Detail depicting Averroes, who addressed the omnipotence paradox in the 12th century, from the 14th-century Triunfo de Santo Tomás by Andrea da Firenze (di Bonaiuto)
The omnipotence paradox is a family of paradoxes that arise with some understandings of the term omnipotent.
The paradox arises, for example, if one assumes that an omnipotent
being has no limits and is capable of realizing any outcome, even
logically contradictory one such as creating a square circle. A
no-limits understanding of omnipotence such as this has been rejected by
theologians from Thomas Aquinas to contemporary philosophers of religion, such as Alvin Plantinga. Atheological arguments based on the omnipotence paradox are sometimes described as evidence for atheism, though Christian theologians and philosophers, such as Norman Geisler and William Lane Craig,
contend that a no-limits understanding of omnipotence is not relevant
to orthodox Christian theology. Other possible resolutions to the
paradox hinge on the definition of omnipotence applied and the nature of
God regarding this application and whether omnipotence is directed
toward God himself or outward toward his external surroundings.
The omnipotence paradox has medieval origins, dating at least to the 12th century. It was addressed by Averroës and later by Thomas Aquinas. Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite (before 532) has a predecessor version of the paradox, asking whether it is possible for God to "deny himself".
The most well-known version of the omnipotence paradox is the so-called paradox of the stone: "Could God create a stone so heavy that even He could not lift it?" This phrasing of the omnipotence paradox is vulnerable to objections based on the physical nature of gravity, such as how the weight
of an object depends on what the local gravitational field is.
Alternative statements of the paradox that do not involve such
difficulties include "If given the axioms of Euclidean geometry, can an
omnipotent being create a triangle whose angles do not add up to 180
degrees?" and "Can God create a prison so secure that he cannot escape
from it?".
Overview
A
common modern version of the omnipotence paradox is expressed in the
question: "Can [an omnipotent being] create a stone so heavy that it
cannot lift it?" This question generates a dilemma. The being can either
create a stone it cannot lift, or it cannot create a stone it cannot
lift. If the being can create a stone that it cannot lift, then
it is not omnipotent because there is a weight threshold beyond its own
power to lift. If the being cannot create a stone it cannot
lift, then there is something it cannot create, and is therefore not
omnipotent. In either case, the being is not omnipotent.
A related issue is whether the concept of "logically possible" is
different for a world in which omnipotence exists than a world in which
omnipotence does not exist.
The dilemma of omnipotence is similar to another classic paradox—the irresistible force paradox:
"What would happen if an irresistible force were to meet an immovable
object?" One response to this paradox is to disallow its formulation, by
saying that if a force is irresistible, then by definition there is no
immovable object; or conversely, if an immovable object exists, then by
definition no force can be irresistible. Some claim
that the only way out of this paradox is if the irresistible force and
immovable object never meet. But this is not a way out, because an
object cannot in principle be immovable if a force exists that can in
principle move it, regardless of whether the force and the object
actually meet.
Types of omnipotence
Peter Geach describes and rejects four levels of omnipotence. He also defines and defends a lesser notion of the "almightiness" of God.
"Y is absolutely omnipotent" means that "Y" can do anything that can be expressed in a string of words even if it is self-contradictory: "Y" is not bound by the laws of logic."
"Y is omnipotent" means "Y can do X" is true if and only if X is a logically consistent description of a state of affairs. This position was once advocated by Thomas Aquinas.
This definition of omnipotence solves some of the paradoxes associated
with omnipotence, but some modern formulations of the paradox still work
against this definition. Let X = "to make something that its maker
cannot lift." As Mavrodes points out, there is nothing logically contradictory about this. A man could, for example, make a boat that he could not lift.
"Y is omnipotent" means "Y can do X" is true if and only if
"Y does X" is logically consistent. Here the idea is to exclude actions
that are inconsistent for Y to do but might be consistent for others.
Again sometimes it looks as if Aquinas takes this position.
Here Mavrodes' worry about X= "to make something its maker cannot lift"
is no longer a problem, because "God does X" is not logically
consistent. However, this account may still have problems with moral
issues like X = "tells a lie" or temporal issues like X = "brings it
about that Rome was never founded."
"Y is omnipotent" means whenever "Y will bring about X" is
logically possible, then "Y can bring about X" is true. This sense, also
does not allow the paradox of omnipotence to arise, and unlike
definition #3 avoids any temporal worries about whether an omnipotent
being could change the past. However, Geach criticizes even this sense
of omnipotence as misunderstanding the nature of God's promises.
"Y is almighty" means that Y is not just more powerful than any creature; no creature can compete with Y in power, even unsuccessfully.
In this account nothing like the omnipotence paradox arises, but
perhaps that is because God is not taken to be in any sense omnipotent.
On the other hand, Anselm of Canterbury seems to think that almightiness is one of the things that make God count as omnipotent.
Augustine of Hippo in his City of God writes "God is called omnipotent on account of His doing what He wills" and thus proposes the definition that "Y is omnipotent" means "If Y wishes to do X then Y can and does do X".
The notion of omnipotence can also be applied to an entity in different ways. An essentially omnipotent being is an entity that is necessarily omnipotent. In contrast, an accidentally omnipotent
being is an entity that can be omnipotent for a temporary period of
time, and then becomes non-omnipotent. The omnipotence paradox can be
applied to each type of being differently.
Some Philosophers, such as René Descartes, argue that God is absolutely omnipotent. In addition, some philosophers have considered the assumption that a being is either omnipotent or non-omnipotent to be a false dilemma, as it neglects the possibility of varying degrees of omnipotence. Some modern approaches to the problem have involved semantic debates over whether language—and therefore philosophy—can meaningfully address the concept of omnipotence itself.
Proposed answers
Omnipotence does not mean breaking the laws of logic
A common response from Christian philosophers, such as Norman Geisler or William Lane Craig, is that the paradox assumes a wrong definition of omnipotence. Omnipotence, they say, does not mean that God can do anything at all but, rather, that he can do anything that is possible according to his nature.
The distinction is important. God cannot perform logical absurdities;
he cannot, for instance, make 1+1=3. Likewise, God cannot make a being
greater than himself because he is, by definition, the greatest possible
being. God is limited in his actions to his nature. The Bible supports
this, they assert, in passages such as Hebrews 6:18, which says it is
"impossible for God to lie."
Another common response to the omnipotence paradox is to try to define
omnipotence to mean something weaker than absolute omnipotence, such as
definition 3 or 4 above. The paradox can be resolved by simply
stipulating that omnipotence does not require that the being have
abilities that are logically impossible, but only be able to do anything
that conforms to the laws of logic. A good example of a modern defender
of this line of reasoning is George Mavrodes.
