Self-awareness

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
For the feeling that one is being watched, see self-consciousness.
 This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Please improve this article if you can. (March 2009)
Cognition

Sentience
Consciousness
Sapience
Self-awareness
Concept
Cognitive linguistics

This box: view • talk • edit

Self-awareness is the awareness that one exists as an individual, separate from other people, with private thoughts and individual rights.[1] It may also include the understanding that other people are similarly self-aware.[2]

Self-awareness is a self-conscious state in which attention focuses on oneself. It makes people more sensitive to their own attitudes and dispositions.[3]

Sometimes when self-consciousness is not taken to mean shyness or embarrassment, it is used synonymously with self-awareness:

Self-consciousness is credited only with the development of identity (see ego). In an epistemological sense, self-consciousness is a personal understanding of the very core of one's own identity. It is during periods of self-consciousness that people come the closest to knowing themselves objectively. Jean Paul Sartre describes self-consciousness as being "non-positional", in that it is not from any location in particular.

Self-consciousness plays a large role in behavior, as it is common to act differently when people "lose one's self in a crowd". It is the basis for human traits, such as accountability and conscientiousness. Self-consciousness affects people in varying degrees, as some people self-monitor (or scrutinize) themselves more than others. Different cultures vary in the importance they place on self-consciousness but the individual remains self-motivated rather than socially driven.[4]

Contents

[edit] The basis of personal identity

[edit] A philosophical view

I think I am

"...And as I observed that this truth 'I think, therefore I am' (Cogito ergo sum) was so certain and of such evidence ...I concluded that I might, without scruple, accept it as the first principle of the Philosophy I was in search."

"...In the statement 'I think, therefore I am' ...I see very clearly that to think it is necessary to be, I concluded that I might take, as a general rule, the principle, that all the things which we very clearly and distinctly conceive are true..."[5][6]

While reading Descartes, Locke began to relish the great ideas of philosophy and the scientific method. On one occasion, while in a meeting with friends, the question of the "limits of human understanding" arose. He spent almost twenty years of his life on the subject until the publication of An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, a great chapter in the History of Philosophy.[7]

John Locke's chapter XXVII "On Identity and Diversity" in An Essay Concerning Human Understanding (1689) has been said to be one of the first modern conceptualizations of consciousness as the repeated self-identification of oneself, through which moral responsibility could be attributed to the subject - and therefore punishment and guiltiness justified, as critics such as Nietzsche would point out, affirming "...the psychology of conscience is not 'the voice of God in man'; it is the instinct of cruelty...expresed, for the first time, as one of the oldest and most indispensable elements in the foundation of culture."[8] [9][10]John Locke does not use the terms self-awareness or self-consciousness though.[11] Nietzsche himself, in his brilliant work On the Genealogy of Morals,[12] based on Philology, breaks away from the traditional views of Judaeo Christian Ethics but his work in general is so plagued with wrong thinking, his alienation in particular, that it could be taken as a contributing factor that would eventually make him madder than a hatter, and he ended up in a mental instituion,[13] though some scholars believe he may have been suffering from syphilis.

