Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id TAA14349 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Sat, 25 Mar 2000 19:08:30 GMT From: "Aaron Agassi" <agassi@erols.com> To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> Subject: RE: Self-Acquisition Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2000 14:00:35 -0500 Message-ID: <001501bf968c$66ca8740$fcb606d1@sbosmr.ma.cable.rcn.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <LPBBICPHCJJBPJGHGMCIKEBACFAA.ddiamond@ozemail.com.au> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
You've got the question mixed up. Neither self-awareness nor recognition of
others can precede establishment of the boundary between one's own body and
the outside world.
What precedes this might be neither selfless nor Solipsistic, but merely
indistinct.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk [mailto:fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk]On Behalf
> Of Chris Lofting
> Sent: Friday, March 24, 2000 12:13 PM
> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> Subject: RE: Self-Acquisition
>
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk [mailto:fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk]On Behalf
> > Of Joe E. Dees
> > Sent: Thursday, 23 March 2000 8:46
> > To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> > Subject: RE: Self-Acquisition
> >
> >
> > From: "Chris Lofting" <ddiamond@ozemail.com.au>
> > To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
> > Subject: RE: Self-Acquisition
> > Date sent: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 19:54:08 +1100
> > Send reply to: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk
> > [mailto:fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk]On Behalf
> > > > Of Joe E. Dees
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, 22 March 2000 4:40
> > > > To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> > > > Subject: Self-Acquisition
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > As i mentioned before, the idea of a self is taught
> to us by our
> > > > primary caregivers, whom we distinguish from the surrounding
> > > > environment on the basis of their meaning-laden, purposeful and
> > > > responsive behavior. We then internalize this distinction and
> > > > ourselves become individual self-conceivers among others.
> > >
> > > nope. IF you look at the development of mental states from
> > mammals through
> > > primates to us so the concept of self comes first. In monkey
> > studies there
> > > is a sense of SELF-awareness but NOT of OTHERS-awareness where
> > OTHERS means
> > > OTHER MINDS. There seems to be a mental state where actions
> performed by
> > > others are seen as being 'somehow' programmed/controlled by 'me'.
> > >
> > No, the work done by Lewis and Brooks-Gunn in SOCIAL
> > COGNITION AND THE ACQUISITION OF SELF clearly shows that
> > when the species being tested does not recognize a mirror image
> > as an image of itself (demonstrating self-awareness), it regards that
> > image as the image of a conspecific (another member of the same
> > species). Baboons, for instance, attack their mirrored reflections.
>
> which implies a GENETIC stimulus/response behaviour. Awareness
> develops from
> feedback processes and so a developing stimulus/considered
> response process.
> Furthermore self awareness does not necessarily mean immediate recognition
> in a mirror :-)
>
> The studies using apes showed a developing sense of self but not
> recognition
> of other MINDS.
>
> <snip>
>
> > >
> > > Note that the sense of self is an object sense, it is a sense based on
> > > precision, on the assertion of the personal pronoun, "I".
> > >
> > No, the sense of self occurs in human infants prior to their
> > mastering even the rudiments of speech; they know that they exist
> > before they can even use the personal pronoun "I". This is why
> > mirror tests were devised; to investigate the prelinguistic
> > psychogenesis of self-awareness.
> > >
>
> BIG misinterpretation here Joe, but perhaps I was not clear, I
> did not refer
> to the use of language but more the physical assertion of a
> feeling that is
> linkable to "I".
>
>
> > > We can link this to the concept of oneness, wholeness, and in doing so
> > > introduce the concept of encapsulation.
> > >
> > > The pointedness reflected in the concept of "I" is also
> > reflected in those
> > > parts of our neurological and psychological development concerned with
> > > territorial mapping where we can see the emergence of the
> distinction of
> > > 'mine' from 'not mine'. Note the emphasis on MINE rather than OURS.
> > >
> > Subjectivity is in each case mine, to paraphrase Martin Heidegger,
> > but the only way something can be "not mine" is if it belongs to an
> > "other", or to "no one" (out of a field of others). Either of these
> > alternatives acknowledges the existence of others.
>
> This is the barrier between SELF and OTHERS in that the concept
> of negation
> comes from the recognition of CONTEXT. CONTEXT is background
> material, rules
> and regulations that go towards controlling/guiding the
> individual. CONTEXT
> is NOT consciously RECOGNISED at the basic gene level. you need
> discernment
> to do it; the intentional processing of dichotomies.
