This conversation has closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
What would be a self-awareness test that humans could not pass?
If consciousness is found in a gradient among the animal kingdom (with our closest rivals all extinct), can you imagine how an imaginary species could have more self-awareness?
Forget progress of civilization and enlightenment, this is not my point.
Instead think of how a human being develops its own conscience gradually from birth to, say, age five. Think of what is gradually being possible in terms of self awareness.
And then push it a little further. Or is it possible for us to imagine such a test at all?
Bob Van Oosterhout 20+
I differentiate between "self-awareness" which can become ego-centric and the process of developing a broader awareness of self, other and environment.
Mark Meijer 100+
I also get your point about the danger of one's efforts in this being kept under the ego's thumb, as it were. Although I imagine that any such effort necessarily has to start from ego-centric motivations, and also probably keep depending on those until reaching something like escape velocity. Because before broadening our awareness, ego-centric motivations is all we have. So in a sense I guess one might say that a measure of "spiritual materialism" is inevitable for the budding yogi, and even helpful if appied skillfully.
Anyway I think we both mean the same thing, we just have some difference in the way we use certain words.
Bob Van Oosterhout 20+
I spent a number of years trying to conquer my ego from an ego-centric perspective and was not at all successful. I view letting go of ego as a process of viewing a larger picture, seeing through a larger frame, if you will. My "self" is part of that picture but it does not dominate it, nor is it in the center. It is when there is no sense of self in my frame that I seem to be most effective in whatever I am doing. Conversely I seem to be least effective as more of my frame is filled up with self.
Possibly seeing beyond ego would be a clearer way of putting it. "Overcoming" or even "letting go"
implies a sense of self that I have found to be an obstacle in the process.
I need to acknowledge my limitations on this topic. Although I have read a number of books on Buddhism, contemplation and related works, I have never studied under a master or received feedback on what I learned or believe. My understanding is likely distorted by the whims that led me to the books I chose and the frames and filters through which I read and thought about them.
My greatest teachers were profoundly mentally retarded residents of a facility where I worked in the 1970's. They had little or no language and many of them had problems with violence. They taught me how to relate on a non-verbal, level where thought and cognition were like a foreign language. In many respects, I felt they had a greater understanding of this topic than I will ever have.
Bob Van Oosterhout 20+
I define focus as what we pay attention to at any given moment. Awareness is the sum total or "whole" of the information that we are processing at any given moment. I think of concentration as part of the Buddhist meditation process. Concentration would be maintaining focus on a something specific. I am not comfortable with the term "mindfulness" because of how it seems to have been distorted by Western Psychology into what seems to be a self-centered process. The experience could be more clearly described as "mindlessness" from my perspective. There is awareness without thought. Thought has merged with action.
I appreciate your questions, they have led me to clarify my thinking in a number of areas. Hartelijk bedankt.
Mark Meijer 100+
Btw I don't think it's very important whether or not one is well versed in buddhist theory, to put it that way. I don't think you would have kept up 40 years of practice if the practice itself didn't do a lot for you. And in the end that's what matters. Any theory is only ever there in support of that, and besides it doesn't necessarily have to be buddhist theory. Whatever works.
The way I see it, any theory is just a different take on the same reality, each with its own strong and weak points. I happened to have learned a great deal from buddhist theory and practice so far, I'm tremendously grateful for it, and I often find myself speaking in buddhist terms. But I make it a point to not stick to any particular tradition per se, buddhist or otherwise, for merely its own sake.
Bob wrote: "I spent a number of years trying to conquer my ego from an ego-centric perspective and was not at all successful. I view letting go of ego as a process of viewing a larger picture, seeing through a larger frame, if you will."
That's the ultimate dilemma, and a well known one. As Alan Watts would say, you can't lift yourself by your own bootstraps, and also the ego couldn't wish for any greater validation than getting waved at with a big stick. Nonetheless, the motivation to let go of the ego and view a larger picture must have started somewhere. Something made you start practicing back then and, particularly, made you keep it up through the rough spots and "failures" (like your initial approach as you described it).
Even motivations such as "I want to let go of this unruly ego" or "I want a broader perspective" are ego-centric. At least as long as there's someone there wanting to practice to achieve something. From your description, that's exactly how you started out, and it was just what you needed in order to know to move past it. You likely couldn't have skipped that step. So where's the failure.
And I think it can't be any other way.
Bob Van Oosterhout 20+
A competent teacher or therapist could have guided me on a much more direct path. This is why I am interested in the perceptual process and want to explore if the concept of frames, filters and focus can cut through the waste generated by the ego.
The ego-based "me-frame" is strengthened every time we use it. We cannot let go of the ego by strengthening it.
