[I wrote]
>> Wouldn't self reference equate to self-conciousness?
>
>Errr... I think self reference is the definition of consciousness (funk and
>wagnalls: "The state of being conscious; awareness of oneself and ones
>surroundings") In other words, I think "self-consciousness" is redundant.
Who or what is "funk and wagnalls"? As far as I'm aware (!)
there is no concensus on a definition of consciousness. At
least, that was true the last time I looked at the Journal of
Consciousness Studies. But my own view is that there is no
significant difference between consciousness and simple
awareness, while being conscious of one's self is something
else again. To wrap up simple awareness of one's surroundings
with awareness of "possessing a self" (whatever that means)
seems to me to ignore a fascinating and important difference.
>> My point being, if the use of a symbol for self is not
>> enough for consciousness, then what is?
>
>Well, I agree that the use of a symbol for self is enough for consciousness
>-- but only on the understanding that the ability to use such a symbol
>*implies* a significant amount about the system in question (having to do
>with symbol manipulation ability, capacity to understand the meaning
>(isomorphism to reality[1]) of the self (and other) symbol, etc.).
That was rhetorical -- I actually believe that the use of a
symbol for self is *not* enough. If we could take simple
awareness for granted, then adding in such a symbol, with the
ability to use it properly, might give us self-consciousness.
But I'm afraid simple awareness is still a mystery.
>[1] Could we possibly start up a discussion here on Hofstadter's definition
>of meaning -- namely that meaning emerges because of an isomorphism? Is
>this concept related to David's meaning=effect (which itself illustrates
>the meaning of "meaning" with an isomorphism)? Hofstadter's main examples
>are mathematical formal systems, but I've thought about it and certainly
>the most concrete examples always work (I can always identify the
>isomorphism).
What does "emerge because of" mean (!) here? (Or do we all
have to go and read Hofstadter before we can have this
discussion?)
While it might be arguable that isomorphism is at the root of
meaning, in that it's possible in principle to trace all
meanings back in time to isomorphisms, I'm utterly convinced
that when etymology's left out of the picture, ie we focus on
*present* meanings, there is very often no isomorphism to be
found.
(Sometimes I feel we ought to ban politics and religion from
this list, and allow only philosophy and science. It's like
the difference between heat and light, know what I mean?)
-- Robin