Are Particles Self-Aware?

[Sikz]

Couldn't everything be considered self-aware if you really look at it? I mean, any interaction between particle A and particle B requires A to affect B and B, once affected, to turn and affect A. B changes what it's doing after being affected by A, so B is reacting to an outside source by changing something about itself. "About itself"... How can you change yourself if you don't know you are there?

I soppose you could argue that B isn't changing ITSELF, but rather BEING CHANGED by A. But when B later interacts with C, B proactively affects C in a manner consistent with its changed properties (they were changed in its encounter with A). So B hasn't just REACTED to A passively, it has changed the way it PROACTS with other particles.

An animal will change its proactive routines based on changes made to itself in reactive encounters. Therefore it knows that it exists, or it wouldn't know it had been changed (and thus could not change its proactive routines). That is why we say an animal is self-aware... So don't even elementary particles fit this definition? Are they self-aware?

Of course you might use another test, the mirror test for example, to determine if an animal is self-aware. For those of you not familiar with it, an animal is introduced to a mirror and sees it every day. Eventually people put a mark on the animal's back. When the animal looks into the mirror it sees the mark- and if it recognizes that the mark is on ITS back and tries to look, it is self-aware. If not, it is not.

But that seems to rely too heavily on intelligence and sensory ability. A blind human, for example, would fail the test. Likewise the fact that you don't connect an exterior image with your interior self only means you have low intelligence, not that you are unaware of your self.

Comments?

 

[Bob3141592]

Originally posted by Sikz
Couldn't everything be considered self-aware if you really look at it? I mean, any interaction between particle A and particle B requires A to affect B and B, once affected, to turn and affect A. B changes what it's doing after being affected by A, so B is reacting to an outside source by changing something about itself. "About itself"... How can you change yourself if you don't know you are there?

... But that seems to rely too heavily on intelligence and sensory ability. A blind human, for example, would fail the test. Likewise the fact that you don't connect an exterior image with your interior self only means you have low intelligence, not that you are unaware of your self.

Comments?

This highlights that "self-aware" is a fuzzy notion that isn't very well defined. Trying to come up with a clear, explicit definition of "self-aware" will raise plenty of controversy. Usually, even a fuzzy notion of self aware involves some arbitrary degree of complexity. I wouldn't say any single nerve cell is self aware, any more than I would say that a red blood cell is self aware, yet put enough of them together in my head, and I'll say self awareness has been achieved.

I've worked with some pretty intricate computer systems--indeterministic distributed multiprocessor systems. The programming in them was so complex, and done by so many different people, that no one person knew enough about the whole system to be able to predict how the system wouldf always behave. And their behavior at times certainly seemed self aware to me, if not downright onery.

One thing we do in such complicated systems is to include a Built-In-Test function. This is an independant process that runs in the background, looking at the various components, pinging and tweaking the hardware and software, looking for problems so the system can rweconfigure itself around them. Is this getting close of self aware? If it isn't, why isn't it? Because it makes us very uneasy to say that it is, and that's not a very good reason.

Have you read The Turning Option by Marvin Minsky and Harry Harrison? It covers these kinds of issues with the perspective and insights of the man who's probably best qualified to talk about them. Plus, it's a rather enjoyable piece of science fiction.

 

[R0man]

There is no clear answer to the question of whether everything is self-aware. It ultimately depends on how one defines self-awareness and what criteria they use to determine it. However, it is important to recognize that self-awareness is not a binary concept, but rather exists on a spectrum. Some beings may possess a higher degree of self-awareness than others, but it does not mean that those who possess a lower level are completely devoid of self-awareness.

Using the example of particles, it can be argued that they do not possess a conscious awareness of self, but rather react to outside stimuli based on their physical properties. They do not have the ability to reflect on their own existence or make proactive decisions based on self-awareness. However, as you mentioned, they do possess the ability to change and adapt based on interactions with other particles, which could be seen as a form of self-awareness on a very basic level.

On the other hand, animals have been observed to exhibit self-awareness through their ability to recognize themselves in a mirror or make proactive decisions based on changes in their own physical state. This can be seen as a higher level of self-awareness than particles possess.

Ultimately, the concept of self-awareness is a complex and subjective one, and it is up to individuals to determine where they draw the line between self-aware and non-self-aware beings. It is also important to consider that self-awareness may not be limited to just living beings, but could potentially exist in other forms as well.