I don't believe I continued meditating because of my ego's desire to improve my life. Truthfully, it was more likely luck and habit along with the realization that I functioned better with regular practice. I don't think I realized how and why it worked until after about 13 years of practice.
Mark Meijer 100+
May I be so bold as to ask you to re-examine those two sentences? I think you'll find them to be contradictory :). Unless I'm misinterpreting your formulation here. If (along with luck and habit, neither of which have to do with motivations) the reason you continued practicing is because of the realization that you functioned better with it, that's an ego-centric motivation. It literally puts "you" smack in the middle of the reason to keep at it.
Please note I'm not arguing for the condemnation of ego-centric motivations per se, nor against the value of ego-centric motivations. Quite the contrary, I think they are a necessary component of keeping one on the path to getting beyond ego-centric motivations, if and when applied skillfully. Which it seems to me (for what it's worth) is what you've done quite admirably.
Mark Meijer 100+
Bob wrote: "I am not comfortable with the term "mindfulness" because of how it seems to have been distorted by Western Psychology into what seems to be a self-centered process. The experience could be more clearly described as "mindlessness" from my perspective. There is awareness without thought. Thought has merged with action."
I've heard it suggested that the word mindfulness is a rather poor translation. In any case, as far as I know, the notion of mindfulness was indeed never meant to imply the necessary presence of thought.
Even in specific absorptive concentration practices (where absorption is basically the opposite of mindfulness), the use of the unfortunate phrase "applied and sustained thought" is generally understood to mean an exclusive focus of stable attention through effort of will, rather than actual thinking in the intellectual sense (excepting the case of imagined objects of focus, like visualization or mantra practice, although that would still be exclusive to all other thoughts).
But like you said, there does seem to be a tendency for "western mindfulness practice" to get stuck on self-analysis of psychological content, which I agree doesn't really help the faculty of mindfulness a lot beyond a certain point fairly early on.
- Mindfulness (Pali: sati, Sanskrit: smṛti; also translated as awareness)
(from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mindfulness )
I've also heard it suggested that "remembering" might be a better translation. I'm not sure I agree with that, because this might get confused with the notion of recalling memories, which means thought. Instead it is meant to refer to remembering to keep awareness present, and remembering to remember to keep awareness present (which of course is exactly what we keep forgetting all the time, getting absorbed in thought or sensate experience, especially those pertaining to self).
Mark Meijer 100+
A competent teacher would also have been a great deal closer to understanding just what made you seek him out, than you yourself would have been. If you hadn't learned that lesson on your own, you would have surely gotten it from him.
Bob wrote: "This is why I am interested in the perceptual process and want to explore if the concept of frames, filters and focus can cut through the waste generated by the ego."
Maybe the waste of the ego can be found in exactly those three things. The inhibition of perspective (frames), the increase in biased distortion (filters), and the hijacking of attention (focus). I would think cutting through the ego's waste has to involve observing how those things are affected. Which neatly brings us back to self-awareness (as distinct from self-absorption).
Bob Van Oosterhout 20+
I also continued brushing my teeth during that time and there didn’t seem to be an ego-centric motivation in that practice, which in many ways is similar to meditation (clearing the plaque from our mind...)
I am confused about your defense of the ego and insistence that it plays a role in removing what it obstructs. From my experience, it is like an alcoholic taking a drink to prepare for abstinence.
Possibly there is some confusion about self versus self-centered. We each have an identity and personal sense of our individuality. The difference is in how much that fills up the frame that defines our reality. If it is a large part (“me frame”) it limits our vision of what I believe is the truer reality of being one among many, and the even truer reality when we lose sight of that one and merge in a responsive dance with the moment.
Mark Meijer 100+
Bob Van Oosterhout 20+
Teaching how the ego’s waste is fed by the frames, filters, and focus and define our reality is precisely what I am exploring. However, these things are not part of my self. I would maintain that they limit my development of self.
The concept of “self-awareness” implies that there is less room in the frame for awareness of others. The awareness I speak of expands the frame to include others as much, if not more that self. Self is within the frame (except when we are functioning optimally when it dissolves into a clearer focus and spontaneous interaction with the moment) but it is only part of the picture. As awareness of moments and patterns expands, we also learn more about the limitations and ultimate insignificance of self, making room for a larger, clearer picture.
Mark Meijer 100+
Bob Van Oosterhout 20+
I’m not convinced that it solves itself. Nor do I believe that the chicken/egg metaphor fits. Developing awareness is a process of continuing to move in the direction of letting go of the ego as one gains control over thinking and perception. It is a matter of choosing a direction where the emphasis on the ego declines. Anything that enhances ego or self-evaluation takes one off the path. It is quite easy to feed the ego in such a way that one creates an illusion of being on the path when one is actually going in circles in the brambles somewhere.
