Chris Singh

Hi, Chris. I think we would still be conscious if other people weren't around, but we might also go crazy, because we need other people to feel real. I think that's why it is such a torture to put someone in solitary confinement. I believe people will often hallucinate when deprived of all human companionship--they create an "other." We need others to see ourselves, I think.

This goes back to my idea of only knowing ourselves through the language that we have.

I tell my students that vocabulary is important because it is the means which we use to express who we are, and how we feel. The more words we know the better, and the more we verbal exchanges we have, the more changes their are to learn.

Hey Chris, this idea of only being aware of ourselves through the reflection of another conscious being is interesting. My only thought on this is that, even with human interaction, we still don't know for certain who we are. Maybe in some way if we were like Tarzan, on our own, we would have to develop our own sense of consciousness without the input or reflection of others and this would be more pure?

I'm not sure I agree with that idea, but whose to say which option gives us the optimal amount of self awareness?

I do think, in large part, we define who we are in terms of who we are not. I, Andrew, know that I am not Chris. I am also not all those other people in class. If consciousness is a "story we tell ourselves about ourselves," a large part of that narrative is composed of "I" separating itself from what I is not. Isn't this what is meant by Theory of Mind? I can't remember.

But the definition of I also involves a discerning of similarities. I am not Chris but I am similar to him in that we are in an English class together. Your First Human scenario is an interesting thought experiment because it involves a definition of the I in complete isolation from all other I's. Would this first human create a definition of himself that is different from, say, a chimpanzee's definition of himself?

I would think that, over time, this first human would realize, if he survived that long, that he was different from the other animals around him. I don't know that he would necessarily develop an idea of human-"ness" as we understand it, but certainly, as he does have a "human" mind, he would figure out that he has a different physical constitution than the other animals and different problem solving abilities and thus, he is somehow different from everything around him. Over time, I do think this would evolve into a simple, general idea of what it means to be "human."

I wonder, does having a Theory of Mind somehow work to our evolutionary advantage?

I think that Tarzan would be able to have some level of core consciousness, like an animal, in that he would be aware of what he was doing and remember what he had seen and done, etc., but I don't think he could "see" himself thinking until he became aware of other human beings and understood that they also had thoughts.

Perhaps no one has commented on this yet because it's a difficult question to answer. Do animals experience consciousness? To some degree I am sure they do. However Tarzan, no matter how long he has been in the wild, still has the same machinery that we do, so I believe the answer is yes. And language is not necessarily to me an indication of the use of consciousness. Language is born of thought and vice versa. The two seem to be different, but it doens't really matter which came first. The neruons in the body on some level communicate, and perhaps our ability to abstract helps to create a more diverse, refined and adorned language. We may be forgetting here, that Tarzan must have dialogued with animals in their way, and it is a tribute to his humanity and capacity for language that he does so with a multitude of the animal kingdom.

I think thought always comes first, and the articulation of a thought is language. Just because we didn't have language to begin with does not mean we are incapable of the thought, just incapable of expressing it. If we think in language it is only more a process of clarity of thought, a facility of thought, than the thought itself. I think the evidence of a lag in conscious awareness proves this. Crucify me if I'm wrong, but the idea of cutting something comes at the speed (perceptibly to us) that is the same as I need to cut this. Also, coming to an idea, or vision of scissors, doesn't really need any language based articulation, and I'm sure that'ss how we got on for some time before the glints of civilization started to come to our mind.

Isn't that viewpoint a little self-serving and glib? I mean there are different levels of consciousness, even within beings with "higher consciousness" like us there are different stages and variations on consciousness.

You don't have to be working on Physics or battling Agent Smith to be considered conscious. You could be watching that girl with the really short skirt on the subway, eating a sandwich, or trying to take a nap in your office when you think no one is looking-- you're still conscious.

There is a basic awareness that ties all consciousness together, well-educated humans just have more of a vocabulary to express it with-- that doesn't mean we are more aware than anything else.

You've got two really interesting threads of thought here:

1. the evolution of consciousness: where does it come from? how? why?

2. consciousness as a social (or dialogic phenomena): if consciousness arises through our interactions with perceptual objects, as Damasio suggests, how would consciousness differ if none of those other objects shared a consciousnesss comparable to that of the perceiving organism (you or me).

They're both great questions-- and they overlap. Did consciousness evolve as a social, or dialogic phenomena? Again, how and why?

There is lots of speculation by neurobiologists on both fronts: Damasio is an obvious one, but also Gerald Edelman and V.S. Ramachandran. I have many of their books in my office, if you ever want to borrow them.

Chris,

I've often thought that consciousness does arise out of the space, mental or emotional, that is created after you don't have to worry about food, shelter, safety, the basics. Only then as you point out, we look to those around us for connection. If the basics are in question, it could be argued, everyone else is a threat, not someone with whom we can confide, support and understand.

JRCurrie

It might also pay to look at Vygotsky's theories on how language structures thought and not vice versa.

Consciousness is something we want to stick squarely ad firmly in the human realm alone. But this is our egotistical speciesism... I could be making that word up. Certain corvids (the family of birds that Ravens and Blue Jays are in) are advanced enough to perform the cognitive process of transitive inference. (which is basically A>B, B>D, D>E, so B>E and A>E, this is not an easy task to perform).

I agree with the thinking that what makes us think we have consciousness while other, and I stress other, animals do not, is language. We have this incredibly complex system of symbols which we can use to express to others our consciousness. While other animals can not. It sort of the proverbial tree falling... but I think outside of the realm of philosophy, a tree falling makes sound whether someone heard it or not.