Essentially, Mavrodes argues that it is no limitation on a being's
omnipotence to say that it cannot make a round square. Such a "task" is
termed by him a "pseudo-task" as it is self-contradictory and inherently
nonsense. Harry Frankfurt—following
from Descartes—has responded to this solution with a proposal of his
own: that God can create a stone impossible to lift and also lift said
stone
For why should God not be able to perform the
task in question? To be sure, it is a task—the task of lifting a stone
which He cannot lift—whose description is self-contradictory. But if God
is supposed capable of performing one task whose description is
self-contradictory—that of creating the problematic stone in the first
place—why should He not be supposed capable of performing another—that
of lifting the stone? After all, is there any greater trick in
performing two logically impossible tasks than there is in performing
one?
If a being is accidentally omnipotent, it can resolve the
paradox by creating a stone it cannot lift, thereby becoming
non-omnipotent. Unlike essentially omnipotent entities, it is possible
for an accidentally omnipotent being to be non-omnipotent. This raises
the question, however, of whether the being was ever truly omnipotent,
or just capable of great power.
On the other hand, the ability to voluntarily give up great power is
often thought of as central to the notion of the Christian Incarnation.
If a being is essentially omnipotent, then it can also
resolve the paradox (as long as we take omnipotence not to require
absolute omnipotence). The omnipotent being is essentially omnipotent,
and therefore it is impossible for it to be non-omnipotent. Further, the
omnipotent being can do what is logically impossible—just like the
accidentally omnipotent—and have no limitations except the inability to
become non-omnipotent. The omnipotent being cannot create a stone it
cannot lift.
The omnipotent being cannot create such a stone because its power is
equal to itself—thus, removing the omnipotence, for there can only be
one omnipotent being, but it nevertheless retains its omnipotence. This
solution works even with definition 2—as long as we also know the being
is essentially omnipotent rather than accidentally so. However, it is
possible for non-omnipotent beings to compromise their own powers, which
presents the paradox that non-omnipotent beings can do something (to
themselves) which an essentially omnipotent being cannot do (to itself).
This was essentially the position Augustine of Hippo took in his The City of God:
For
He is called omnipotent on account of His doing what He wills, not on
account of His suffering what He wills not; for if that should befall
Him, He would by no means be omnipotent. Wherefore, He cannot do some
things for the very reason that He is omnipotent.
Thus Augustine argued that God could not do anything or create any situation that would, in effect, make God not God.
In a 1955 article in the philosophy journal Mind, J. L. Mackie
tried to resolve the paradox by distinguishing between first-order
omnipotence (unlimited power to act) and second-order omnipotence
(unlimited power to determine what powers to act things shall have).
An omnipotent being with both first and second-order omnipotence at a
particular time might restrict its own power to act and, henceforth,
cease to be omnipotent in either sense. There has been considerable
philosophical dispute since Mackie, as to the best way to formulate the
paradox of omnipotence in formal logic.
God and logic
Although the most common translation of the noun "Logos" is
"Word" other translations have been used. Gordon Clark (1902–1985), a
Calvinist theologian and expert on pre-Socratic philosophy, famously
translated Logos as "Logic": "In the beginning was the Logic, and the
Logic was with God and the Logic was God." He meant to imply by this
translation that the laws of logic were derived from God and formed part
of Creation, and were therefore not a secular principle imposed on the
Christian world view.
God obeys the laws of logic because God is
eternally logical in the same way that God does not perform evil actions
because God is eternally good. So, God, by nature logical and unable to
violate the laws of logic, cannot make a boulder so heavy he cannot
lift it because that would violate the law of non contradiction by creating an immovable object and an unstoppable force.
This raises the question, similar to the Euthyphro Dilemma, of where this law of logic, which God is bound to obey, comes from. According to these theologians (Norman Geisler and William Lane Craig), this law is not a law above God that he assents to but, rather, logic is an eternal part of God's nature, like his omniscience or omnibenevolence.
Paradox is meaningless: the question is sophistry
Another
common response is that since God is supposedly omnipotent, the phrase
"could not lift" does not make sense and the paradox is meaningless.
This may mean that the complexity involved in rightly understanding
omnipotence—contra all the logical details involved in misunderstanding
it—is a function of the fact that omnipotence, like infinity, is
perceived at all by contrasting reference to those complex and variable
things, which it is not. An alternative meaning, however, is that
a non-corporeal God cannot lift anything, but can raise it (a
linguistic pedantry)—or to use the beliefs of Hindus (that there is one
God, who can be manifest as several different beings) that whilst it is
possible for God to do all things, it is not possible for all his
incarnations to do them. As such, God could create a stone so heavy
that, in one incarnation, he could not lift it, yet could do something
that an incarnation that could lift the stone could not.
The lifting a rock paradox (Can God lift a stone larger than he can carry?)
uses human characteristics to cover up the main skeletal structure of
the question. With these assumptions made, two arguments can stem from
it:
Lifting covers up the definition of translation, which means moving something from one point in space to another. With this in mind, the real question would be, "Can God move a rock from one location in space to another that is larger than possible?"
For the rock to be unable to move from one space to another, it would
have to be larger than space itself. However, it is impossible for a
rock to be larger than space, as space always adjusts itself to cover
the space of the rock. If the supposed rock was out of space-time
dimension, then the question would not make sense—because it would be
impossible to move an object from one location in space to another if
there is no space to begin with, meaning the faulting is with the logic
of the question and not God's capabilities.
The words, "Lift a Stone" are used instead to substitute capability.
With this in mind, essentially the question is asking if God is
incapable, so the real question would be, "Is God capable of being incapable?"
If God is capable of being incapable, it means that He is incapable,
because He has the potential to not be able to do something. Conversely,
if God is incapable of being incapable, then the two inabilities cancel
each other out, making God have the capability to do something.
The act of killing oneself is not applicable to an omnipotent being,
since, despite that such an act does involve some power, it also
involves a lack of power: the human person who can kill himself
is already not indestructible, and, in fact, every agent constituting
his environment is more powerful in some ways than himself. In other
words, all non-omnipotent agents are concretely synthetic:
constructed as contingencies of other, smaller, agents, meaning that
they, unlike an omnipotent agent, logically can exist not only in
multiple instantiation (by being constructed out of the more basic
agents they are made of), but are each bound to a different location in
space contra transcendent omnipresence.
Thomas Aquinas
asserts that the paradox arises from a misunderstanding of omnipotence.