I believe the aspect of ego that limits us most is self-judgment and self-evaluation. Reflecting on what direction I am heading in, the obstacles I face, or what I need to do does not feed this. Reflecting on how I am doing does. It is less a chicken/egg problem than focusing on developing a healthy flock of chickens. It doesn’t matter who comes first. First is an illusion.
Bob Van Oosterhout 20+
Both Zen and Descarte focus too much on thought (which is an abstraction) for my tastes. in my limited understandng, it seems that Descarte uses thought to build the ego, Zen uses thought to dissemble it. Becoming more aware of thought through thinking seems limiting to me. I prefer to focus on perceptions (We perceive, therefore we exist) and how frames, filters and focus determine what is real to us.
I am not comfortable with the term self-awareness because it too easily becomes self-centered awareness. I prefer to try to view through an "us" frame rather than a "me" frame and strive to understand what is going on in terms of perception and interaction.
Mark Meijer 100+
My argument in the link below is actually that increased self-awareness means not only a deepening of that awareness, but also a broadening of the limits of our notion of self. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that's also what you're saying above.
http://www.ted.com/conversations/5603/consciousness_is_a_material_pr.html?c=318633
In other words, my own take on the notion of a scale of self-awareness, is that the sense of self necessarily changes to include more and more beyond what we usually mean with our limited personal "self", until eventually the distinction between what is "self" and and what isn't, in a way disappears.
Walter Radtke
What I'm saying in answer to your question is that the test of awareness that no human could pass, would be the awareness that, logically, ineluctably, as we are a small piece of something infinite, then we, ourselves, must be infinite as well. But with our sense of mortality, the conceiving that we are immortal is impossible. It's a test that humans can't pass, at least humans in their present state. In a later, potential state we may be able to pass that test, at which time your excellent question will still be viable but require a different answer.
BTW, it is good to scratch your head. I'm in a perpetual state of scratch.
Walter Radtke
Further thought- The difficulty in the test is the attempt at recognizing that the realm inside the head is every bit as infinite as the realm outside the head compounded by the impediment of mortality. In order to pass the test, we must have certainty at some level that we are immortal. Tough nut to crack.
Gerald O'brian 30+
*Head scratching*...
Mark Meijer 100+
Bob Van Oosterhout 20+
Gerald O'brian 30+
Bob Van Oosterhout 20+
My intent was a bit a humor with a point. I agree with Buddhist philosophy that the concept of self is an illusion. I believe that when we are most preoccupied with self (most aware of self) that we prolong suffering and lose touch with what we are really intending to do.
I think being aware of the limitations of our perceptions and understanding is much more valuable and important than speculating on whether we are more or less conscious or aware than other species. There is simply no way within out limited perception and understanding to discern that with full confidence.
I am also very skeptical of the value of tests that supposedly provide information about our self. At best these are statistically based which means we are trying to draw conclusions about an individual based on trends in a large sample.
I recall tests of self-actualization that people made up in the 1960's. The simple fact that one took the test would seem to be an indication that they are not self-actualized.
Gerald O'brian 30+
This is what I meant, sorry about the confusion.
Back to your interesting arguments. You borrow from zen philosophy a definition of cousciousness opposite to the common one. Opposite to Descarte's Cogito erog sum, in particular. Doubt brings a feel of existence to the Western philosopher, but any thought pulls the zen master away from existing, from "being".
This idea of self-awareness reached through loss of self-preocupation is quite interesting.
I need to figure out what to make of it, in terms of biological reasonning.
Mark Meijer 100+
Bob wrote: "I believe that when we are most preoccupied with self (most aware of self) that we prolong suffering and lose touch with what we are really intending to do."
Isn't it true though, that we tend to be most preoccupied with self when we're least aware of it. Isn't the idea behind buddhist philosophy, that becoming aware of our (limited-self) preoccupation is exactly what allows us to free ourselves from it? The more bound we are by it for reasons we haven't discovered yet (from lack of that awareness), the more we in fact lose touch with what we are really intending to do. And what's worse, the more we remain puzzled and frustrated by that, the more we keep chasing our own tails trying to solve a problem we aren't actually willing to investigate. What would be your take on this?
Bob wrote: "I think being aware of the limitations of our perceptions and understanding is much more valuable and important than speculating on whether we are more or less conscious or aware than other species."
