Sup /his/? Let's have a thread about the history - and extent of human self awareness.
Considering how humans are inherently selfish, yet we agree to work together towards common goals, it would be good to be more self aware. So what is "self" and how would you define it?
"I" and "me" and "you" are all concepts which represent our ego.
Ego is our center of conscious awareness.
Basically this means that "I" is an idea which represents our ego. What you define as "me" ("yourself "in the traditional sense) is a delusion, because most of the definition behind "me" and "I" = just a tiny fraction of what self truly is.
Have you ever thought about it - how you would define your "self"? What about at a cellular level? What about atomic? But even atoms aren't remotely close to what the most fundamental properties of matter are. Atoms are just part of a hierarchy of complexity. In fact, atoms are 99% empty space and are "made out of stuff" that isn't even tangible at all. This is all just for perspective though!
Human nature is something metaphysical, as well as the nature of reality. The nature of reality is both object in nature, and subjective... that's kind of a big deal! But it's evident and clear that the majority of our species doesn't spend much time investigating this, nor try to come to a better understanding of the fundamental aspects of the nature of reality. So let's talk about it!
What do you think about self awareness?
>>1169700
I think that percieving the paradox of a reality with no conceivable beginning is pretty interesting. I also find the idea of simulated reality to be fascinating.
>>1169700
99.99999% of humans are not self aware. They simply act on impulse. Even the people we rate as highly intelligent.
That said... Human nature is not magical. It can simply be broken down into predefined states. The human mind is made up of atoms (and are formed into chemicals) which obey the laws of physics etc.
Thereby we are defined by the universe. Anthromorphic principle and all that.
>>1169721
"Beginning" is essentially just point of view. Therein lies the sense to that paradox, I think.
>>1169725
What we think and believe to be our "self" is just baaarely the tip of the iceberg! After-all, we can only be aware of - and know so much at any given time. We can't be aware of ourselves as the whole universe because the nature of our awareness doesn't allow it. But that's why I brought up atoms for the sake of perspective! If we think about it as a matter of physics, even though it technically doesn't make sense (because naturally we aren't biologically built to perceive the most fundamental aspects of nature with our naked senses) "other" is a point of view. "Separation" is a point of view.
Think about outlines for example. An outline will change based on where and how you look at it. That's because the outline isn't really there, per say, it's just the noticeable limit of our perception.
>>1169757
My self is proven by observation. Your self is an assumption. There is no proof that other humans have consciousness other than their exclamations that they do.
To be fair, from your perspective you are the only self that you can prove. The rest of use could be meat zombies.
>>1169757
Also I have experimented with enough drugs that I know that human consciousness is chemical based. By altering your chemical composition you have different experiences and emotions.
Its kind of weird, but once you take MDMA you realize that you do shit that you normally wouldn't do and its ok.
>>1169766
I'm suggesting that there is only 1 self, and it's the whole universe. I'm suggesting that seperation is an illusion.
The idea, as I understand it, is that everything and all is a singular process. Nature!
"My" and "your" are points of view. They don't necessarily represent the most accurate and object aspects of the nature of reality. They do represent our awareness though
>>1169786
Well, if you adhear to the multiverse theory, its possible that everyone experiences their own universe and that interactions between universes give you reality.
Which also may cause quantum immortality.
All the universes that are you are compiled into you in one universe where you do not die because all the other universes in which you die no longer exist or in a sense never existed.
From your perspective you observe other people dying, but from other people's universes they see you dying instead.
I mean its impossible for the self to experience the actual death. You can experience dying, but death itself is not something the self can experience as you no longer exist.
Unless you believe in life after death.
>>1169811
Quantum immortality. I like that.
What you say is logical too, so it adds up. That's incredible haha thank you!
I haven't thought about it like that
>>1169835
>>1169811
I didn't add that I'm more focused on life during life, rather than the concept of life after death.
I passionately believe that self awareness is the key to collective improvement, as far as how humans exist and coexist. Our lives have so much potential which is wasted through igNOREance. Being open minded, and maintaining an open mind is so important for a decent life experience. I really believe that
>>1169811
I haven't really worked out what happens after old age though with quantum immortality. Does the rapture happen or something like the singularity so your consciousness keeps going on forever.
But the wiki article is worth a small read...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_suicide_and_immortality
I'm not so convinced that I would play Russian roulette, but its possible that every individual has high survivability when it comes to their perspective. Whereas everyone else watching sees you dying.
>>1169855
"Individual" is a point of view though. The nature of reality isn't just staring us in the face, it's largely inside of our face lol in the sense of the nature of perspective.
>>1169725
>99.99999% of humans are not self aware. They simply act on impulse. Even the people we rate as highly intelligent.
That is quite the claim. Please provide some kind of proof or argument to back this up.
>>1169811
Thank you for putting a name to a concept I've wondered since I had the capability for abstract thought.
Humans define themselves in relation to the society they live in, meaning only exists when several people share it, read The Social Construction of Reality by Berger and Luckmann
>>1169916
Society is not self aware.
Also you're pretty on point
>>1169898
Human display their lack of awareness through their actions.
Most humans have no understanding of cause and effect on their personal world.
If they had self awareness they would either rise above their circumstances or commit suicide out of despair.
QED
>>1170012
I'm stuck in the middle of those choices currently. Considering my options first ofc. I dunno what to do to make a living that wont make me hate being alive while doing it yet. Trying to figure it out. OP here btw
>>1170012
Or option 3: separate themselves from majority society and seek to destroy the thing which causes them despair.
Monastic life is hot right now.
>>1170012
>Human display their lack of awareness through their actions.
provide source or argument of 99.999% of humans doing this. Also explain what actions they take that allow you to see this.
>Most humans have no understanding of cause and effect on their personal world.
please provide source or argument for this claim
>If they had self awareness they would either rise above their circumstances or commit suicide out of despair.
That syllogism makes no sense. The two propositions have themselves no credibility that you have given, and even if they were credible, the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the propositions. Logically speaking, you have a mess.
>QED
come on kid, I don't think you know what QED means. You are not using the term correctly.