He maintains that inherent contradictions and logical impossibilities
do not fall under the omnipotence of God. J. L Cowan sees this paradox as a reason to reject the concept of 'absolute' omnipotence, while others, such as René Descartes, argue that God is absolutely omnipotent, despite the problem.
C. S. Lewis
argues that when talking about omnipotence, referencing "a rock so
heavy that God cannot lift it" is nonsense just as much as referencing
"a square circle"; that it is not logically coherent in terms of power
to think that omnipotence includes the power to do the logically
impossible. So asking "Can God create a rock so heavy that even he
cannot lift it?" is just as much nonsense as asking "Can God draw a
square circle?" The logical contradiction here being God's simultaneous
ability and disability in lifting the rock: the statement "God can lift
this rock" must have a truth value of either true or false, it cannot
possess both. This is justified by observing that for the omnipotent
agent to create such a stone, it must already be more powerful than
itself: such a stone is too heavy for the omnipotent agent to lift, but
the omnipotent agent already can create such a stone; If an omnipotent
agent already is more powerful than itself, then it already is just that
powerful. This means that its power to create a stone that is too heavy
for it to lift is identical to its power to lift that very stone. While
this does not quite make complete sense, Lewis wished to stress its
implicit point: that even within the attempt to prove that the concept
of omnipotence is immediately incoherent, one admits that it is
immediately coherent, and that the only difference is that this attempt
is forced to admit this despite that the attempt is constituted by a
perfectly irrational route to its own unwilling end, with a perfectly
irrational set of 'things' included in that end.
In other words, the 'limit' on what omnipotence 'can' do is not a limit on its actual agency, but an epistemological boundary without which omnipotence could not be identified (paradoxically or otherwise) in the first place. In fact, this process is merely a fancier form of the classic Liar Paradox:
If I say, "I am a liar", then how can it be true if I am telling the
truth therewith, and, if I am telling the truth therewith, then how can I
be a liar? So, to think that omnipotence is an epistemological
paradox is like failing to recognize that, when taking the statement, 'I
am a liar' self-referentially, the statement is reduced to an actual
failure to lie. In other words, if one maintains the supposedly
'initial' position that the necessary conception of omnipotence includes
the 'power' to compromise both itself and all other identity, and if
one concludes from this position that omnipotence is epistemologically
incoherent, then one implicitly is asserting that one's own 'initial'
position is incoherent. Therefore, the question (and therefore the
perceived paradox) is meaningless. Nonsense does not suddenly acquire
sense and meaning with the addition of the two words, "God can" before
it.
Lewis additionally said that, "Unless something is self-evident,
nothing can be proved." This implies for the debate on omnipotence that,
as in matter, so in the human understanding of truth: it takes no
true insight to destroy a perfectly integrated structure, and the effort
to destroy has greater effect than an equal effort to build; so, a man
is thought a fool who assumes its integrity, and thought an abomination
who argues for it. It is easier to teach a fish to swim in outer space
than to convince a room full of ignorant fools why it cannot be done.
Language and omnipotence
The philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein
is frequently interpreted as arguing that language is not up to the
task of describing the kind of power an omnipotent being would have. In
his Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, he stays generally within the realm of logical positivism until claim 6.4—but at 6.41 and following, he argues that ethics
and several other issues are "transcendental" subjects that we cannot
examine with language. Wittgenstein also mentions the will, life after
death, and God—arguing that, "When the answer cannot be put into words,
neither can the question be put into words."
Wittgenstein's work expresses the omnipotence paradox as a problem in semantics—the
study of how we give symbols meaning. (The retort "That's only
semantics," is a way of saying that a statement only concerns the
definitions of words, instead of anything important in the physical
world.) According to the Tractatus, then, even attempting to
formulate the omnipotence paradox is futile, since language cannot refer
to the entities the paradox considers. The final proposition of the Tractatus gives Wittgenstein's dictum for these circumstances: "What we cannot speak of, we must pass over in silence".
Wittgenstein's approach to these problems is influential among other 20th century religious thinkers such as D. Z. Phillips. In his later years, however, Wittgenstein wrote works often interpreted as conflicting with his positions in the Tractatus, and indeed the later Wittgenstein is mainly seen as the leading critic of the early Wittgenstein.
Other versions of the paradox
In the 6th century, Pseudo-Dionysius
claims that a version of the omnipotence paradox constituted the
dispute between Paul the Apostle and Elymas the Magician mentioned in Acts 13:8, but it is phrased in terms of a debate as to whether God can "deny himself" ala 2 Tim 2:13. In the 11th century, Anselm of Canterbury argues that there are many things that God cannot do, but that nonetheless he counts as omnipotent.
Thomas Aquinas
advanced a version of the omnipotence paradox by asking whether God
could create a triangle with internal angles that did not add up to 180
degrees. As Aquinas put it in Summa contra Gentiles:
Since the principles of certain
sciences, such as logic, geometry and arithmetic are taken only from the
formal principles of things, on which the essence of the thing depends,
it follows that God could not make things contrary to these principles.
For example, that a genus was not predicable of the species, or that
lines drawn from the centre to the circumference were not equal, or that
a triangle did not have three angles equal to two right angles.
This can be done on a sphere, and not on a flat surface. The later invention of non-Euclidean geometry does not resolve this question; for one might as well ask, "If given the axioms of Riemannian geometry, can an omnipotent being create a triangle whose angles do not add up to more
than 180 degrees?" In either case, the real question is whether an
omnipotent being would have the ability to evade consequences that
follow logically from a system of axioms that the being created.
A version of the paradox can also be seen in non-theological contexts. A similar problem occurs when accessing legislative or parliamentary sovereignty,
which holds a specific legal institution to be omnipotent in legal
power, and in particular such an institution's ability to regulate
itself.
In a sense, the classic statement of the omnipotence paradox — a
rock so heavy that its omnipotent creator cannot lift it — is grounded
in Aristotelian
science. After all, if we consider the stone's position relative to the
sun the planet orbits around, one could hold that the stone is constantly
lifted—strained though that interpretation would be in the present
context. Modern physics indicates that the choice of phrasing about
lifting stones should relate to acceleration; however, this does not in
itself of course invalidate the fundamental concept of the generalized
omnipotence paradox. However, one could easily modify the classic
statement as follows: "An omnipotent being creates a universe
that follows the laws of Aristotelian physics. Within this universe,
can the omnipotent being create a stone so heavy that the being cannot
lift it?"
Ethan Allen's Reason addresses the topics of original sin, theodicy and several others in classic Enlightenment fashion.