>
> In this sense, prior to the dichotomy is a 'one' state. This is
> positive as
> we see in infants where their explorations etc lead to the
> experience and so
> recognition of negation in the form of getting burnt or getting
> punished by
> others.
>
> This same 'one' state is also shared by fundamentalists, psychotics etc
> where delusions emerge where negation is not realised.
>
> CONTEXT is part of the SECONDARY process and is linked to feedback and so
> the emergence of discernment. This discernment is not found in the very
> young in general, it has to be learnt.
>
> > >
> > > As we see in hippocampus, there is a link of waypoint mapping
> > to territorial
> > > mapping and this leads to the abstraction of mine/not mine to
> > > correct/incorrect. Further abstraction takes us into the
> > neocortex and the
> > > root of syntactic processing which is sourced in that part of
> > the brain best
> > > associated with object thinking, encapsulated thinking, SELF thinking.
> > >
> > This granting of specific semantic specifications (mine/not mine,
> > correct/incorrect), for all humans, to a particular midbrain (limbic
> > system) component which is known primarily for its roles in
> > memory and emotion is a speculation without scientific basis at
> > the present state of cognitive science.
>
> I was being brief. If you study the literature carefully you find a
> development path from reptilian brain through limbic to neocortex where
> different degrees of emotion etc are expressed including the
> 'correct/incorrect' distinction. IOW the 'mine/not mine' is closer to
> reptilian thinking and the 'correct/incorrect' is closer to
> limbic/neocortical thinking.
>
> The Damasio et al re the syntax 'feeling' was not in his books --
> you should
> read journals more :-) This particular paper was in 1995 copy of
> Journal of
> Cognitive Science (?I think, cant recall the month, will try and dig it up
> if you cannot. Note the et al, it was a paper with a few others involved).
>
>
> Current speculation upon
> > the location of Antonio Damasio's "sense of self" includes, but is
> > not limited to, the midbrain (primarily the reticular activating
> > system).
>
> Which goes along with my comments re reptilian development forward. If you
> review the development processes (see MacLeans work in this) so the left
> hemisphere of the neocortex is behaviourally a refinement of the left
> 'pseudo-hemisphere' of the limbic system which is a refinement of the RAS.
>
> In neurochemical processing you move from 'bulk' chemistry to refined
> neuropeptides. Behaviourally you move from a mechanistic approach
> (reptiles
> have to move to deal with hot/cold0 through the more refined neurchemical
> approach (mammals sweat and shiver) to the even more refined
> electromagnetic
> approach (we think and create reverse cycle airconditioning).
>
> At all levels of analysis we see this refinement process but the
> fundamentals are the same, objects and relationships. Thus there is the
> suggestion that MIND emerges from feedback processes but SELF emerges from
> object biases.
>
> The blunt A OR B nature of the RAS is refined to become more discerning as
> we move up the development path but the basic characteristics remain, they
> just become more refined. Thus there is an object sense as a
> fundamental all
> the way up.
>
> > >
> > > The emotion linked to the syntax concept has been located by
> > Demasio et al.,
> > > in the left hemisphere of the brain. Thus there is a
> fundamental emotion
> > > linked to the concept of "I".
> > >
> > Emotions are generated in the limbic system, which is midbrain. I
> > own two of Damasio's books (Descartes' Error and The Feeling of
> > What Happens); please refer me to pagination for this contention.
>
> See above comments re you reading more journals. Not everything he as done
> with others is necessarily in his books. :-)
>
>
> > The linguistic system itself is rooted in Broca's area, Wernicke's
> > area, and the arcuate fasciculus which connects them across the
> > Sylvan fissure. And in lefties, this all is found in the right
> > hemisphere, as it is linked to handedness and contralateral control.
>
> No. It is linked to PRECISION. The hemisphere that is more object oriented
> and so more precise exerts control of handedness etc as well as
> footedness,
> eyeness etc etc
>
> The left hand / right hand manifests the feedback processes
> present in that
> we have at least FOUR types:
>
> PURE LEFT
> PURE RIGHT
> HOOKED LEFT
> HOOKED RIGHT
>
> Same pattern as in dominant/recessive (DD,Dr,rD,rr). The hooked forms
> suggest an entanglement of the precision bias with the other side.
