Thread: Are You Truly Self-aware?

I recognize that while the many offshoots of the plant branch off in seemingly separate directions they all inevitably grow from the same seed or root, and are undoubtedly part of the same plant.

I try to think from the plant's perspective, not from the leaf of the plant. From there, I can try and admire all the aspects branching off of the plant instead of seeing myself as this separate entity.

Originally Posted by SolSkye

I recognize that while the many offshoots of the plant branch off in seemingly separate directions they all inevitably grow from the same seed or root, and are undoubtedly part of the same plant.

I try to think from the plant's perspective, not from the leaf of the plant. From there, I can try and admire all the aspects branching off of the plant instead of seeing myself as this separate entity.

Fair enough, but that doesn't really justifying making any blanket assumptions about the entire plant itself from your vantage point as a leaf. Try as we might, our view of the whole will forever be muddled by our existence as a part. Do you think it's impossible for the universe as a whole to lack awareness, for awareness to simply be a property of life forms which exist on a small scale?

We'll never get any evidence either way anyways, I don't think. But do acknowledge the possibility of an unconscious whole?

You are only a leaf, if you think you are a leaf.

The fact is, we are all the plant realizing itself and creating and settling for our borders and boundaries as we go. The plant borders at it's edge-- the universe, of which we are a part, has no known edge.

Why do you think yourself separate than the universe?

Originally Posted by SolSkye

You are only a leaf, if you think you are a leaf.

The fact is, we are all the plant realizing itself and creating and settling for our borders and boundaries as we go. The plant borders at it's edge-- the universe, of which we are a part, has no known edge.

Why do you think yourself separate than the universe?

Perhaps a better analogy than a leaf from a plant would be a cell in some body. The cell is obviously a part of the body, just as we are a part of the universe - but I don't see how we are the universe. We are made up of the same stuff as the rest of the universe, but that doesn't seem to dissolve our physical limits, to me.

Are you using 'universe' and 'elementary particles' interchangeably? Your argument seems similar to the cell saying 'I am the bear that I am a part of', instead of 'I am made up of the same elementary particles as the rest of the bear that I am part of'. We aren't really the universe, we just part of it. If anything, we are quarks (or whatever smaller particles are as yet undiscovered).

How about a more concrete example, like a chair? The chair is not a part of my body. It is made up of the same stuff as I am, and we are both parts of the larger universe, but my self-awareness does not seem to extend to the chair in any way.

Ego - The False Center
A quick overview of one small part of our universal body

Our role as a self-aware 'cell' to the universal 'body' is to perceive itself and observe the other parts of our body in balance. Therefore, using that same analogy in terms of ego, we really could be considered the id or hub for the entire universal body, just as the pineal gland is to your finite body. Now, which of those single cell clusters in your brain are the ones carrying around that idea of self, assuming such a thing were possible in only a few cells?

Ok, now imagine if all those cells in that part of your brain (lets call it earth) became independently self-aware at once and considered themselves separate and different from one another and from the body they once knew to be a part of, for whatever reason, and began fighting amongst each other rather than recognize their role and work together. Since they now consider themselves separate from and better than the other synapses and clusters, they blindly begin chopping down synapse after 'differing' synapse, devouring some to help build their own personal body politic grow bigger. Sounds to me like they've forgotten their function, and have become more like a cancer. That's the ego.

Do you think that the other cells without that self-awareness ability are unimportant or expendable parts to the body because they don't carry around that self-awareness? Just because our hair or fingernails don't have self-awareness doesn't make them less a part of us than our pineal gland. And just because the chair or table doesn't have self-awareness doesn't make it less a part of us, universally speaking.

Where does the self-awareness reside, and could it reside there on it's lonesome without all the other body parts there to perceptually feed it input into it's true nature, function, and origin?

Originally Posted by SolSkye

Our role as a self-aware 'cell' to the universal 'body' is to perceive itself and observe the other parts of our body in balance.

Why should we have a role? Doesn't that imply a conscious entity behind our existence? And what do you mean by 'balance'?

Originally Posted by SolSkye

Therefore, using that same analogy in terms of ego, we really could be considered the id or hub for the entire universal body, just as the pineal gland is to your finite body.

The pineal gland is the hub of our body?
Isn't that Descartes's theory about the soul communicating with the body via the pineal gland, and using 'animal spirits' to control our limbs? That's a terribly unfounded and ignorant theory, if that's what you're referring to

Originally Posted by SolSkye

Ok, now imagine if all those cells in that part of your brain (lets call it earth) became independently self-aware at once and considered themselves separate and different from one another and from the body they once knew to be a part of, for whatever reason, and began fighting amongst each other rather than recognize their role and work together. Since they now consider themselves separate from and better than the other synapses and clusters, they blindly begin chopping down synapse after 'differing' synapse, devouring some to help build their own personal body politic grow bigger. Sounds to me like they've forgotten their function, and have become more like a cancer. That's the ego.

