This thread is intended for discussion, if any, of the concept developed by Charles Taylor that is outlined here.

A distinction has been made between the porous self and the buffered self. Most cultures throughout time and place have understood the self to be porous, that is, susceptible of influences from, and even interactions with, the gods or God, the stars, ancestors, and/or other "external" agencies. The porous self may seek the protection of one or more such agents. As a plus, the porous self has no problem with the matter of whether or not life is meaningful. It is connected with other agencies that, in some way or other, are also selves, and life is experienced as meaningful, though perhaps insecure. Human mediators of some kind may be valued -- shamans, oracles, soothsayers, priests, pastors. The self is not self-created and wholly self-determined. One is often especially porous vis-a-vis one's family and tribe and, perhaps, religious or cult fellowship.

An example of modern experience of the porous self comes from my own family background. When they were girls, my mother and one of her sisters were together in a room. My aunt was operating a sewing machine and accidentally ran the needle into her finger or thumb. Immediately my mother felt the pain, which was severe. Her sister told her it's OK, she (the sister operating the machine) was fine. In a "porous" understanding of things, this incident would be unusual but not puzzling. (This is how I remember Mom telling the story, which she never made a big deal of.)

The buffered self is basically an artifact of modern habits of thought. The buffered self does not recognize or feel contact with any nonhuman agencies such as I have just indicated. Moreover, the self is buffered from other human selves by understanding relationships largely in terms of "contracts." That is why people now may choose to refer, not to a husband or wife, but to a "partner." A partnership recognizes limits, probably negotiated in some way, even between intimates, and partnerships may be dissolved fairly readily. Over against such relationships, the buffered self recognizes basically no limits to its autonomy. There is no God to whom the buffered self is seriously answerable*, let alone spirits to be placated, astral configurations to be figured out, etc., etc. It used to be said by buffered selves that you "discover who you are," and society must grant you full freedom to do that. But nowadays we go beyond that, and the buffered self says you "create who you are" or "invent who you are"; and it is intolerable if anyone encroaches on your freedom to do so. Society must grant full "rights" for you to re-imagine yourself as you think best, even from a quite early age. The only real limit is your contract with others that ensures everyone else has the same freedom you do to invent himself/herself/themself/zeself, etc.

Suicide is an interesting case from this perspective. For the porous self, two main views of suicide are possible: (1) It is forbidden; just as you did not create yourself, you do not have the right to end your life; (2) It is an appropriate response to shameful circumstance. If you would shame yourself, your family, your tribe, by being enslaved and/or raped, for example, you may rightly kill yourself. If you have failed in battle, you may commit suicide, which will show your courage and atone for your failure. For the buffered self, suicide is a right. How could anyone tell you that you don't have the right to do with your life as you see fit? If you have a "contracted" relationship with some other people, though, you might owe it to them to stick around at least for a while longer, just as (contractually) they should stick around for you in similar circumstances, since suicide does have an impact on others and you should not mess with their lives and rights.

*There may be a sense of a non-demanding, nondogmatic God who might kindly help out good people like oneself, who are in need; this God may be understood as sympathizing when a tragedy has occurred, and may be invoked to help out with the felt need for solemnity at, say, a funeral. Many people in a predominantly buffered society such as our own will think or say that they have no need of an Invisible Friend, but if someone likes to think of the IF, sure, no big deal as long as they don't annoy people who don't need it.

How does the buffered self explain untimely or unwanted death?

I can see that they'd view suicide as a calculated and self-initiated act, conforming to their idea of complete individual agency. They can also see that if they initiate harm to another, they're in violation of their own view of the social contract.

For the porous self, those who recognize external agency, it seems that both a distinct deity and natural forces are understood as having an unavoidable affect on their lives. In fact, there may be no hard-and-fast line between nature and deity.

Does this then imply that buffered self sees all others in a society as either like themselves in the understanding of exclusive self-autonomy, and all others who violate the buffered social contracts as a part of nature, or the agents of a deity of some sort?

You can easily see where this leads to "good people" vs "bad people" for the buffered self, which creates an awful tension, since they'd seem to deny good and evil as objective moral compass points. They'd either make an exception for good/evil as it applies to the recognition of complete self-agency, or they'd have to come around to excusing any and all violations of self-agency by other humans in some fashion.