Personally I'm not in it for making comparisons with other species, but I would argue that being aware of the limitations of our perceptions and understanding, is precisely the incentive for cultivating deeper awareness. In fact you surely noticed your own use of the word "aware" here. How can we become more aware of our own limitations without cultivating that awareness?
Bob Van Oosterhout 20+
You might find this talk by Charles Lamb interesting. He studied musicians doing improv under a FMRI - the part of the brain thought to be involved in self-awareness did not light up during improve but did when they played a memorized piece.
http://www.ted.com/talks/charles_limb_your_brain_on_improv.html
Bob Van Oosterhout 20+
I believe consciousness is larger than a single person. There is a potential for a shared consciousness and focusing on individual consciousness is an obstacle to that. Possibly failing to describe the benefits of a self-awareness test indicates a broader perspective that transcends "self" awareness.
Bob Van Oosterhout 20+
I believe “self”-awareness limits awareness. We only chase our tails to the extent that we believe it is important to catch them. We cannot “catch” or achieve awareness.
There is a difference between looking for or seeking something and seeing or discovering it. The first is an obstacle to the second, in my experience. We develop awareness through practice (meditation), balance, and letting go of the self. Becoming more aware of the self seems to be an obstacle to a broader awareness because the concept of self blocks it.
I think of perception in terms of frames, filters, and focus. Frames are made of expectations, beliefs, habits etc. Filters are our emotional take. Filters include emotions, attitudes, bias etc. Focus is what we pay attention to moment to moment. It determines importance. Frames based on self easily become fixed and rigid. Better to allow the frame to form from the situation and to expand or narrow it as indicated. Filters expand awareness when we see and feel how others experience situations. Filters based on self easily become fixed and rigid. Focus is better when flexible and receptive, not narrow or intense as it might be with a preoccupation. Focus on self-awareness makes the self more important and limits awareness.
Being aware of the limitations of how we frame and filter our experience and focus our attention allows us to shift to see a larger, clearer, and more precise picture. Bringing the self into the picture complicates and distorts it with attachments, needs, thoughts of right/wrong etc. Frames, filters, and focus are not part of myself, they are simply how my vision is limited. When they become part of the self - when we identify with them - they shrink and become more rigid. Flexibility in perception is a key to awareness in my mind.
Mark Meijer 100+
About your use of the words "focus" and "awareness", am I right in understanding that they are equivalent to the buddhist notions of "concentration" and "mindfulness" respectively? Except for your use of the word combination "self-awareness", in which case you actually mean focus on limited-self?
Of course it's well known that unskillful application of concentration (focus, which is exclusive) takes one in the opposite direction from where mindfulness (awareness, which is inclusive) is meant to take us. Although I think skillful application of concentration (focus) remains a key component of mindfulness (awareness). So when I talk about awareness of (limited) self, I don't mean being preoccupied with it (to the exclusion of one's surroundings), but rather being mindful of it (as a necessary part of one's surroundings).
So I definately agree that the practice is not meant to increase our preoccupation with limited-self even more. But nor is it meant to exclude the limited-self from our awareness. The way I see it, the aim is a healthier integration in ones awareness of the two (because they actually are not two, despite the fact that that's our baseline experience from a certain age onwards, due to our holding on to it).
Which in general certainly means to stop being preoccupied with limited-self, i.e. letting go of the self as you put it. But also here, I think that in order to let go of the self, we would first need to _discover_ (referring to your mention of that word) just how it is that we're holding on to it in the first place. Because letting go turns out not to be a simple question of willing it (or not until after a lot of practice, anyway), nor of simply trying to ignore it entirely.
Bill Harrison 10+
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/27/colbert-study-conservativ_n_191899.html
But my original response was - self-deception. A lie is more believable if you really, truly believe it. So the best way to convince other people of something is if you don't know that you're lying - it's creepy, but I think this is actually fairly common.
Gerald O'brian 30+
Thomas Jones 50+
I think the human mind can conceive of its own annihilation but I do not think it can comprehend what that really means. So, "enlightenment" notwithstanding, a test of self-awareness we might not be able pass would be to fully comprehend the absolute negation of self.
(The distinction between conceive and comprehend is important here.)
Gerald O'brian 30+
How and when can you state that your actions bring no benefit whatsoever to your genes' survival?
And if one species did have such a power of self negation? How could it have evolved that way if the genes had no interest in it?
So it seems you found the ultimate test. How about a slightly easier one, but one we still couldn't pass?
Thomas Jones 50+
Walter Radtke
Gerald O'brian 30+
Pretend you're explaining it to a six year old, which I just might be, deep down.
Thomas Jones 50+
Me?
I wouldn't explain it ... not to a six year old.
