ofc.

Again, no.  a gene can enhance its carrier’s chance for survival in the limited context of competing with other members of its specie that does not carry the same gene.   however, if all members of the population carrie’s the same gene, then it will no longer provide survival advantage to any member, indeed the gene can even reduce the chances of the entire population surviving.    The trap is if all members have it, then the specie slowly dies.   if some member loses it, the member dies within a generation, thus restoring gene fatal to the specie to universality amongst the surviving members of species.

[The Grand Nudger]

We may be stuck with our self awareness and abilities a in that context, as it's not just one gene or one thing, and the attendant structure is crucial to our ability to function. Not so easily bred out. Hasn't lead us to slowly die, so far as we can tell. Personally, I think alot of the hinkiness in human consciousness, like the rest of our biology, is down to having been stuck with a thing not easily lost or bred out.

As I'm thinking about it, if it ever became the case that self awareness and abilities a became deleterious in and of themselves as a biological trait, it would be a mass extinction event. Humans blipping out would be a drop in the bucket compared to the total number of things then imperiled.

[vulcanlogician]

There's being unconvinced by a given explanation of self awareness, and there's being unconvinced that self awareness confers practical advantages to systems.  

There's a reason that we have an entire industry devoted to making self aware machines.  The advantages of self awareness are not open to any credible debate whatsoever.

What constitute self awareness?

Does a machine controlled by a integral computer which uses software model (“digital twin” in industry parlance ) of the machine it is controlling to help make and assess its control decisions possess self-awareness?

I think "What constitutes self-awareness?" is a good question.

To me it seems memory must be involved for "basic awareness" to become self-awareness... even if we just mean foggy, moment to moment short term memory. 

Plus that, there is a reflective process going on, where internal stimuli and external stimuli are conglomerated into one image (like the beetle and "shiny things" internal and external stimuli together paint the picture). 

All this points to consciousness seeming to be the product of long term evolution. Memory being key to self-aware experiences. Plus that, a link between memory and external awareness seems like an evolutionary advantage.

I think Nudger's best point is that none of this explains consciousness any better than the postulate that basic have a kind of awareness. But the question is how does A get tied up in anything else? Like, stars that have a gravitational wobble may be said to be aware of passing celestial bodies. Such things do impact its functions or abilities. Without human basis as to what constitutes an ability, all kinds of things have abilities and are therefore conscious. It seems like postulating a consciousness that stems from ability A winds up in some kind of panpsychism. Nobody wants that.

[Anomalocaris]

at the basic level, I think self-awareness requires the capacity to abstractly model oneself,  map direct sensory input onto the model,  use the model to simulate interaction between oneself and environment, and calculate outcome of interaction between environment and self as the affect upon the totality of self.

I think the idea self awareness leads to consciousness is not necessarily true, at least not in terms of how consciousness might be colloquially understood.    It seems to me consciousness is merely a layer of cognitive processing which includes self-awareness.    Evidence from such phenomenon as blind sight suggest that layer is not tightly integrated with other layers of cognitive processing, at least in the human brain.  It certainly seems possible there are parallel models of self integrated into other layers to which the layer we use to, for example engage in conversation on this forum, has little access or awareness.

[The Grand Nudger]

My machine examples are minimally self aware, but it's certainly true that human beings aren't maximally self aware. We have limited consciously apprehended data about the operation of our brains. Much of what we do possess appears to be mistaken, either coincidentally or for effect. There is a long (and terrifying, when you really think about it) list of ways that the whole thing can fail or malfunction. A horse designed by committee.

[Anomalocaris]

My machine examples are minimally self aware, but it's certainly true that human beings aren't maximally self aware.  We have limited consciously apprehended data about the operation of our brains.  Much of what we do possess appears to be mistaken, either coincidentally or for effect.  There is a long (and terrifying, when you really think about it) list of ways that the whole thing can fail or malfunction.  A horse designed by committee.

Not designed.


A horse made by encouraging pork, mutton, beef and venison to mutate and attach themselves to each other, and then zapped with electricity.