According to Locke, personal identity (the self) "depends on consciousness, not on substance" nor on the soul. We are the same person to the extent that we are conscious of our past and future thoughts and actions in the same way as we are conscious of our present thoughts and actions. If consciousness is this "thought" which doubles all thoughts, then personal identity is only founded on the repeated act of consciousness: "This may show us wherein personal identity consists: not in the identity of substance, but... in the identity of consciousness". For example, one may claim to be a reincarnation of Plato, therefore having the same soul. However, one would be the same person as Plato only if one had the same consciousness of Plato's thoughts and actions that he himself did. Therefore, self-identity is not based on the soul. One soul may have various personalities. Self-identity is not founded either on the body or the substance, argues Locke, as the substance may change while the person remains the same: "animal identity is preserved in identity of life, and not of substance", as the body of the animal grows and changes during its life. Take for example a prince's soul which enters the body of a cobbler: to all exterior eyes, the cobbler would remain a cobbler. But to the prince himself, the cobbler would be himself, as he would be conscious of the prince's thoughts and acts, and not of the cobbler's life. A prince's consciousness in a cobbler body: thus the cobbler is, in fact, a prince. But this interesting border-case leads to this problematic thought that since personal identity is based on consciousness, and that only oneself can be aware of his consciousness, exterior human judges may never know if they really are judging - and punishing - the same person, or simply the same body. In other words, Locke argues that you may be judged only for the acts of your body, as this is what is apparent to all but God; however, you are in truth only responsible for the acts for which you are conscious. This forms the basis of the insanity defense: one can't be held accountable for acts in which one was unconsciously irrational, mentally ill [14] - and therefore leads to interesting philosophical questions:

"personal identity consists [not in the identity of substance] but in the identity of consciousness, wherein if Socrates and the present mayor of Queenborough agree, they are the same person: if the same Socrates waking and sleeping do not partake of the same consciousness, Socrates waking and sleeping is not the same person. And to punish Socrates waking for what sleeping Socrates thought, and waking Socrates was never conscious of, would be no more right, than to punish one twin for what his brother-twin did, whereof he knew nothing, because their outsides were so like, that they could not be distinguished; for such twins have been seen."[1]

Or again:

"PERSON, as I take it, is the name for this self. Wherever a man finds what he calls himself, there, I think, another may say is the same person. It is a forensic term, appropriating actions and their merit; and so belong only to intelligent agents, capable of a law, and happiness, and misery. This personality extends itself beyond present existence to what is past, only by consciousness, --whereby it becomes concerned and accountable; owns and imputes to itself past actions, just upon the same ground and for the same reason as it does the present. All which is founded in a concern for happiness, the unavoidable concomitant of consciousness; that which is conscious of pleasure and pain, desiring that that self that is conscious should be happy. And therefore whatever past actions it cannot reconcile or APPROPRIATE to that present self by consciousness, it can be no more concerned in it than if they had never been done: and to receive pleasure or pain, i.e. reward or punishment, on the account of any such action, is all one as to be made happy or miserable in its first being, without any demerit at all. For, supposing a MAN punished now for what he had done in another life, whereof he could be made to have no consciousness at all, what difference is there between that punishment and being CREATED miserable? And therefore, conformable to this, the apostle tells us, that, at the great day, when every one shall 'receive according to his doings, the secrets of all hearts shall be laid open.' The sentence shall be justified by the consciousness all person shall have, that THEY THEMSELVES, in what bodies soever they appear, or what substances soever that consciousness adheres to, are the SAME that committed those actions, and deserve that punishment for them." [4]

Henceforth, Locke's conception of personal identity founds it not on the substance or the body, but in the "same continued consciousness", which is also distinct from the soul since the soul may have no consciousness of itself (as in reincarnation). He creates a third term between the soul and the body - and Locke's thought may certainly be meditated by those who, following a scientist ideology, would identify too quickly the brain to consciousness. For the brain, as the body and as any substance, may change, while consciousness remains the same. Therefore personal identity is not in the brain, but in consciousness. However, Locke's theory also reveals his debt to theology and to Apocalyptic "great day", which by advance excuse any failings of human justice and therefore humanity's miserable state.