I would take him or her somewhere "on a warm sunny night in a place unlit by artificial light where the stars, the milky way, the moon shine like diamonds" and I would say, "look."
Then maybe the six year old could explain it to me.
Gerald O'brian 30+
Mark Meijer 100+
Gerald O'brian 30+
Read "On the Origin of Species" and get rid of that so unfashioned misconception of what evolution is.
Then, tell me why a higher level of consciousness is an inevitable path for us, i. e. how people with it today are currently overgrowing people without it.
Darwin is a hell of a writer and you'll enjoy the book I promise.
Walter Radtke
Gerald O'brian 30+
And what is differing humans from animals in your curious perspective?
Harald Jezek 50+
Now, that said and understanding how our brain developed over time, I think it's inevitable that, if humans exist long enough, consciousness will develop to higher levels. However, we cannot know what that means in practical terms.
Gerald O'brian 30+
Why would a dog want to be anything other than a dog if it doesn't know better?
Harald Jezek 50+
I didn't say that a dog wants to be anything but a dog. What I said is that a dog has no means to comprehend our level of consciousness.
anthony bruni 30+
Gerald O'brian 30+
----> I see an image moving when i'm moving and in the same way. it's therefore an image of me. Thus the spot on the image's face is actually on my own face.
No big deal, then... uh? More self-awareness would simply mean more ability for computation and deduction.
Harold Saxon
Gerald O'brian 30+
Harold Saxon
I think conscience governs how we behave toward others, which is entirely different from how we treat ourselves.
Debra Smith 100+
Thomas Jones 50+
Really?
Who? Where?
(I'm really asking.)
Debra Smith 100+
I learned this many years ago in undergrad Psychology when we examined the literature on the proportions of university students who did not reach the stage of abstract thinking and the proportion is shocking. (I do not have any references at this time). I had trouble believing it too but the stats were clear and no one ever talks about it. It was illustrated most clearly when in another course, one in Literature. The class was discussing a work by Jonathan Swift commonly called A Modest Proposal.( From Wikipedia: A Modest Proposal for Preventing the Children of Poor People in Ireland From Being a Burden on Their Parents or Country, and for Making Them Beneficial to the Publick,[1] commonly referred to as A Modest Proposal, is a Juvenalian satirical essay written and published anonymously by Jonathan Swift in 1729. Swift suggests that impoverished Irish might ease their economic troubles by selling their children as food for rich gentlemen and ladies. This satirical hyperbole mocks heartless attitudes towards the poor, as well as Irish policy in general.)
A significant proportion of my class arrived at the discussion steaming mad. They were shocked and horrified that anyone would suggest something so cruel and they wanted the prof lynched for forcing them to read such a manifesto! When we tried to help them see that it was all a satire, some just did not buy it.
Here is a quote on the topic from a quick internet search:
Formal operational stage (adolescence and adulthood): In this stage, intelligence is demonstrated through the logical use of symbols related to abstract concepts. Early in the period there is a return to egocentric thought. Only 35 percent of high school graduates in industrialized countries obtain formal operations; many people do not think formally during adulthood.
Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/cognitive-development#ixzz1XuuLdJ5H
Thomas Jones 50+
Thanks. I am familiar with Piaget (and Swift) ... I guess it just never registered with me that so many people were unable to think in the abstract.
Hmmmm ... that explains a lot.
In Swift's day, people actually organized to implement his "Modest Proposal."
Mark Meijer 100+
Thomas Jones 50+
Based on your comment, I went looking to see what I could find.
I found this:
Piaget thought that the concrete operational stage ended at age eleven or twelve. There is now considerable evidence that these ages are the earliest that this stage ends and that many adults remain in this stage throughout their lives. Most current estimates are that from 30 to 60 percent of adults are in the concrete operational stage (Pintrich, 1990).
I am stunned!
I had no idea. (And it really does explain a lot!)
Debra Smith 100+
Mark Meijer 100+
And I would actually say, any form of communication is abstract, because it's always in reference to something concrete (or something else abstract). Any modality of communication is necessarily symbolic for what is being communicated, it's never for the mere sake of uttering sounds or making funny movements. So any communication is always at least one step removed from the dereferenced content, which means it's abstract.
So for example, honey bees would also have some capacity for abstract thought (if thought is the right word for it), even if they're most likely not aware at all of the fact that this is what they're doing.
So again, just as with self-awareness, there's this unexamined assumption that everything below a certain threshold does not count, and that there's nothing new to be discovered above it.
Debra Smith 100+
Mark Meijer 100+
Mark Meijer 100+
Getting dizzy here...
Debra Smith 100+
Mark Meijer 100+
Debra Smith 100+