In Chapter 3, section IV, he notes that "omnipotence itself" could not
exempt animal life from mortality, since change and death are defining
attributes of such life. He argues, "the one cannot be without the
other, any more than there could be a compact number of mountains
without valleys, or that I could exist and not exist at the same time,
or that God should effect any other contradiction in nature." Labeled by
his friends a Deist, Allen accepted the notion of a divine being, though throughout Reason he argues that even a divine being must be circumscribed by logic.
In Principles of Philosophy,Descartes
tried refuting the existence of atoms with a variation of this
argument, claiming God could not create things so indivisible that he
could not divide them.
Higher consciousness is the consciousness of a god or "the part of the human mind that is capable of transcending animal instincts". While the concept has ancient roots, dating back to the Bhagavad Gita and Indian Vedas, it was significantly developed in German idealism, and is a central notion in contemporary popular spirituality, including the New Age movement.
Fichte distinguished the finite or empirical ego from the pure or
infinite ego. The activity of this "pure ego" can be discovered by a
"higher intuition".
According to Michael Whiteman, Fichte's philosophical system "is a remarkable western formulation of eastern mystical teachings (of Advaita)."
Schopenhauer
In 1812 Arthur Schopenhauer started to use the term "the better consciousness", a consciousness
...[that] lies beyond all experience and thus all reason, both theoretical and practical (instinct).
According to Yasuo Kamata, Schopenhauer's idea of "the better
consciousness" finds its origin in Fichte's idea of a "higher
consciousness" (höhere Bewusstsein) or "higher intuition", and also bears resemblance to Schelling's notion of "intellectual intuition".
According to Schopenhauer himself, his notion of a "better
consciousness" was different from Schelling's notion of "intellectual
intuition", since Schelling's notion required intellectual development
of the understanding, while his notion of a "better consciousness" was
"like a flash of insight, with no connection to the understanding."
According to Schopenhauer,
The better consciousness in me
lifts me into a world where there is no longer personality and causality
or subject or object. My hope and my belief is that this better
(supersensible and extra-temporal) consciousness will become my only
one, and for that reason I hope that it is not God. But if anyone wants
to use the expression God symbolically for the better
consciousness itself or for much that we are able to separate or name,
so let it be, yet not among philosophers I would have thought.
Main types
Different
types of higher states of consciousness can arise individually or in
various combinations. The list of known types of higher states of
consciousness:
modified states of consciousness, achieved with the help of meditative psychotechnics;
optimal experience and the “flow” state;
euphoria of a runner;
lucid dreaming;
out-of-body experience;
near-death experience;
mystical experience (sometimes regarded as the highest of all higher states of consciousness) Revonsuo, A. (2009). Exceptional States of Consciousness. San Diego: Academic Press. p. 1034 p. ISBN978-0-12-373873-8.
Religion
Faiths
The concept of higher consciousness is pervasive in religion. The earliest historical mention is in the Sanskrit Hindu texts, the Upanishads.
Schleiermacher
Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768-1834) made a distinction between lower and higher (self) consciousness.
In Schleirmacher's theology, self-consciousness contains "a feeling
that points to the presence of an absolute other, God, as actively
independent of the self and its 'world'."
For Schleiermacher, "all particular manifestations of piety share a
common essence, the sense of dependency on God as the outside
'infinite'." The feeling of dependency, or "God-consciousness", is a higher form of consciousness. This consciousness is not "God himself", since God would then no longer be "an infinite infinite, but a finite infinite, a mere projection of consciousness."
For Schleiermacher, the lower consciousness is "the animal part
of mankind", which includes basic sensations such as hunger, thirst,
pain and pleasure, as well as basic drives and pleasures, and higher consciousness is "the part of the human being that is capable of transcending animal instincts", and the "point of contact with God". Bunge describes this as "the essence of being human".
When this consciousness is present, "people are not alienated from God by their instincts". The relation between the lower and the higher consciousness is akin to "Paul's struggle of the spirit to overcome the flesh", or the distinction between the natural and the spiritual side of human beings.
19th century movements
The idea of a "wider self walled in by the habits of ego-consciousness" and the search for a "higher consciousness" was manifested in 19th century movements as TheosophyNew ThoughtChristian Science, and Transcendentalism.
The 19th century Transcendentalists saw the entire physical world as a representation of a higher spiritual world.
They believed that humans could elevate themselves above their animal
instincts, attain a higher consciousness, and partake in this spiritual
world.
According to Blavatsky, who founded the Theosophical Movement,
By that higher intuition acquired
by Theosophia - or God-knowledge, which carried the mind from the world
of form into that of formless spirit, man has been sometimes enabled in
every age and every country to perceive things in the interior or
invisible world.
Blavatsky refers to Fichte in her explanation of Theosophy:
Theosophy [...] prompted such men
as Hegel, Fichte and Spinoza to take up the labors of the old Grecian
philosophers and speculate upon the One Substance - the Deity, the
Divine All proceeding from the Divine Wisdom - incomprehensible, unknown
and unnamed.
Modern spirituality
The idea of "lower" and "higher consciousness" has gained popularity in modern popular spirituality. According to James Beverley, it lies at the heart of the New Age movement.
Ken Wilber
has tried to integrate eastern and western models of the mind, using
the notion of "lower" and "higher consciousness". In his book The Spectrum of Consciousness
Wilber describes consciousness as a spectrum with ordinary awareness at
one end, and more profound types of awareness at higher levels.
In later works he describes the development of consciousness as a
development from lower consciousness, through personal consciousness, to
higher transpersonal consciousness.
Cognitive science
Gerald Edelman, in his 'Theory of Consciousness', distinguishes higher consciousness, or "secondary consciousness" from "primary consciousness",
defined as simple awareness that includes perception and emotion.
Higher consciousness in contrast, "involves the ability to be conscious
of being conscious", and "allows the recognition by a thinking subject
of his or her own acts and affections". Higher consciousness requires,
at a minimal level semantic
ability, and "in its most developed form, requires linguistic ability,
or the mastery of a whole system of symbols and a grammar".
Psychotropics
Psychedelic drugs can be used to alter the brain cognition and
perception, some believing this to be a state of higher consciousness
and transcendence. Typical psychedelic drugs are hallucinogens including LSD, DMT, cannabis, peyote, and psilocybin mushrooms.
According to Wolfson, these drug-induced altered states of
consciousness may result in a more long-term and positive transformation
of self.
According to Dutta, psychedelic drugs may be used for psychoanalytic therapy,
as a means to gain access to the higher consciousness, thereby
providing patients the ability to access memories that are held deep
within their mind.