>
> If you zoom in on the behavioural characteristics of the neocortical
> hemispheres you find this sort of entanglment, this the general
> characteristics of left hemisphere vs right hemisphere are found in lobe
> relationships within each hemisphere, thus the temporal/parietal lobe
> relationships mimic the more general left/right (temporal is more objects
> oriented, parietal is more relationships. LEFT is more precise, RIGHT is
> more general). Zoom in again to particular lobes and you find the SAME
> relationships in columns of neurons (e.g. the contralateral/ipsilateral
> links in the frontal lobes of BOTH hemispheres). OVerall we are
> dealing with
> a weaving of basic threads -- the WHAT thread and the WHERE thread. Refine
> these and you get who, which, when, how etc WHY is a value
> judgement and so
> should share space across both.
>
> > >
> > > This concept, being linked to that part of the brain that, in most, is
> > > biased to the assertion of precision, of 'pointedness', is
> gene based in
> > > that the fundamental distinctions at the neurological level deals with
> > > wholes and parts aka objects. Thus the concept of SELF, the
> awareness of
> > > SELF, has emerged from more reptilian thinking linked to territorial
> > > mapping. This goes as far as asserting that the concept of a
> > truth is also
> > > stemmed from territorial mapping in that an absolute truth is
> > as precise as
> > > "I".
> > >
> > Precision in elaboration of a vocabulary was preceded by precision
> > in fashioning and using tools.
>
> There is the suggestion that the use of sound led to a more developed
> quantitative precision hemisphere bias in that triangulation is
> more precise
> than our visual system. This said it has been demonstrated that the RIGHT
> hemisphere in most processes harmonics in the form of frequency patterns
> (also linked to the limbic system -- amygdala to be precise). Higher
> frequencies become more 'pointed' and the particular oriented LEFT deals
> better with these. (But dont forget the zoom functions such that
> within each
> hemisphere, at different scales, are elements of the other)
>
> Interestingly, any sounds that are UNKNOWN are initially processed by the
> RIGHT hemisphere since this hemisphere, being more relationships oriented,
> is sensitive to context checking so we have a WHAT in the right
> in the form
> of 'what is that sound? what is BEHIND it?' It is this looking BEHIND that
> emphasises the use of contextual analysis.
>
> The precision of the left is expressed in the bias to the left processing
> KNOWN sensations, those that are identified since this seems to be the
> overall function of the object hemisphere, to PRECISELY IDENTIFY.
>
> The right seems to have characteristics that are used to
> RE-IDENTIFY through
> exageration or suppression of aspects to 'bring out' something. Note that
> these are SECONDARY processes in that you must have objects before you can
> have relationships.
>
> <snip>
> > Self-awareness is permitted by the evolution of a large enough and
> > complex enough brain to breach the Godelian barrier and allow for
> > recursion, but this is a capacity which is realized only in the
> > maturation of individual humans. There is no such thing as a
> > genetically coded "self-concept" sequence.
>
> Dont be so sure :-)
>
> > >
> > > Since there is a gene based element so that element is the
> > 'root' SELF. The
> > > assertion of "I AM" stems from this in that there is no intent
> > behind this,
> > > there is just a fundamental feeling of "MINE", "ME", "ONE".
> > There is nothing
> > > else. This is like a random process where something just
> > 'happens', there is
> > > no intent. This is a PRIMARY process.
> > >
> > Intentionality and signification are dependent upon subjectivity for
> > their existence. I think that Damasio's idea of a "proto-self" is a
> > useful one, but see it as quite compatible with my memetic
> > position. To feel a self is to intend it via self-perception.
> > >
> > > The SECONDARY process is in the refinement of the expression of
> > SELF through
> > > the use of exageration and/or suppression of aspects to try
> and add some
> > > qualitative precision to the basic assertion.
> > >
> > This is the realm of the self-concept, which is indeed memetic,
> > unlike self-awareness, which is necessary for the self-concept
> > memesis, but is not itself a meme.
> > >
> > > The SECONDARY process (and this is the world of memes) works in
> > a context of
> > > total faith in the primary such that all experiences are
> deemed to have
> > > meaning. In the secondary process the concept of randomness
> > does not exist
> > > since this process is relationally biased and works on there
> > being at least
> > > TWO objects (basic one is 'me' and 'context'); the secondary
> > process works
> > > in the space in-between objects (without objects there are no
> > > relationships).
> > >
> > Randomness and order are correlatively opposite and mutually
> > defining conceptions; neither can exist without the other as a
> > specific and differentiable conception, as each derives its meaning
> > by comparison and contrast with the other.
>
> See the random material at the newer website
> http://www.eisa.net.au/~lofting
> This also gets into the
> experience of everything seeming to be meaningful.
>
> best
>
> Chris.
>
>
> ===============================================================
> This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
> Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
> For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
> see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
>
===============================================================
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Mar 25 2000 - 19:08:42 GMT