I think it is exaggerated to say that humans were non conscious before this “self” and “language” revolution (they probably were able to feel pain and pleasure and had empathy and other traits for complex social behavior).
Still this narrative is extremely interesting. Are you aware of Gintian strong reciprocity? I find that there is a previous “strong reciprocity” revolution before:
This article critically examines the evolutionary and game theoretical literature, proposing a novel synthesis to address the longstanding nature-nurture debate. The humanization process is based on “de-instinctivation”, that is, the replacement of hardwired behavior with cultural control. Genes play a limited role in cultural evolution, which is mostly autonomous.
“Before my teacher came to me, I did not know that I am. I lived in a world that was no world. I cannot hope to describe adequately that unconscious, yet conscious time of nothingness. I did not know that I knew aught or that I lived or acted or desired. ... Since I had no power of thought, I did not compare one mental state with another. … When I learned the meaning of ‘I’ and ‘me’ and found that I was something, I began to think. Then consciousness first existed for me.” (“The project Gutenberg eBook of the world I live in, by Helen Keller,” n.d.)
If there is no one to notice the pain/pleasure/empathy then on some level it is by definition unconscious or non-conscious (if a tree falls in the wood with no one around...).
Yeah, I'm using 'consciousness' in a colloquial sense (which is intentional, and mostly gets the point across). I could have talked about the Eve Theory of Recursive Self-Awareness but that doesn't quite roll off the tongue. Fom the standpoint of ego growing out of tension between id and super-ego, it's also interesting that conscience and conscious have the same etymology.
I don’t know: unconsciousness for me is the situation of a rock.
But let’s put it this way: as a Bentham utilitarian I care for animal suffering but not for animal life.
Probably what you describe is that what makes the continuation of life valuable: that jump from “undifferentiated” pain and pleasure to the individualist consciousness.
Consciousness was no awakening, it's an infinitely variable slope. The extraordinary a-ha moment some people get is not more extraordinary than really Really! enjoying a good meal, or falling in love, or having a stroke, and often it's practical effects are as mundane.
Very cool to see EToC in SoS! Been following Andrew's writing for a while now.
I think it is exaggerated to say that humans were non conscious before this “self” and “language” revolution (they probably were able to feel pain and pleasure and had empathy and other traits for complex social behavior).
Still this narrative is extremely interesting. Are you aware of Gintian strong reciprocity? I find that there is a previous “strong reciprocity” revolution before:
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4777057
This article critically examines the evolutionary and game theoretical literature, proposing a novel synthesis to address the longstanding nature-nurture debate. The humanization process is based on “de-instinctivation”, that is, the replacement of hardwired behavior with cultural control. Genes play a limited role in cultural evolution, which is mostly autonomous.
There is some evidence/theory to suggest that perhaps it isn't an exaggeration to say we were in some sense unconscious - having no "selfness" - before language. An early SoS article - https://www.theseedsofscience.pub/p/building-a-brain-an-introduction
A relevant quote from Helen Keller:
“Before my teacher came to me, I did not know that I am. I lived in a world that was no world. I cannot hope to describe adequately that unconscious, yet conscious time of nothingness. I did not know that I knew aught or that I lived or acted or desired. ... Since I had no power of thought, I did not compare one mental state with another. … When I learned the meaning of ‘I’ and ‘me’ and found that I was something, I began to think. Then consciousness first existed for me.” (“The project Gutenberg eBook of the world I live in, by Helen Keller,” n.d.)
If there is no one to notice the pain/pleasure/empathy then on some level it is by definition unconscious or non-conscious (if a tree falls in the wood with no one around...).
Yeah, I'm using 'consciousness' in a colloquial sense (which is intentional, and mostly gets the point across). I could have talked about the Eve Theory of Recursive Self-Awareness but that doesn't quite roll off the tongue. Fom the standpoint of ego growing out of tension between id and super-ego, it's also interesting that conscience and conscious have the same etymology.
"What’s the Use of Consciousness? How the Stab of Conscience Made Us Really Conscious"
https://www.blogs.uni-mainz.de/fb05philosophie/files/2013/04/Frith_Metzinger_Regret_2016_penultimate.pdf
Some interesting thoughts on how regret/shame may have played a role in the evolution of consciousness
I don’t know: unconsciousness for me is the situation of a rock.
But let’s put it this way: as a Bentham utilitarian I care for animal suffering but not for animal life.
Probably what you describe is that what makes the continuation of life valuable: that jump from “undifferentiated” pain and pleasure to the individualist consciousness.
Is this a repost of an old article for a new audience or a new one?
Same article
Consciousness was no awakening, it's an infinitely variable slope. The extraordinary a-ha moment some people get is not more extraordinary than really Really! enjoying a good meal, or falling in love, or having a stroke, and often it's practical effects are as mundane.
context
Consciousness has three primary questions:
a) how does it work ( neuroscience )
b) how did it evolve ( anthropology)
c) how does it feel ( phenomenology )
Thank you for writing!