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The characteristic modern person would explain untimely or unwanted death as being just the sort of thing that happens. He or she might ask, in turn: "Why should there need to be an explanation? Look -- at rock bottom, some things just are and some things just happen, and some things are not and some things don't happen." The modern person, then, thinking in this way, is buffered, that is, protected, from troubling thoughts that might otherwise arise.

Untimely or unwanted death may well, on the other hand, be an issue for the porous self of traditional culture. Was a taboo unknowingly violated? Is some god angry? Has some enemy done witchcraft to cause this? Was this person fated to die in an untimely way because of the sin of one or both of his parents or more distant ancestors? Is this evidence of the reality of original sin?

The buffered self never has to face the challenge of dealing with such possibilities.

"Does this then imply that buffered self sees all others in a society as either like themselves in the understanding of exclusive self-autonomy, and all others who violate the buffered social contracts as a part of nature, or the agents of a deity of some sort?"

I'll rephrase that, and you can tell me if I've done so appropriately.

In a buffered society such as ours, evident in our laws, public education, politics, entertainment, and so on, yes, we see or are encouraged to see others as like ourselves, autonomous. This perception might be qualified, however, if some others are placed in a group that is blamed for longterm social troubles based on a failure to recognize everyone's rights. Thus many people of various ethnicities, including White, regard "Whiteness" as historically and at present the principal cause for the troubles suffered by non-Whites. In other words, while everyone theoretically has rights, Whites have had privileges over against everyone else. Some would say, then, that to suppress "Whiteness," Whites should (at least for some unspecified time) have their rights limited relative to others. Don't misunderstand me -- I'm not saying that all members of our society (a buffered society) think this way, but that many do, and that this kind of thinking fits understandably into a buffered society.

The second part of your question -- I'm not so sure I understand.

I'm really interested in how the buffered self sees human-caused harm. Are the agents of such harm part of the "just the sort of thing that happens" reality of the world. Just like a falling tree limb crushing someone? Or a tornado?

Would a buffered self person attempt to control circumstances so as to minimize occurrences? This would imply that they, themselves, have agency sufficient to exert partial control. Would they then apply this to other humans--would they seek to exert agency in avoidance of negative circumstances that are caused by other humans--who ostensibly also have agency?

Do you think that the buffered self individuals differentiate between harm caused by physical circumstance (flood) and harm caused by individual murder or war? That all of this is a part of nature, essentially?

Where does each stand as regards free will vs determinism?

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"You can easily see where this leads to 'good people' vs 'bad people' for the buffered self, which creates an awful tension, since they'd seem to deny good and evil as objective moral compass points."

I'd agree if you're saying something like this:

The buffered self is buffered because it does not experience itself as acted upon by agents that are not humans like itself though they are like itself in possessing agency.

The buffered self does experience itself as influenced by other human selves, but this doesn't imply major obligations. Once oneself is grown up, at least a little bit, no other self (no other human being) has the right to try to influence oneself except in what I've called a "contractual" relationship. I don't mean that specifically in terms of actual legal documents, of course. The sort of thing I have in mind is common in the unspoken arrangement whereby I will "be there for you" and you then must "be there for me"; and, if my felt needs change, I retain the freedom to "renegotiate" our relationship (and the same goes for you). For example, if you and I became friends when we started West High School at the same time, but as time has passed I've been spending more time with X's group and don't have the same interest in you and the stuff we did together that I used to, you should accept that like a mature person.

For the buffered self, other (human) selves are, in practical terms, all there is other than meaningless nature. This outlook can coexist with a great deal of theoretical interest in aliens or ghosts or fairies, although it usually doesn't.

As for "good and evil" -- for the buffered self, the moral code is basically one's own responsibility, except that one must not "push one's morality" on anybody else. This outlook can coexist with extremely rigorous censure of other people or groups ("cancelation," etc.) who might seem to threaten one's autonomy, e.g. by failing to affirm one's current gender identity.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 9 Aug 23 | 03:26PM by Dale Nelson.

Sawfish wrote:

---I'm really interested in how the buffered self sees human-caused harm. Are the agents of such harm part of the "just the sort of thing that happens" reality of the world. Just like a falling tree limb crushing someone? Or a tornado?

