How do you define a relative self?

[Xonas Pitfall]

To clarify, I'm talking about the relative self (lowercase self), not the total Self or total consciousness.

I feel like there's a lot of debate around questions such as: "Is a fetus conscious?" "Are animals conscious?" "Could AI develop consciousness? If not through electronic hardware, what about AI built using organoids or biological neurons (wetware)?", "When does a baby or child become conscious?" "When was the first time you felt your relative self or ego forming?"

When would you say a relative self, ego, or sense of "I" forms, and why/how?

Is it dependent on specific areas of the human brain, or is it more about higher-order complexity, information processing, and the capacity for self-reflection?

For example, let's say you could connect a fly's brain to a second brain that significantly increases its processing power, memory, and capacity for self-reflection. Would the fly then develop a sense of "I"? Would it become self-aware in a way it wasn't before?

How would you even create, define, or measure that?

I'd be really curious to hear people's thoughts on this! 

[integral]

AI is a P-zombie. 

It's behaviorally identical to a human but completely lacks phenomenal experience.

A calculator does not experience 2+2 = 4 when you hit enter.

I suspect human experience is the brain drawing all of its senses onto a screen And it uses tricks of memory to create continuity, object permanence and time. 

Quote

For example, let's say you could connect a fly's brain to a second brain that significantly increases its processing power, memory, and capacity for self-reflection. Would the fly then develop a sense of "I"? Would it become self-aware in a way it wasn't before?

The fly is experiencing something. Self awareness is not necessary for experience.

Edited 8 hours ago by integral

[cetus]

21 minutes ago, Xonas Pitfall said:

When would you say a relative self, ego, or sense of "I" forms, and why/how?

You could write a book on that one. But I will say, of course, it doesn't happen overnight.

Why? Self-preservation. Survival. Natural instinct.

[kavaris]

The relative is the total self. Thats why the paradox is possible, thats why everything feels this way of like, a rise in some more complex. We are communicating, tlkin, tryina conjure up wtf this is, and we are mistaking complexity of nature w/ The Self (Period... or wat weve imagined it to be....) Alas, that is what gives it a sense of like "Why is life like this, why am i the thing looking out at the thing", Like... That is itself *what it is*. Its a freaky self thing. The fact that we interact w/ things comes w/ perception as the main thing, and not "a primary self, a secondary nature, etc, etc" Like its all just Self, period. The complexity happens within the self. Nature is just what Complexity w/ a /C/ happens to be lookin like right now.

Edited 5 hours ago by kavaris

[kavaris]

Quote

How would you even create, define...

Exactly. Id say dont try it, as youd be imaginging *what measuring is* and then predicating the nature of everything on the ability to measure and receive results. Like, its a world of reimagining is all, and thats the question id go to first for practicality, like "what is it then to imagine" typeve things. Or just "What is imagination", not that its the best place to jump off from, but its the best least best least or whatever.

Edited 4 hours ago by kavaris