1
   

Consciousness is a social experience

 
 
coberst
 
Reply Sat 13 Jan, 2007 03:59 am
Consciousness is a social experience

A child's symbolic action world is built from the outside in. We are sad because we cry; we do not cry because we are sad. I took a night course in acting and this is something I was taught. We were told to perform the action to induce the feeling. Only when we ?'look' at our self do we know what is going on.

The child discovers first that s/he is a social product. Perhaps this will show us why we are so often mere puppets jerked around by alien symbols and sounds. Perhaps this is why we are so often blind ideologues (blindly partisan).

In order to separate the ego from the world it seems that the ego must have a rallying point. It must have a flag about which to rally. That flag is the "I". The pronoun ?'I' is the symbolic rallying point for the human's ego; it is the precise designation of self-hood. It is concluded by those who study such matters that the ?'I' "must take shape linguistically". The self or ego "is largely a verbal edifice".

Everything friendly is "me" everything hostile or unfriendly is "not-me". "Speech, then, is everything that we call specifically human, precisely because without speech there can be no true ego. Every known language has the pronouns "I", "thou", and "he", or verb forms which convey these reference points." The large central control brain is there before language, apparently in a potential state just waiting to be galvanized into directivness by wedding itself to the word "I". This wedding made possible the unleashing of a new type of creature to take command of the planet.

"The "I" signals nothing less than the beginning of the birth of values into a world of powerful caprice…The personal pronoun is the rallying point for self-consciousness." The wedding of the nervous ability to delay response, with the pronoun "I", unleashed a new type of animal; the human species began. The ?'I' represents the birth of values.

Upon the discovery of the "I" the infant human becomes a precise form, which is the focus of self-control. The creatures previous to the arrival of humans in the chain of evolution had an instinctive center within itself. When our species discovered the "I" and its associated self-control center a dual reality occurred. "The animal not only loses its instinctive center within itself; it also becomes somewhat split against itself."

Becker, the author of "The Birth and Death of Meaning", notes that Kant was perhaps the first to impress upon us the importance of the fact that the infant becomes conscious first of itself as a "me" and then only as "I". This order of discover has been shown to be universal. We all discover in order "mine", "me" and only then do we discover "I". Becker's book is the source of the ideas and quotes in this post.

The fact that all humans establish themselves first as an ?'object of others' before becoming the CEO of the self is vitally important if we wish to understand the human condition.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,268 • Replies: 15
No top replies

 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Jan, 2007 04:02 am
Are you willing to day then that if I was the last man I would have no sense of self?
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Jan, 2007 08:43 am
Chumly,

No...if you were the last you would already have a concept of "self" via language. If you were the first then the concept holds.

Coberst,

Its a pity you don't seem to contribute to well established threads on "social reality" instead of trying to start threads from a pedantic basis as though you were introducing something new.
0 Replies
 
coberst
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Jan, 2007 09:06 am
fresco wrote:
Chumly,

No...if you were the last you would already have a concept of "self" via language. If you were the first then the concept holds.

Coberst,

Its a pity you don't seem to contribute to well established threads on "social reality" instead of trying to start threads from a pedantic basis as though you were introducing something new.



I learned all I know about these matters from Becker's book. This is all new stuff to me. I was educated as an electronics engineer and later studied philosophy. Becker goes on to say:

A container schema is a gestalt (a functional unit) figure with an interior, an exterior, and a boundary?-the parts make sense only as part of the whole. Container schemas are cross-modal?-"we can impose a conceptual container schema on a visual scene…on something we hear, as when we conceptually separate out one part of a piece of music from another…This structure is topological in the sense that the boundary can be made larger, smaller, or distorted and still remain the boundary of a container schema."

We have discovered that the child becomes conscious of the ?'self as an acting agent' in a symbolic world from the outside-in. The child discovers the ever present container schema early in life. The child learns the full significance of its acts from the world outside the container which is the self. From the consciousness of these knowledge fragments results coalescence, this coalescence is "mind". This self-reflexivity makes possible a depth of experience at the cost of losing our animal directness. The child's first identity is as an object, a social product.

There develops here a real dualism?-the first identity is largely symbolic whereas the child's first experiences of its powers are organic. Energetic movement gained through excitement and perception provides another sense of self. "He registers self-experience mostly when his own executive actions have been blocked: it is then that he has to ?'take the role of the other' to see what his act "means". The more blockage, the more the sense of the self is symbolic…If the child has been allowed to gain an "organismic identity" by relatively free actions and self-controlled manipulation of his world, he has more strength and resilience toward the vagaries of social symbol systems."
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Jan, 2007 09:53 am
fresco wrote in
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=66203&highlight=
Quote:
Cyracuz,

For a more academic source of analysis of the concept of "self" try this.

http://www.univie.ac.at/constructivism/papers/2003/taverniers-self.pdf

It seems that the social reality of "self" is at the foundations of "narrative theory"(http://www.philosophy.ucf.edu/n.html). This paper also refers to second order cybernetics (the observation of observation) as an analysis framework. The conclusions of the writer support a "multi-faceted self" whose disemination is identical to (not caused by) different socialization experiences. In this sense "social reality" and "self" are indistinguishable.
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Jan, 2007 04:30 pm
fresco wrote:
Chumly,

No...if you were the last you would already have a concept of "self" via language. If you were the first then the concept holds.
Oh I see.

1) What if I was the "only" and there was no "first" or "last", at least to my knowledge?

2) Cliché as this scenario may be, what if I was generated from an interstellar automated crèche, which correctly landed on a very habitable planet, but all the automated crèche's support systems failed expect (of course) for its ability to sustain the birthing and other minimal support until I was self-sustaining from the planet itself?