Would a buffered self person attempt to control circumstances so as to minimize occurrences? This would imply that they, themselves, have agency sufficient to exert partial control. Would they then apply this to other humans--would they seek to exert agency in avoidance of negative circumstances that are caused by other humans--who ostensibly also have agency?

Do you think that the buffered self individuals differentiate between harm caused by physical circumstance (flood) and harm caused by individual murder or war? That all of this is a part of nature, essentially?---

The modern buffered society, you may have noticed, looks far, far more than any previous society to government to be the guarantor of the good life, the autonomous life. No society has asked more of its governing elite than those of modern society. Things that people formerly looked to their own enterprise, their family capital (including but not limited to money; also included would be reputation, etc.), their guild, their religious cult, etc. to provide (when times were good!) -- all, and much more, are expected of the public sector.

Thus the "problem of evil" is experienced by modern people, all of us in a buffered society, as primarily a matter of management. It is something to be seen to by government. People in America or Britain a century ago would probably be astonished by the degree of surveillance and monitoring to which law-abiding people are subject, but also, given the amount of money put into social programs, by the degree to which lawbreaking is tolerated, e.g. decriminalization of shoplifting.

And as for natural calamities -- modern people will tend to find fault in that government should have known and done something about this beforehand. Or government should make sure it won't happen again. Pass new laws, create new agencies, employ researchers, etc. And of course sometimes these do good; but sometimes, well, maybe somebody should have known that building that lavish house up in that wooded canyon wasn't a good idea given the potential of wildfires....



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 9 Aug 23 | 03:50PM by Dale Nelson.

On the thread for Comparing Smith to Lovecraft and Howard, Sawfish commented:

-----Dale, let's accept for the sake of discussion that the "mind" has a non-physical dimension to it. It is more than simply the contents of the skull.

This then implies that this extra dimension is akin to what's commonly thought of as spiritual. It is a non-physical attribute that other such entities--those also possessing such "minds"--can readily recognize. There are varying opinions of from whence this attribute derives. I.e., is evidence of it carried in an individual's DNA? If so, this would be a physical marker for a non-physical attribute.

If it is not in any way indicated genetically, and has apparently no physical grounding, does it belong to the "physical" world, at all--and by this I mean is it connected to the physical world, but as yet undetected by such means as we possess to examine the physical world. In other words, it would be like Pluto's existence *before* first being observed in 1930: it existed (so far as we may infer), but was not known. Its existence might have been inferred mathematically from the orbits of other planetary bodies, but was itself unknown.

If it does not belong to the physical world, does it belong to any other organized domain? If so, is it evidence of the possibility of a deity in the broadest possible sense?

OK, let's continue with the existence of undetectable attributes of the human mind. This mind is differentiated from non-human minds by complexity, and especially complexity of sophisticated abstract thought. And yet I'm convince by life experience that many other animal species also possess some of this capability--it's a continuum of mental potency, in a sense. My cat does not believe in a deity, so far as I can tell--but is well aware that he can get into serious peril if he does not avoid certain situations. They're like his ten commandments, in a sense.

Continuing this idea of a continuum, do these other species' "minds" also have a non-physical attribute--one that can be inferred from observation, but cannot be measured or detected by any current means? Perhaps they have less of it, just as they seems to have less capacity for abstract thought.

Dale, we've exchanged. You'll know that I'm basically a materialist *by circumstance*. I'm not committed to it philosophically, but the vast bulk of my life experience--maybe all of it--is best explained by material phenomena. I'm looking here for a new world to explore. I'm looking for a non-deistic undetected non-physical dimension as it affects *all* of the observable physical world. If there's a continuum without a threshold, it implies that every physical object we can observe also has some non-physical attributes. This would include not only the higher animals, but insects, micro-organisms, plants, and inorganic objects like rocks.

But if there is indeed a threshold, above which the non-physical dimensions provide evidence that they exist, where is that threshold, and how did it come about?

Big, wide open door here... :^)

--Sawfish
-----

I'm going to attempt a response of sorts.

Sawfish writes, "Continuing this idea of a continuum, do these other species' "minds" also have a non-physical attribute--one that can be inferred from observation, but cannot be measured or detected by any current means? Perhaps they have less of it, just as they seems to have less capacity for abstract thought."