The Painter and the Buyer (1565). In this drawing by Pieter Brueghel the Elder, the painter is thought to be a self-portrait.
In philosophy of self, self-awareness is the experience of one's own personality or individuality. It is not to be confused with consciousness in the sense of qualia.
While consciousness is being aware of one's environment and body and
lifestyle, self-awareness is the recognition of that awareness. Self-awareness is how an individual consciously knows and understands their own character, feelings, motives, and desires. There are two broad categories of self-awareness: internal self-awareness and external self-awareness.
Neurobiological basis
Introduction
There are questions regarding what part of the brain allows us to be self-aware and how we are biologically programmed to be self-aware. V.S. Ramachandran has speculated that mirror neurons may provide the neurological basis of human self-awareness. In an essay written for the Edge Foundation in 2009, Ramachandran gave the following explanation of his theory:
"... I also speculated that these neurons can not only help simulate
other people's behavior but can be turned 'inward'—as it were—to create
second-order representations or meta-representations of your own
earlier brain processes. This could be the neural basis of
introspection, and of the reciprocity of self awareness and other
awareness. There is obviously a chicken-or-egg question here as to which
evolved first, but... The main point is that the two co-evolved,
mutually enriching each other to create the mature representation of
self that characterizes modern humans."
Health
In health
and medicine, body-awareness is a construct that refers to a person's
overall ability to direct their focus on various internal sensations
accurately. Both proprioception and interoception allow individuals to be consciously aware of various sensations. Proprioception allows individuals and patients to focus on sensations in their muscles and joints, posture, and balance, while interoception
is used to determine sensations of the internal organs, such as
fluctuating heartbeat, respiration, lung pain, or satiety. Over-acute
body-awareness, under-acute body-awareness, and distorted body-awareness
are symptoms present in a variety of health disorders and conditions,
such as obesity, anorexia nervosa, and chronic joint pain. For example, a distorted perception of satiety present in a patient suffering from anorexia nervosa
Human development
Bodily
self-awareness in human development refers to one's awareness of their
body as a physical object, with physical properties, that can interact
with other objects. Tests have shown that at the age of only a few
months old, toddlers are already aware of the relationship between the
proprioceptive and visual information they receive. This is called first-person self-awareness.
At around 18 months old and later, children begin to develop
reflective self-awareness, which is the next stage of bodily awareness
and involves children recognizing themselves in reflections, mirrors,
and pictures.
Children who have not obtained this stage of bodily self-awareness yet
will tend to view reflections of themselves as other children and
respond accordingly, as if they were looking at someone else face to
face. In contrast, those who have reached this level of awareness will
recognize that they see themselves, for instance seeing dirt on their
face in the reflection and then touching their own face to wipe it off.
Slightly after toddlers become reflectively self-aware, they
begin to develop the ability to recognize their bodies as physical
objects in time and space that interact and impact other objects. For
instance, a toddler placed on a blanket, when asked to hand someone the
blanket, will recognize that they need to get off it to be able to lift
it. This is the final stage of body self-awareness and is called objective self-awareness.
Non-human animals
The mirror test is a simple measure of self-awareness.
Studies have been done mainly on primates to test if self-awareness is present. Apes, monkeys, elephants, and dolphins
have been studied most frequently. The most relevant studies to this
day that represent self-awareness in animals have been done on chimpanzees, dolphins, and magpies. Self-awareness in animals is tested through mirror self-recognition.
Animals that show mirror self-recognition undergo four stages:
social response,
physical mirror inspection,
repetitive mirror testing behavior, and
the mark test, which involves the animals spontaneously touching a
mark on their body which would have been difficult to see without the
mirror.
David DeGrazia
states that there are three types of self-awareness in animals; the
first being, bodily self-awareness. This sense of awareness allows
animals to understand that they are different from the rest of the
environment; it is also the reason why animals do not eat themselves.
Bodily-awareness also includes proprioception and sensation.
The second type of self-awareness in animals is social self-awareness.
This type of awareness is seen in highly social animals and is the
awareness that they have a role within themselves in order to survive.
This type of awareness allows animals to interact with each other. The
final type of self-awareness is introspective awareness. This awareness
is responsible for animals to understand feelings, desires, and beliefs.
The red-spot technique created and experimented by Gordon G. Gallup
studies self-awareness in animals (primates). In this technique, a red
odorless spot is placed on an anesthetized primate's forehead. The spot
is placed on the forehead so that it can only be seen through a mirror.
Once the individual awakens, independent movements toward the spot after
seeing their reflection in a mirror are observed. During the red-spot
technique, after looking in the mirror, chimpanzees used their fingers
to touch the red dot that was on their forehead and, after touching the
red dot they would even smell their fingertips.
"Animals that can recognize themselves in mirrors can conceive of
themselves," says Gallup. Another prime example are elephants. Three
elephants were exposed to large mirrors where experimenters studied the
reaction when the elephants saw their reflection. These elephants were
given the "litmus mark test" in order to see whether they were aware of
what they were looking at. This visible mark was applied on the
elephants and the researchers reported a large progress with
self-awareness. The elephants shared this success rate with other
animals such as monkeys and dolphins.
Chimpanzees and other apes – species which have been studied
extensively – compare the most to humans with the most convincing
findings and straightforward evidence in the relativity of
self-awareness in animals so far. Dolphins were put to a similar test and achieved the same results. Diana Reiss, a psycho-biologist at the New York Aquarium discovered that bottlenose dolphins can recognize themselves in mirrors.
Researchers also used the mark test or mirror test to study the magpie's self-awareness. As a majority of birds are blind below the beak, Prior et al.
marked the birds’ neck with three different colors: red, yellow, and
black (as an imitation, as magpies are originally black). When placed in
front of a mirror, the birds with the red and yellow spots began
scratching at their necks, signaling the understanding of something
different being on their bodies. During one trial with a mirror and a
mark, three out of the five magpies showed a minimum of one example of
self-directed behavior. The magpies explored the mirror by moving toward
it and looking behind it. One of the magpies, Harvey, during several
trials would pick up objects, pose, do some wing-flapping, all in front
of the mirror with the objects in his beak. This represents a sense of
self-awareness; knowing what is going on within himself and in the
present. The authors suggest that self-recognition in birds and mammals
may be a case of convergent evolution, where similar evolutionary pressures result in similar behaviors or traits, although they arrive at them via different routes.