Here again, though, you assume that the whole is conscious. If we as The Whole were not conscious, our cells wouldn't have a function. The only reason we ascribe functions to them is because we want to stay alive - that is our purpose, and so that is the purpose we extend to them. If we weren't conscious, it wouldn't matter if they destroyed the rest of us. In the same way, if the universe is not a conscious entity, there is no reason for us to have a 'purpose', or for us to care what we do to the other parts of the universe.

Originally Posted by SolSkye

Where does the self-awareness reside, and could it reside there on it's lonesome without all the other body parts there to perceptually feed it input into it's true nature, function, and origin?

Why assume that the input is fed into this 'self-awareness'? You seem to be thinking of it as a particular thing. I believe self-awareness is an emergent property of the human brain (and possibly body). As such, the 'other body parts', as well as the perceived inputs, ARE the self-awareness.

In combination with what I said in my last post; here's a question I would like to know the answer to:

- What could prove this theory of yours wrong?

Edit: This is directed to SolSkye.
~

Originally Posted by thegnome54

Perhaps a better analogy than a leaf from a plant would be a cell in some body. The cell is obviously a part of the body, just as we are a part of the universe - but I don't see how we are the universe. We are made up of the same stuff as the rest of the universe, but that doesn't seem to dissolve our physical limits, to me.

From a limited, conditioned point of view there appears to be a difference, but from the metaphysical point of view none actually exists. You are identifying yourself here as the physical aspects you perceive, and so in that sense 'you' are not identifiable with the 'universe'. But what would happen if you identify yourself not with these limited aspects, but with that which is perceiving these aspects? The center of your being is not subject to the constant changing of the sensory world. It is the motionless point around which all distinction and individuality revolves. This principle is the Infinite; it does not 'exist' in time or space, and therefore cannot be found there.

When one realizes that in Reality they are 'That', they simultaneously realize that no separation actually exists. Our rational mind wants to separate experience into categories, but this only comes after the experience. The experience in itself is Whole, but since our limited minds cannot comprehend it as a Whole we inevitably fragment It into parts. One cannot piece together the Whole from the parts because the Infinite is in Reality without parts (it is only relative to a limited being that parts appear to exist). This is why the way to 'understand' this (and why one cannot argue logically against it, as Solskye said) can never be to conceive of it analogically (subject vs. object), but only to experience it intuitively (subject and object are two complementary aspects of one principle).

You see the problem though, SolSkye? There is nothing that can show your theory to be correct so, analogously, there is also no reason to believe that you are correct.

You say there is no difference with solipsism because you fail to be able to separate our manifestations, but you just recently said that I am manifested from the "origin" - it seemed that you were saying that the origin was someones perception which perpetuates existance. However, if I am a branch of your perception - then you are a solipsist!

And this is where I think your theory relies; solipsists are unfalsifiable because there is no way for me to show you incorrect unless we were the share the same consciousness and existance. And, even then, your theory would still continue to be correct until we are all the same manifested being. But you'll make the step to say that we are the same manifested being, but in a diverse amount of variables. Hence, there is no reason to believe you, and no real justification for your beliefs.

If I am wrong somewhere, please help me out.
~

How would one not be manifested from the "origin"? Did you somehow not come from your mother's womb, and her from hers', or me from mine? As one perceives themselves within their finite shell with their finite senses it's real easy to get caught up in the output and think that the buck stops with you. Let's entertain the concepts, 'you' and 'I', for a quick second. What does that signify? Something outside your current definition of 'self', and what you can easily relate to as 'self'... so again, we come back to one's own willingness and perceptions. It's just a question of how open and ready you are to relate to everyone as yourself, or not?

It's impossible to prove me or anyone wrong on any stance of where 'they' and 'you' stand, because technically both parties are right and wrong in their own right, since it's all a matter of their own perception. That's all we ever deal in, and with. Once you attempt to falsify one's perceptions, deny them existing, or attempt to call them explainable variables you enter the realm of absurdity since you are using the very perceptions to assign labels into the nature of themselves. If you have to give it a label, you don't understand, and if you put it into words, the meaning is already lost.

It's like the one of the cells of a fly's eye denying and debating about how separate and different each of the sections of the perceiving eye is, and the other saying we are actually all connected to the fly...


If that's what the parts of the eye choose to look at, that's what they'll see. If they choose to understand and see they are connected to the fly, they'll see that...

Both and neither, are right or wrong, because there will be an equal number of parts to the eye denying and accepting that part to their own perception. I choose to see the fly.

Originally Posted by SolSkye

I recognize that while the many offshoots of the plant branch off in seemingly separate directions they all inevitably grow from the same seed or root, and are undoubtedly part of the same plant.

Are you implying that I am the manifestation of your thoughts?

You're logic and rationale here is still very similar to solipsism. In fact, the more I read it, the more it seems that you are a solipsist.
~