I think in terms of a hierarchy, more than a continuum.

The visible creation appears to have four levels of being (ontological levels). (I'm leaving said the possibility of invisible creatures for the moment except to say that, if there are nature spirits or fairies or angels or mythological-type gods, they are all in one big group of created beings, with us, rocks, plants, and animals -- over against God. God, the Creator, is not one being among many but just the most powerful one. God, if God exists, is the ground of all being, but distinct from all being, though we may refer to God as a being for convenience.)

The hierarchy:

Rocks and minerals exist. That is something they share with us humans and the rest of the visible creation.

Plants exist, and also have life. Note that with the entrance of life into our account, we are already dealing with something of vital importance whose existence we must infer. We can talk about how plants live, but their life itself we cannot observe. For plants to live is to be able to grow, perhaps synthesize their food from light and water and minerals, and, sure, without these they will die. But their life itself eludes us. No one has ever seen it in itself.

Animals exist and also have life and also have consciousness, as you have noticed with your cat. Like life, consciousness is invisible, not measurable. This, by the way, is really very important for our understanding of the sciences, which must always deal, in one way or another, with what can be measured. But we can't measure the life of plants or animals. We may be able to effect life someday in a lab, but we haven't done so yet, and if we do, we will not be able to say that life came "from nothing" -- our own activity would have to be taken into account. And now today we read a lot about the idea of us creating "artificial intelligence" and many think we will be able to create consciousness. I don't believe this. We may be able to create an imitation of consciousness that is so clever and complex that it fools us. But it will not be consciousness. The robots of ten thousand years from now that seem conscious will still be more like typewriters than they are like us or your cat.

Pause for a moment. Rocks and minerals are abundant, comprising, I suppose, 99.something% of the earth's mass. Plants are abundant on the earth's surface and in the seas, etc. Animals are less abundant than plants but may be found widely distributed....

Rocks and minerals may be split, but they do not reproduce; at least I would not refer to crystal formation as reproduction. Plants reproduce and alter their environment for their benefit by breaking it down, introducing disorder -- for example, roots bursting through concrete. Animals reproduce and alter their environment, making greater order than there was before, as when beavers build dams, birds build nests, and so on. Animals can effect greater order than there was before because they are conscious. They have intelligence; we wouldn't say plants have intelligence, although I understand that, as we have learned more about forests, some scientists are beginning to suspect there is some kind of instinct at work among trees. I suspect it will be found that they may have an appearance of consciousness but the ontological gap between trees and bees will remain.

Human beings possess the attributes of the preceding levels but also exhibit self-awareness. I see no reason to think that even the smartest animals do. Because human beings possess self-awareness, they can work not only on their environment, like plants and animals, but on their inner dimension. When Joe quarrels with his wife and goes to the bar to take the edge off his pain, or when Sally decides to cultivate her memory and start learning poems -- and innumerable other things are done by us to our own inner world -- we show that we are radically different from animals including whales and primates. Even fairly stupid people can make promises. Think of that. To promise anything, you have to experience yourself as a purposive creature, you have to have a sense of time (I now promise that I will, in the future at some point, do this or that), and you have to be able to express this in words, even if just for yourself; at least I can't get my head around the idea that I would promise myself to lose 10 pounds without verbalizing this in some way. I might feel a desire to be ten pounds less heavy but a promise never happens till words are involved.

And humans are less common than animals, which are less common than plants, which are less common than rocks. And at the human level, with our possession of self-awareness, a very great deal of what we are is invisible. I imagine that much that an animal is, is visible, including, as we observe, its desire for warmth, shelter, perhaps for dominance in a group, and so on. We all probably doubt that there is a lot going on there that is never manifested visibly, though it seems dogs dream. But we could never say that about human beings -- that there is little going on that is not visible. Most of what is going on with us is invisible.

So I think you are on the right track in some things you say, Sawfish, but (from my point of view) maybe not catching something crucial when you say that the difference of non-human minds vs. human minds is complexity. I might see our "complexity" as perhaps a byproduct of self-awareness. But that might not be a good way of putting it.

But I've never tried, so far as I remember, to relate the ontological hierarchy/hierarchy of being to the porous vs. buffered concept.

So, some thoughts as they come.