A few slight occurrences of behavior towards the magpie's own
body happened in the trial with the black mark and the mirror. It is
assumed in this study that the black mark may have been slightly visible on the black feathers. Prior et al.
stated, "This is an indirect support for the interpretation that the
behavior towards the mark region was elicited by seeing the own body in
the mirror in conjunction with an unusual spot on the body."
The behaviors of the magpies clearly contrasted with no mirror
present. In the no-mirror trials, a non-reflective gray plate of the
same size and in the same position as the mirror was swapped in. There
were not any mark directed self-behaviors when the mark was present, in
color, or in black. Prior's et al. data quantitatively matches the findings in chimpanzees. In summary of the mark test, the results show that magpies understand that a mirror image represents their own body; magpies show to have self-awareness.
Cooperation and evolutionary problems
An organism can be effectively altruistic
without being self-aware, aware of any distinction between egoism and
altruism, or aware of qualia in others. This by simple reactions to
specific situations which happens to benefit other individuals in the
organism's natural environment. If self-awareness led to a necessity of
an emotional empathy mechanism for altruism and egoism being default in
its absence, that would have precluded evolution from a state without self-awareness to a self-aware state in all social animals.
The ability of the theory of evolution to explain self-awareness can be
rescued by abandoning the hypothesis of self-awareness being a basis
for cruelty.
Psychology
Self-awareness
has been called "arguably the most fundamental issue in psychology,
from both a developmental and an evolutionary perspective."
Self-awareness theory, developed by Duval and Wicklund in their 1972 landmark book A theory of objective self awareness,
states that when we focus our attention on ourselves, we evaluate and
compare our current behavior to our internal standards and values. This
elicits a state of objective self-awareness. We become self-conscious as objective evaluators of ourselves. However self-awareness is not to be confused with self-consciousness.
Various emotional states are intensified by self-awareness. However,
some people may seek to increase their self-awareness through these
outlets. People are more likely to align their behavior with their
standards when made self-aware. People will be negatively affected if
they don't live up to their personal standards. Various environmental
cues and situations induce awareness of the self, such as mirrors, an
audience, or being videotaped or recorded. These cues also increase
accuracy of personal memory. In one of Andreas Demetriou's neo-Piagetian theories of cognitive development,
self-awareness develops systematically from birth through the life span
and it is a major factor for the development of general inferential
processes. Moreover, a series of recent studies showed that self-awareness about cognitive processes participates in general intelligence on a par with processing efficiency functions, such as working memory, processing speed, and reasoning. Albert Bandura's theory of self-efficacy
builds on our varying degrees of self-awareness. It is "the belief in
one's capabilities to organize and execute the courses of action
required to manage prospective situations." A person's belief in their
ability to succeed sets the stage to how they think, behave and feel.
Someone with a strong self-efficacy, for example, views challenges as
mere tasks that must be overcome, and are not easily discouraged by
setbacks. They are aware of their flaws and abilities and choose to
utilize these qualities to the best of their ability. Someone with a
weak sense of self-efficacy evades challenges and quickly feels
discouraged by setbacks. They may not be aware of these negative
reactions, and therefore do not always change their attitude. This
concept is central to Bandura's social cognitive theory, "which
emphasizes the role of observational learning, social experience, and
reciprocal determinism in the development of personality."
Developmental stages
Individuals become conscious of themselves through the development of self-awareness.
This particular type of self-development pertains to becoming conscious
of one's own body and mental state of mind including thoughts, actions,
ideas, feelings and interactions with others.
"Self-awareness does not occur suddenly through one particular
behavior: it develops gradually through a succession of different
behaviors all of which relate to the self." The monitoring of one's mental states is called metacognition and it is considered to be an indicator that there is some concept of the self.
It is developed through an early sense of non-self components using
sensory and memory sources. In developing self–awareness through
self-exploration and social experiences one can broaden one's social
world and become more familiar with the self.
According to Emory University's Philippe Rochat, there are five
levels of self-awareness which unfold in early development and six
potential prospects ranging from "Level 0" (having no self-awareness)
advancing complexity to "Level 5" (explicit self-awareness).
Level 0: Confusion. At this level the individual has a degree of
zero self-awareness. This person is unaware of any mirror reflection or
the mirror itself. They perceive the mirror as an extension of their
environment. Level 0 can also be displayed when an adult frightens
himself in a mirror mistaking his own reflection as another person just
for a second.
Level 1: Differentiation. The individual realizes the mirror is able
to reflect things. They see that what is in the mirror is different
from what is surrounding them. At this level they can differentiate
between their own movement in the mirror and the movement of the
surrounding environment.
Level 2: Situation. At this point an individual can link the
movements on the mirror to what is perceived within their own body. This
is the first hint of self-exploration on a projected surface where what
is visualized on the mirror is special to the self.
Level 3: Identification. This stage is characterized by the new
ability to identify self: an individual can now see that what's in the
mirror is not another person but actually them. It is seen when a child,
instead of referring to the mirror while referring to themselves,
refers to themselves while looking in the mirror.
Level 4: Permanence. Once an individual reaches this level they can
identify the self beyond the present mirror imagery. They are able to
identify the self in previous pictures looking different or younger. A
"permanent self" is now experienced.
Level 5: Self-consciousness or "meta" self-awareness. At this level
not only is the self seen from a first person view but it is realized
that it is also seen from a third person's view. They begin to
understand they can be in the mind of others. For instance, how they are
seen from a public standpoint.
Infancy and early childhood
It
is to be kept in mind that as an infant comes into this world, they
have no concept of what is around them, nor for the significance of
others around them. It is throughout the first year that they gradually
begin to acknowledge that their body is actually separate from that of
their mother, and that they are an "active, causal agent in space". By
the end of the first year, they additionally realize that their
movement, as well, is separate from movement of the mother. That is a
huge advance, yet they are still quite limited and cannot yet know what
they look like, "in the sense that the infant cannot recognize its own
face".
By the time an average toddler reaches 18–24 months, they will discover
themselves and recognize their own reflection in the mirror,
however research has found that this age varies widely with differing
socioeconomic levels and differences relating to culture and parenting.
They begin to acknowledge the fact that the image in front of them, who
happens to be them, moves; indicating that they appreciate and can
consider the relationship between cause and effect that is happening.
By the age of 24 months the toddler will observe and relate their own
actions to those actions of other people and the surrounding
environment.