[edit] A modern scientific view

Self-Awareness Theory

Self-Awareness Theory states that when we focus our attention on ourselves, we evaluate and compare our current behavior to our internal standards and values. We become self-conscious as objective evaluators of ourselves. Various emotional states are intensified by self-awareness, and people sometimes try to reduce or escape it through things like television, video games, alcohol, drugs, etc. People are more likely to align their behavior with their standards when made self-aware. People will be negatively affected if they don’t live up to their personal standards. Various environmental cues and situations induce awareness of the self, such as mirrors, an audience, or being videotaped or recorded. These cues also increase accuracy of personal memory.[15]

[edit] Self-awareness in theater

Theater also concerns itself with other awareness besides self-awareness. There is a possible correlation between the experience of the theater audience and individual self-awareness. As actors and audiences must not 'break' the fourth wall in order to maintain context, so individuals must not be aware of the artificial, or the constructed perception of his or her reality. This suggests that self-awareness is an artificial continuum just as theater is. Theatrical efforts such as Six Characters in Search of an Author or say, The Wonderful Wizard of Oz, construct yet another layer of the fourth wall, but they do not destroy the primary illusion. Refer to Erving Goffman's Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience.

[edit] Self-awareness in animals

See also: Mirror test

Humans are not the only creatures who are self-aware. Thus far, there is evidence that bottlenose dolphins, some apes, [16] and elephants have the capacity to be self aware.[17] Recent studies from the Goethe University Frankfurt show that Magpies may also possess self-awareness. [18] Common speculation suggests that some other animals are self-aware.[19]

[edit] Self-awareness in science fiction

In science fiction, self-awareness describes an essential human property that bestows "personhood" onto a non-human. If a computer, alien or other object is described as "self-aware", the reader may assume that it will be treated as completely human character, with similar rights, capabilities and desires to a normal human being. [20]The words sentience, sapience and consciousness are used in similar ways in science fiction.

[edit] See also

Thinking portal

[edit] Footnotes

  1. ^ Edward F. Cooke A Detailed Analysis of the Constitution, p. 106, Littlefield Adams & Co., 1974 LCCC #58-12751
  2. ^ The Complete Idiot's Guide to Understanding Einstein, p. 232, Alpha Books, 2004 ISBN 978-1592571857
  3. ^ Nathaniel Branden The Psychology of Self-Esteem, p. 41, Nash Publishing Corp., 1969 ISBN 8402-1109-0
  4. ^ Anthony P. Cohen Self-Consciousness, p. 136, Routledge, 1994 ISBN 978-0415083249
  5. ^ Rene Descartes Discourse on the Method of Rightly Conducting the Reason and Seeking for Truth in the Sciences, pp. 75-6, Sutherland & Knox, 1850
  6. ^ Discourse on the method of rightly conducting the reason...
  7. ^ Great Books of the Western World, v. 35, p. ix, William Benton, Encyclopedia Britannica Inc., 1952 ASIN B000KRJIDS
  8. ^ Ecce Homo by Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche p. 117
  9. ^ Richard Schacht Nietzsche, Genealogy, Morality, p. 244, University of California Press, 1994 ISBN 978-0520083189
  10. ^ What Nietzsche Taught pp. 209-10
  11. ^ An Essay Concerning Human Understanding by John Locke
  12. ^ On the Genealogy of Morals by Friedrich Nietzsche
  13. ^ Friedrich Nietzsche On the Genealogy of Morals, p. 120, Oxford University Press, 1999 ISBN 978-0192836175
  14. ^ Abraham S. Goldstein The Insanity Defense, p. 9, Yale University Press, 1967 ISBN 978-0300000993
  15. ^ Thomas S. Duval Self-Awareness and Casual Attribution, p. 1, Springer, 2001 ISBN 978-0792375012
  16. ^ http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14552-mirror-test-shows-magpies-arent-so-birdbrained.html?DCMP=ILC-hmts&nsref=news4_head_dn14552
  17. ^ http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn10402-elephants-see-themselves-in-the-mirror.html
  18. ^ http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14552-mirror-test-shows-magpies-arent-so-birdbrained.html?DCMP=ILC-hmts&nsref=news4_head_dn14552
  19. ^ Dorothy L. Cheney Baboon Metaphysics, p. 205, University of Chicago Press, 2008 ISBN 978-0226102443
  20. ^ Robert Kolker Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey, p. 106, Oxford University Press US, 2006 ISBN 978-0195174526
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-awareness"
Personal tools