The hierarchy of being was developed in traditional civilization, which was porous, i.e. allowed for the existence of extra-physical relations between human beings, for the involvement of human beings with non-human agencies that impinged on the human self, etc.

I think the traditional, porous culture may have done a better job than our present buffered experience of the world of accounting for, or anyway recognizing, the invisible qualities (life, consciousness, self-awareness). The buffered self helps to maintain its felt autonomy by rationalizing life, consciousness, agency, etc. That tell-tale expression "nothing but" shows itself.


Many people allow for an element of porosity vis-a-vis their pet animals. (A few do even with regard to their household plants.) They refer to a cat or dog and say things like, "You can see what he's thinking." That is, they are saying that our selves can have a (genuine) encounter with the consciousness of a nonhuman creature. People like to talk about their pets as possessing (in effect) selfhood or a degree of selfhood -- as Sawfish's comment above indicates. Hence it becomes natural for many pet lovers to wonder if, or to assert, that their pets "have souls." Souls! But soul is a word, you will note, that doesn't fit very easily in our public discourse, as a society that promotes the buffered self. Oh, we'll use it "metaphorically" in some situations, or allow it to some people but not to others. (I suspect many White people would be embarrassed to say "You have to feel it in your soul" but would not censure a Black person for doing so. A Black public school teacher may be allowed to say she cares about her pupils' souls where a White teacher would receive some kind of check on such usage. A double standard? Why?)

Conversely, some scientists -- vigilant watchmen of the buffered self! -- would like to explain away consciousness itself.

[mindmatters.ai]

Conversely, a porous culture may "start with" such matters as that human beings are souls, and that animals and even plants "have souls" of some type.

Not sure if you've fully clarofied what constitutes self-aeateness, but highly intelligent animals do have self-awareness. The buffered self concept as you've explained it calls to mind Alexis de Tocqueville and Aldous Huxley, of course. Scientific materialism is a permanent blind alley. Without God we are nowhere.

Dale, much deleted for clarity...

Noted as required.

Dale Nelson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> On the thread for Comparing Smith to Lovecraft and
> Howard, Sawfish commented:
>

... body of my post

>
>
> Dale, we've exchanged. You'll know that I'm
> basically a materialist *by circumstance*. I'm not
> committed to it philosophically, but the vast bulk
> of my life experience--maybe all of it--is best
> explained by material phenomena. I'm looking here
> for a new world to explore. I'm looking for a
> non-deistic undetected non-physical dimension as
> it affects *all* of the observable physical world.
> If there's a continuum without a threshold, it
> implies that every physical object we can observe
> also has some non-physical attributes. This would
> include not only the higher animals, but insects,
> micro-organisms, plants, and inorganic objects
> like rocks.
>
> But if there is indeed a threshold, above which
> the non-physical dimensions provide evidence that
> they exist, where is that threshold, and how did
> it come about?
>
> Big, wide open door here... :^)
>
> --Sawfish
> -----
>
> I'm going to attempt a response of sorts.
>
> Sawfish writes, "Continuing this idea of a
> continuum, do these other species' "minds" also
> have a non-physical attribute--one that can be
> inferred from observation, but cannot be measured
> or detected by any current means? Perhaps they
> have less of it, just as they seems to have less
> capacity for abstract thought."
>
> I think in terms of a hierarchy, more than a
> continuum.

I think this is a good way to go, rather than a continuum, if we also adopt your major demarcation "self-aware".


>
> The visible creation appears to have four levels
> of being (ontological levels). (I'm leaving said
> the possibility of invisible creatures for the
> moment except to say that, if there are nature
> spirits or fairies or angels or mythological-type
> gods, they are all in one big group of created
> beings, with us, rocks, plants, and animals --
> over against God. God, the Creator, is not one
> being among many but just the most powerful one.
> God, if God exists, is the ground of all being,
> but distinct from all being, though we may refer
> to God as a being for convenience.)

Given the four ontological domains, I see implied thresholds at each domain--sort of a gating device based on some level, or lack of, observable sentience. First the non-sentient rocks, then plants, then non-human animate entities, then humans.

Taking a "normal" representative from each domain, we could say that no member of domain n has any of the defining features of the next higher ordinal domain. So no normal rock has the capacity to construct new parts of itself, as a plant can do. No individual plant can travel about to seek sustenance or companionship as an animal routinely does. No animal is self-aware in an abstract sense.