Once an infant has gotten a lot of experience, and time, in front of a
mirror, it is only then that they are able to recognize themselves in
the reflection, and understand that it is them. For example, in a study,
an experimenter took a red marker and put a fairly large red dot (so it
is visible by the infant) on the infant's nose, and placed them in
front of a mirror. Prior to 15 months of age, the infant will not react
to this, but after 15 months of age, they will either touch their nose,
wondering what it is they have on their face, or point to it. This
indicates the appearance that they recognize that the image they see in
the reflection of the mirror is themselves.
There is somewhat of the same thing called the mirror-self recognition
task, and it has been used as a research tool for numerous years, and
has given, and lead to, key foundations of the infant's sense/awareness
of self.
For example, "for Piaget, the objectification of the bodily self
occurs as the infant becomes able to represent the body's spatial and
causal relationship with the external world (Piaget, 1954). Facial recognition places a big pivotal point in their development of self-awareness.
By 18 months, the infant can communicate their name to others, and upon
being shown a picture they are in, they can identify themselves. By two
years old, they also usually acquire gender category and age
categories, saying things such as "I am a girl, not a boy" and "I am a
baby or child, not a grownup". Evidently, it is not at the level of an
adult or an adolescent, but as an infant moves to middle childhood and
onwards to adolescence, they develop a higher level of self-awareness
and self-description.
As infants develop their senses, using multiple senses of in
order to recognize what is around them, infants can become affected by
something known as "facial multi stimulation". In one experiment by
Filippetti, Farroni, and Johnson, an infant of around five months in age
is given what is known as an “enfacement illusion”.
“Infants watched a side-by-side video display of a peer’s face being
systematically stroked on the cheek with a paintbrush. During the video
presentation, the infant’s own cheek was stroked in synchrony with one
video and in asynchrony with the other”.
Infants were proven to recognize and project an image of a peer with
that of their own, showing beginning signs of facial recognition cues
onto one's self, with the assistance of an illusion.
Piaget
Around
school age a child's awareness of personal memory transitions into a
sense of one's own self. At this stage, a child begins to develop
interests along with likes and dislikes. This transition enables the
awareness of an individual's past, present, and future to grow as
conscious experiences are remembered more often.
As a preschooler, they begin to give much more specific details about
things, instead of generalizing. For example, the preschooler will talk
about the Los Angeles Lakers basketball team, and the New York Rangers
hockey team, instead of the infant just stating that he likes sports.
Furthermore, they will start to express certain preferences (e.g., Tod
likes mac and cheese) and will start to identify certain possessions of
theirs (e.g., Lara has a bird as a pet at home). At this age, the infant
is in the stage Piaget names the pre operational
stage of development. The infant is very inaccurate at judging
themselves because they do not have much to go about. For example, an
infant at this stage will not associate that they are strong with their
ability to cross the jungle gym at their school, nor will they associate
the fact that they can solve a math problem with their ability to
count.
Adolescence
One becomes conscious of their emotions during adolescence. Most children are aware of emotions such as shame, guilt, pride and embarrassment by the age of two, but do not fully understand how those emotions affect their life.
By age 13, children become more in touch with these emotions and begin
to apply them to their own lives. A study entitled "The Construction of
the Self" found that many adolescents display happiness and
self-confidence around friends, but hopelessness and anger around
parents due to the fear of being a disappointment. Teenagers were also
shown to feel intelligent and creative around teachers, and shy,
uncomfortable and nervous around people they were not familiar with.
In adolescent development, the definition self-awareness also has
a more complex emotional context due to the maturity of adolescents
compared to those in the early childhood phase, and these elements can
include but are not limited to self-image, self-concept, and
self–consciousness along many other traits that can relate to Rochat's
final level of self awareness, however it is still a distinct concept
within its own previous definition.
Social interactions mainly separate the element of self-awareness in
adolescent rather than in childhood, as well as further developed
emotional recognition skills in adolescents. Sandu, Pânișoară, and
Pânișoară demonstrate these in their work with teenagers and
demonstrates that there is a mature sense of self-awareness with
students who were aged 17, which in term provides a clear structure with
how elements like self-concept, self-image, and self-consciousness
relate to self-awareness.
Mental health
As
children reach their adolescent stages of life, the acute sense of
emotion has widened into a meta cognitive state in which mental health
issues can become more prevalent due to their heightened emotional and
social development.
There are elements of contextual behavioral science such as
Self-as-Content, Self-as-Process and Self-as-Context, involved with
adolescent self-awareness that can associate with mental health.
Moran, Almada, and McHugh presented the idea that these domains of self
are associated with adolescent mental health in various capacities. Anger management is also a domain of mental health that is associated with the concept of self-awareness in teens.
Self-awareness training has been linked to lowering anger management
issues and reducing aggressive tendencies in adolescents: “Persons
having sufficient self-awareness promote relaxation and awareness about
themselves and when going angry, at the first step they become aware of
anger in their inside and accept it, then try to handle it”.
Philosophy
Locke
An early philosophical discussion of self-awareness is that of John Locke. Locke was apparently influenced by René Descartes' statement normally translated 'I think, therefore I am' (Cogito ergo sum). In chapter XXVII "On Identity and Diversity" of Locke's An Essay Concerning Human Understanding (1689) he conceptualized consciousness as the repeated self-identification of oneself through which moral responsibility could be attributed to the subject—and therefore punishment and guiltiness justified, as critics such as Nietzsche
would point out, affirming "...the psychology of conscience is not 'the
voice of God in man'; it is the instinct of cruelty ... expressed, for
the first time, as one of the oldest and most indispensable elements in
the foundation of culture." John Locke does not use the terms self-awareness or self-consciousness though.
According to Locke, personal identity (the self) "depends on consciousness, not on substance".
We are the same person to the extent that we are conscious of our past
and future thoughts and actions in the same way as we are conscious of
our present thoughts and actions. If consciousness is this "thought"
which doubles all thoughts, then personal identity is only founded on
the repeated act of consciousness: "This may show us wherein personal
identity consists: not in the identity of substance, but ... in the
identity of consciousness." For example, one may claim to be a reincarnation of Plato, therefore having the same soul. However, one would be the same person
as Plato only if one had the same consciousness of Plato's thoughts and
actions that he himself did. Therefore, self-identity is not based on
the soul. One soul may have various personalities.