3) As I went about my daily routine of picking fruit and such (think easy-living alien planet) would I have no realization of individuality and self and think no more of myself than a rock?

4) What if there were intelligent, or semi-intelligent or apparently-intelligent creatures of which I only saw at some distance, and only after my 30th year of "alone"?
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Jan, 2007 06:30 pm
Chumly,

The closest to your hypothetical scenario's are children raised by animals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feral_child

It is clear that such children appear to have "mental problems", Such findings give some support to the strong form of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis (that thought is dependent on language).

Even Dennett a celebrated deflationist of "consciousness" admits the apparent necessity for "language" in "thinking". The segmentation of the world into "things" including "selves" is clearly acquired via socialization through language. On this point notice in particular a mother naturally using phrases like "Mummy do it" instead of "I'll do it" in early communications with children. Notice also the different forms of "you" in other languages (e.g. French tu and vous) which characteruze different aspects of "reality". (Such differentiatons do not merely apply to "animate objects"....the Hopi for example different words for "water that is taboo to drink" and "water that is okay")
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Jan, 2007 06:56 pm
fresco wrote-

Quote:
the Hopi for example have different words for "water that is taboo to drink" and "water that is okay")


Given that "water" doesn't mean distilled H2O I have the same weakness myself. There's "gnat's piss" and properly kept John Smith's Extra Smooth for example. Me heap big chump.

Why don't you contribute to the well established thread on the Science versus Religion thread fresco? I know you are aware of it. I even provided you with an opportunity to give them some Wittgenstein.
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Jan, 2007 07:12 pm
Spendius,

If you care to requote that opportunity I will reply to it here (not tonight !), but I tend to avoid overly long threads which veer towards esoteric alleys.
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Jan, 2007 11:03 pm
fresco wrote:
....I tend to avoid overly long threads which veer towards esoteric alleys.
Some good natured teasing I think may be in order here!
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Jan, 2007 11:20 pm
fresco wrote:
Chumly,

The closest to your hypothetical scenario's are children raised by animals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feral_child

It is clear that such children appear to have "mental problems", Such findings give some support to the strong form of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis (that thought is dependent on language).

Even Dennett a celebrated deflationist of "consciousness" admits the apparent necessity for "language" in "thinking". The segmentation of the world into "things" including "selves" is clearly acquired via socialization through language. On this point notice in particular a mother naturally using phrases like "Mummy do it" instead of "I'll do it" in early communications with children. Notice also the different forms of "you" in other languages (e.g. French tu and vous) which characteruze different aspects of "reality". (Such differentiatons do not merely apply to "animate objects"....the Hopi for example different words for "water that is taboo to drink" and "water that is okay")
Intersting stuff as always, much thanks! I'm not sure real world Romulus and Remus' show they have no sense of self, perhaaps "I" is an abstract concept only, generated by social structure alone; but I think my lone man on an alien world would have a sense of self by the fact of his existence plus his powerful brain. In any case these real world Romulus and Remus' most definitely were not left to their own devices as in my scenarios.
fresco wrote:
....I tend to avoid overly long threads which veer towards esoteric alleys.
Some good natured teasing I think may be in order here!
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Jan, 2007 02:26 am
Chumly,

Point taken on the teasing Laughing

One overview of homo sapiens as a species points out the unique association between (a)language use (b) long period of maturational dependency on parents and (c) self awareness. It is this cluster which provides the scientific impetus to the preceeding discussion. In this respect Spendius is on target when he mentions Wittgensteiin (who said
"the limits of my language are the limits of my world")
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Jan, 2007 02:40 am
Are you fully convinced that no formalized outside inputted language plus no period of maturational dependency on parents or otherwise (my scenarios I guess work well here) must equal no self awareness?

I find it a bit hard to believe that all individuals would be that powerless. But then I have no evidence to support my belief that at least some individuals would be able to become an "I" on their own.

As to "the limits of my language are the limits of my world"
How does that explain how a boxer communicates in the ring?
How does that explain how a certain glance conveys more than words?
How does that explain all the subtle manifestations of body language?
How does that explain scent bonding?
How does that explain dance?
How does that explain music?
How does that explain the ability (perceived or real) for me to communicate with myself in an internal way I can't describe with words?

If Wittgensteiin meant "the limits of my language are the limits of my world" in the most literal and absolute sense, perhaps his world was overly intellectualized and he dismissed the myriad communications that did not neatly fall into the precepts of "my language"?
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Jan, 2007 03:25 am
Chumly,

By "language" we need to include "paralinguistic features" such as facial gestures. In this sense human language goes above and beyond animal communication to the domain of abstract combinatorial sound tokens with which we "negotiate reality" in the sense that an abstract token or "word" attaches "permanence" to aspects of the flux.

Piaget could be pitted against the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis from his position that "self" involved "decentration" at the level of sensory motor responses. (Decentration can be viewed as a realization that the origin of actions can shift like the origin of a cartesian graph). However unless we argue that some form of "innate mathematics" is part of "cognition" and separate from "ordinary language" it is hard to go too far along the Piaget track.
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Jan, 2007 08:44 pm
Thanks! Very interesting stuff, although I most often end up with more questions than I started with.
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Jan, 2007 01:44 am
Chumly,

Questions are the norm !

If you can solve "consciousness" you would be rich. Smile
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
Paradigm shifts - Question by Cyracuz
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Consciousness is a social experience
Copyright © 2026 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 03/05/2026 at 07:43:28