Does this seem agreeable?

>
> The hierarchy:
>
> Rocks and minerals exist. That is something they
> share with us humans and the rest of the visible
> creation.
>
> Plants exist, and also have life. Note that with
> the entrance of life into our account, we are
> already dealing with something of vital importance
> whose existence we must infer. We can talk about
> how plants live, but their life itself we cannot
> observe. For plants to live is to be able to
> grow, perhaps synthesize their food from light and
> water and minerals, and, sure, without these they
> will die. But their life itself eludes us. No
> one has ever seen it in itself.

I'd suppose that the phenomenon of life, as you describe it--its essence--is never seen for any of the three ontologic domains that share "life" as one of its defining attributes, is this correct? Humans (and animals) can see *evidence* of life. This evidence is learned: a dog that encounters a 3-day dead squirrel understands that it is profoundly different from a squirrel that is currently taunting him from a tree limb. It's a combination of observed former behavior of the squirrel and scent. For the dog, that's probably the entirety of it. It is purely physical observation.

>
> Animals exist and also have life and also have
> consciousness, as you have noticed with your cat.
> Like life, consciousness is invisible, not
> measurable. This, by the way, is really very
> important for our understanding of the sciences,
> which must always deal, in one way or another,
> with what can be measured. But we can't measure
> the life of plants or animals.

But we can detect its presence or absence. On what do we base these conclusions> Do we feel that something intangible has fled, or are we more like the dog.

Maybe our first recognition of death is much like the dog's, but then on consideration we consider that something intangible has fled.

> We may be able to
> effect life someday in a lab, but we haven't done
> so yet, and if we do, we will not be able to say
> that life came "from nothing" -- our own activity
> would have to be taken into account.

Let's explore whether the intangible, unmeasurable phenomenon "life" exists without a conscious, sentient observer. Would this sort of life exist in a world with no sentient beings? Would trees exist without humans, e.g.? If so, then the sort of intangible life we're talking about is an artifact of consciousness, and not independent of it. It does not exist without a sentient being postulating its existence.

If living trees could exist without a sentient witness, this seems to reduce life to a complex set of as yet unknown material interactions.

An interesting example would be whether there is an intangible, non-physical attribute to all members of each of the four ontological domains--just as we postulate the mind as being more than is contained within the skull, does my cat's consciousness have a similar non-physical dimension, but in keeping with the bounds of the hierarchy, it has less of this non-physical component? Then would a tree have less, still? Would a rock have less, or perhaps none?

But if a rock has none, let's say, how to account for the spiritual value placed on inanimate, lifeless objects like Ayers Rock, which is a sacred object to native peoples. Does this object indeed have a non-physical aspect that a porous society can detect, or is the sanctity of the object purely a product of the consciousness of the native people?

If the former, it seems like all of the known universe has a non-physical dimension. If the latter, it implies that the idea of the non-physical, as it exists in contemporary mankind, is simply a projection of its own self-awareness.

Then we can move on to sacred animals. Unlike the rock, they have some level of consciousness--like a human, but less so--and do they independently contain this non-physical sacred attribute, like the rock, and if so, are they aware of it? And if not, then this, too, is a product of mankind's awareness, and has no independent existence.

...and now the shaman. A fully human entity who a) believes himself to be possess of non-physical attributes, and his peers agree. It would be an interesting thought: could a shaman exist in a social vacuum? I'd say yes. He'd be sustained by his own belief. He is his own creation.

I'm not saying that this is necessarily true, but it appears to me that the logic leads in that direction.


> And now
> today we read a lot about the idea of us creating
> "artificial intelligence" and many think we will
> be able to create consciousness. I don't believe
> this. We may be able to create an imitation of
> consciousness that is so clever and complex that
> it fools us. But it will not be consciousness.
> The robots of ten thousand years from now that
> seem conscious will still be more like typewriters
> than they are like us or your cat.

At this moment I tend to agree.

But if the opposite is true, and AI is indeed determined to be "conscious" as humanity currently understands the term, it implies that human consciousness is a clever and complex set of learned responses to a given situation.

