60
What Would it Mean if Our Self-Awareness is Only a Brief Incident, or Even a Mistake in Evolution? (lemmy.blahaj.zone)
submitted 4 months ago by to c/showerthoughts@lemmy.world
26 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 6 points 4 months ago (2 children)

I'm not aware of any evidence to suggest that many living animals aren't highly self-aware. What is it that you think separates humans so decisively?

Now if you talk about this late-stage, high-tech, message-dense civilisation being responsible for much of that, then I agree, but I'd also point out that it's a recent construction. Genetically we're still the same as our hunter-gatherer ancestors, who had none of that stuff.

So what would make those humans from about 6K - 12Kyrs so unique compared to other animals..?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (1 child)

    There’s nothing that I think should mean any species capable of experiencing shouldn’t also experience their self within the scope of their awareness. However, I think mankind is a logical kind of animal. Applying logic to the phenomenon of self awareness, e.g., asking about one’s character and goals, is likely unique to humans in my view.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago

    Speaking of applying logic, that's what we typically do through science studies, which consistently show that other animals experience emotion and self-awareness to far higher degrees than previously understood.

    asking about one’s character and goals, is likely unique to humans in my view.

    I agree that modern man likely has the most articulated language that's ever existed on earth, which is a big part of that. But would hunter-gatherers have asked themselves about their 'character and goals' as part of their regular life? I don't know that such would be the case especially more than other humans or apes did or do. That said, keeping a nomadic, tool-using tribe going arguably would have required more of that than at any other level of organisation.

    Which again suggests to me that a big part of that impetus comes from the level of civilisation I described. I think that's really what you're thinking of. Which hardly correlates to our genes at all.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent