Uncommon Sense

In consciousness studies, the idea of a self is bandied about. Some say it is an illusion, others say, well, very different things. I am not well-versed in the literature of consciousness or “the self” but it seems fairly obvious as to what is going on, at least to me, which may be a sign I am completely mistaken.

The idea of “the self” seems a simple matter of access.

Evolution has shaped us both physically and mentally. (I use the word “shaped” because theists have ruined the word “designed.”) It seems obvious to me that prey animals, such as our species, need a capacity to remember. If I eat a particular plant and am sick as a dog for days after, if I can’t remember that experience, that experience has no value to my survivability. Similarly, the idiot who sees a tiger and goes “Here, kitty, kitty” to the lovely pussycat is unlikely to survive. We don’t need to perform that experiment ourselves, just observe others doing it. But we need to be able to remember it.

Once memory is established, the ground has been laid for the development of imagination (and we are not the only species which imagines, something all dog owners can appreciate). Imaginings are nothing more than synthetic memories. If we can create memories, it isn’t a huge leap to creating possible memories, say involving scenarios with that tiger which has moved into my neighborhood. Imagination is a huge advantage to a prey animal, giving them multiple “memories” to use to choose future actions from. (We also then need a way to distinguish real memories from synthetic ones, but details, details….)

To do all of this we must become aware of our thoughts, whatever those are. (I wish we had a better theory of thoughts, rather than putting all of our eggs in consciousness research baskets.) And then comes the so-called “Theory of Mind” which is when we look into the eyes of a fellow human being and register that there is someone home, someone with memories, imaginings, thoughts, the whole magilla, just like us. But we do not have access to those memories, thoughts, etc. It really does seem, however, like those others have them. (When languages evolved to be able to convey complex information, sharing one’s memories of a recently deceased loved one or a special successful hunt, certainly undergirds the idea that “others” have their own memories, because they aren’t exactly like our own.)

Recognizing all of this means that there is an access wall around us, and we assume around “them,” too. We have our memories, thoughts, etc. and they have theirs. This is sufficient to establish the idea of “self,” mine and thine.

So, why is this mysterious?

And being able to recall memories, real or imagined, implies a framework being established to make that possible and such a framework can’t be very far from being able to create and recognize one’s own thoughts, I would think.

If we only knew what the fuck thoughts were (prototype synthetic memories, aka imaginings, what?)!

Of course, I could be wrong … as I have proven many times in the past.