>
> Pause for a moment. Rocks and minerals are
> abundant, comprising, I suppose, 99.something% of
> the earth's mass. Plants are abundant on the
> earth's surface and in the seas, etc. Animals
> are less abundant than plants but may be found
> widely distributed....
>
> Rocks and minerals may be split, but they do not
> reproduce; at least I would not refer to crystal
> formation as reproduction.

Agreed.

> Plants reproduce and
> alter their environment for their benefit by
> breaking it down, introducing disorder -- for
> example, roots bursting through concrete. Animals
> reproduce and alter their environment, making
> greater order than there was before, as when
> beavers build dams, birds build nests, and so on.
> Animals can effect greater order than there was
> before because they are conscious.

I wonder if the action of plants to break down inanimate objects like rock is actually their form of imposing an order that's beneficial to their continued existence, in the same way that a gopher digs a burrow, or an eagle builds a nest.

It is an attempt to change the status quo to benefit itself, whether tree, bison, or human. Rocks maybe are imposing an order on its constituent free elements--although I don't even believe this myself... ;^)

> They have
> intelligence; we wouldn't say plants have
> intelligence, although I understand that, as we
> have learned more about forests, some scientists
> are beginning to suspect there is some kind of
> instinct at work among trees. I suspect it will
> be found that they may have an appearance of
> consciousness but the ontological gap between
> trees and bees will remain.

Agreed.

You can see why the idea of a continuum at first appealed to me, because it was without precise demarcations.

But I do prefer the hierarchy with thresholds. Maybe there's a continuum within each ontological domain?

>
> Human beings possess the attributes of the
> preceding levels but also exhibit self-awareness.

Could this be the key? Self-awareness?

> I see no reason to think that even the smartest
> animals do. Because human beings possess
> self-awareness, they can work not only on their
> environment, like plants and animals, but on their
> inner dimension. When Joe quarrels with his wife
> and goes to the bar to take the edge off his pain,
> or when Sally decides to cultivate her memory and
> start learning poems -- and innumerable other
> things are done by us to our own inner world -- we
> show that we are radically different from animals
> including whales and primates. Even fairly stupid
> people can make promises. Think of that. To
> promise anything, you have to experience yourself
> as a purposive creature, you have to have a sense
> of time (I now promise that I will, in the future
> at some point, do this or that), and you have to
> be able to express this in words, even if just for
> yourself; at least I can't get my head around the
> idea that I would promise myself to lose 10 pounds
> without verbalizing this in some way. I might
> feel a desire to be ten pounds less heavy but a
> promise never happens till words are involved.
>
> And humans are less common than animals, which are
> less common than plants, which are less common
> than rocks. And at the human level, with our
> possession of self-awareness, a very great deal of
> what we are is invisible. I imagine that much
> that an animal is, is visible, including, as we
> observe, its desire for warmth, shelter, perhaps
> for dominance in a group, and so on. We all
> probably doubt that there is a lot going on there
> that is never manifested visibly, though it seems
> dogs dream.

There is less going on, but I'd say it's a matter of degree, and not an absence of self-awareness.

Let's go with the dog dreaming. I've had a lot of dogs and cats. In my experience, they seem to be dreaming in a way that we'd recognize. In every dream I've had--and oddly I have not had a dreamless night in probably 30 years--most are pretty distinct--the one uniform requirement is that *I* must be the POV. I therefore have to exist as a separate observer of the events in the dream. And watching my dogs/cats, it's evident to me that they are playing out dream events in which they are an actor. At that point it seems that they must be aware of themselves as separate and responsive entities. If this happens in dreams, I'd suppose it also happens when they're awake.

Too, they recognize other animals as being distinct from dogs and cats. They recognize humans as apart from their kind. I think species recognition runs deep in all animals, or it would make reliable reproduction nearly impossible. They recognize dogs and cats that they already know. Maybe in sense, they are aware of themselves as distinct entities. This would require a lot more exploration, though.

So in my mind they have a fair amount of the discerning capabilities that we have, with only limited ways to express it externally. So they are unlikely to compare notes on various topics.

> But we could never say that about
> human beings -- that there is little going on that
> is not visible. Most of what is going on with us
> is invisible.
>
> So I think you are on the right track in some
> things you say, Sawfish, but (from my point of
> view) maybe not catching something crucial when
> you say that the difference of non-human minds vs.
> human minds is complexity. I might see our
> "complexity" as perhaps a byproduct of
> self-awareness. But that might not be a good way
> of putting it.

Could it be the other way around: self-awareness is a product of mental complexity?

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Kipling, as a working notion about self-awareness, I'd say this is indicated when we can think of the self; as, for example, when a child wants to be an astronaut when he or she grows up, etc. About higher animals -- were you thinking of some mirror experiments? I'm not sure that the apparent recognition of the image is true self-awareness.

(It is pleasant to be active on a list in which you could write your final sentence (or one expressing an opposed view, for that matter) without fear of threats of being banned. The Science Fiction and Fantasy Chronicles Forums, where I used to be quite active, has become rather a police state in the past couple or so years.)

Sawfish wrote:

----Given the four ontological domains, I see implied thresholds at each domain--sort of a gating device based on some level, or lack of, observable sentience. First the non-sentient rocks, then plants, then non-human animate entities, then humans.

Taking a "normal" representative from each domain, we could say that no member of domain n has any of the defining features of the next higher ordinal domain. So no normal rock has the capacity to construct new parts of itself, as a plant can do. No individual plant can travel about to seek sustenance or companionship as an animal routinely does. No animal is self-aware in an abstract sense.-----

OK.


----But if a rock has none [no consciousness], let's say, how to account for the spiritual value placed on inanimate, lifeless objects like Ayers Rock, which is a sacred object to native peoples. Does this object indeed have a non-physical aspect that a porous society can detect, or is the sanctity of the object purely a product of the consciousness of the native people?-----

This is a good example to demonstrate that, while we can speak of a "porous" culture, not all porous cultures are the same. Members of the porous Aboriginal culture may believe that Ayers Rock is sentient. The porous culture of the ancient Israelites would say the Rock is not sentient. If the Aboriginal persons had that he has experienced the presence of the spirit that is the Rock, the Israelite might say, "No, but you might have experienced the presence of a bad spirit that imposed on you." A very small minority of relatively recent Christian thinkers may have argued that God would not, cannot, create anything dead, so even rocks might be sentient in some sense, while the majority would say it is a misuse of language to say that rocks are dead because they can be neither dead no alive; if a rock is "alive," may it be killed? -- and so on. My main point is just that not all porous cultures think alike, by any means. But their affirmation of some quality of "porosity" as I've tried to indicate it here would put them all together in this respect, over against a buffered culture.

Sawfish wrote,

----I'd suppose that the phenomenon of life, as you describe it--its essence--is never seen for any of the three ontologic domains that share "life" as one of its defining attributes, is this correct? Humans (and animals) can see *evidence* of life. This evidence is learned: a dog that encounters a 3-day dead squirrel understands that it is profoundly different from a squirrel that is currently taunting him from a tree limb. It's a combination of observed former behavior of the squirrel and scent. For the dog, that's probably the entirety of it. It is purely physical observation.----

This gets into the actually rather mysterious topic of "instinct," which I think is more elusive than a lot of people realize, kind of a convenient catch-all for we-know-not-exactly-what. Offhand I think of it as a wisdom "inherent" in nature. The dog doesn't have to be taught the difference between the dead squirrel and the living; the dog recognizes it somehow. The dog wants to roll on the dead squirrel (at least our old Golden retriever Molly did), while the dog is probably interested in the live, scolding squirrel for very different reasons.

I had written: "But we can't measure the life of plants or animals."

Sawfish commented,

---But we can detect its presence or absence. On what do we base these conclusions> Do we feel that something intangible has fled, or are we more like the dog. Maybe our first recognition of death is much like the dog's, but then on consideration we consider that something intangible has fled.----

I think the question of just when we can tell whether something is alive or not has been a matter of debate from time to time within porous cultures -- as well as our buffered culture, which characteristically tries to settle the matter by appeal to quantifiable factors (brain wave activity, etc.). But for practical purposes societies have means that reliably indicate whether someone is maybe still alive or is indeed dead. That's why there are some specific details in the Gospels to verify that Jesus was certainly dead, e.g. the spearthrust and the observed outflow of water and blood. (This is discussed in a lot of detail in Dr. Pierre Barbet's The Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ.)