Locke argues that self-identity is not founded either on the body
or the substance, as the substance may change while the person remains
the same. "Animal identity is preserved in identity of life, and not of
substance", as the body of the animal grows and changes during its life.
describes a case of a prince and a cobbler in which the soul of the
prince is transferred to the body of the cobbler and vice versa. The
prince still views himself as a prince, though he no longer looks like
one. This border-case leads to the problematic thought that since
personal identity is based on consciousness, and that only oneself can
be aware of his consciousness, exterior human judges may never know if
they really are judging—and punishing—the same person, or simply the
same body. Locke argues that one may be judged for the actions of one's
body rather than one's soul, and only God knows how to correctly judge a
man's actions. Men also are only responsible for the acts of which
they are conscious. This forms the basis of the insanity defense which argues that one cannot be held accountable for acts in which they were unconsciously irrational, or mentally ill—
In reference to man's personality, Locke claims that "whatever past
actions it cannot reconcile or appropriate to that present self by
consciousness, it can be no more concerned in it than if they had never
been done: and to receive pleasure or pain, i.e. reward or punishment,
on the account of any such action, is all one as to be made happy or
miserable in its first being, without any demerit at all."
Disorders
The medical term for not being aware of one's deficits is anosognosia,
or more commonly known as a lack of insight. Having a lack of awareness
raises the risks of treatment and service nonadherence.
Individuals who deny having an illness may be against seeking
professional help because they are convinced that nothing is wrong with
them. Disorders of self-awareness frequently follow frontal lobe
damage.
There are two common methods used to measure how severe an individual's
lack of self-awareness is. The Patient Competency Rating Scale (PCRS)
evaluates self-awareness in patients who have endured a traumatic brain
injury.
PCRS is a 30-item self-report instrument which asks the subject to use a
5-point Likert scale to rate his or her degree of difficulty in a
variety of tasks and functions. Independently, relatives or significant
others who know the patient well are also asked to rate the patient on
each of the same behavioral items. The difference between the relatives’
and patient's perceptions is considered an indirect measure of impaired
self-awareness. The limitations of this experiment rest on the answers
of the relatives. Results of their answers can lead to a bias. This
limitation prompted a second method of testing a patient's
self-awareness. Simply asking a patient why they are in the hospital or
what is wrong with their body can give compelling answers as to what
they see and are analyzing.
Anosognosia
Anosognosia was a term coined by Joseph Babinski
to describe the clinical condition in which an individual suffered from
left hemiplegia following a right cerebral hemisphere stroke yet denied
that there were any problems with their left arm or leg. This condition
is known as anosognosia for hemiplegia (AHP). This condition has
evolved throughout the years and is now used to describe people who lack
subjective experience in both neurological and neuropsychological
cases. A wide variety of disorders are associated with anosognosia. For example, patients who are blind from corticallesions
might in fact be unaware that they are blind and may state that they do
not suffer from any visual disturbances. Individuals with aphasia
and other cognitive disorders may also suffer from anosognosia as they
are unaware of their deficiencies and when they make certain speech
errors, they may not correct themselves due to their unawareness. Individuals who suffer from Alzheimer's disease lack awareness; this deficiency becomes more intense throughout their disease.
A key issue with this disorder is that people who do have anosognosia
and suffer from certain illnesses may not be aware of them, which
ultimately leads them to put themselves in dangerous positions and/or
environments.
To this day there are still no available treatments for AHP, but it has
been documented that temporary remission has been used following
vestibular stimulation.
Dissociative identity disorder
Dissociative identity disorder or multiple personality disorder (MPD)
is a disorder involving a disturbance of identity in which two or more
separate and distinct personality states (or identities) control an
individual's behavior at different times.
One identity may be different from another, and when an individual with
DID is under the influence of one of their identities, they may forget
their experiences when they switch to the other identity. "When under
the control of one identity, a person is usually unable to remember some
of the events that occurred while other personalities were in control."
They may experience time loss, amnesia, and adopt different mannerisms,
attitudes, speech and ideas under different personalities. They are
often unaware of the different lives they lead or their condition in
general, feeling as though they are looking at their life through the
lens of someone else, and even being unable to recognize themselves in a
mirror.
Two cases of DID have brought awareness to the disorder, the first case
being that of Eve. This patient harbored three different personalities:
Eve White the good wife and mother, Eve Black the party girl, and Jane
the intellectual. Under stress, her episodes would worsen. She even
tried to strangle her own daughter and had no recollection of the act
afterward. Eve went through years of therapy before she was able to
learn how to control her alters and be mindful of her disorder and
episodes. Her condition, being so rare at the time, inspired the book
and film adaptation The Three Faces of Eve,
as well as a memoir by Eve herself entitled I'm Eve. Doctors speculated
that growing up during the Depression and witnessing horrific things
being done to other people could have triggered emotional distress,
periodic amnesia, and eventually DID.
In the second case, Shirley Mason, or Sybil, was described as having
over 16 separate personalities with different characteristics and
talents. Her accounts of horrific and sadistic abuse by her mother
during childhood prompted doctors to believe that this trauma caused her
personalities to split, furthering the unproven idea that this disorder
was rooted in child abuse, while also making the disorder famous. In
1998 however, Sybil's case was exposed as a sham. Her therapist would
encourage Sybil to act as her other alter ego although she felt
perfectly like herself. Her condition was exaggerated in order to seal
book deals and television adaptations.
Awareness of this disorder began to crumble shortly after this finding.
To this day, no proven cause of DID has been found, but treatments such
as psychotherapy, medications, hypnotherapy, and adjunctive therapies
have proven to be very effective.
Autism spectrum disorder
Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is a range of neurodevelopmental
disabilities that can adversely impact social communication and create
behavioral challenges (Understanding Autism, 2003).
"Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and autism are both general terms for a
group of complex disorders of brain development. These disorders are
characterized, in varying degrees, by difficulties in social
interaction, verbal and nonverbal communication and repetitive
behaviors."
ASDs can also cause imaginative abnormalities and can range from mild
to severe, especially in sensory-motor, perceptual and affective
dimensions.
Children with ASD may struggle with self-awareness and self
acceptance. Their different thinking patterns and brain processing
functions in the area of social thinking and actions may compromise
their ability to understand themselves and social connections to others.
About 75% diagnosed autistics are mentally handicapped in some general
way and the other 25% diagnosed with Asperger's Syndrome show average to
good cognitive functioning.
When we compare our own behavior to the morals and values that we were
taught, we can focus more attention on ourselves which increases
self-awareness. To understand the many effects of autism spectrum
disorders on those afflicted have led many scientists to theorize what
level of self-awareness occurs and in what degree. Research found that
ASD can be associated with intellectual disability and difficulties in
motor coordination and attention. It can also result in physical health
issues as well, such as sleep and gastrointestinal disturbances. As a
result of all those problems, individuals are literally unaware of
themselves.
It is well known that children suffering from varying degrees of autism
struggle in social situations. Scientists at the University of
Cambridge have produced evidence that self-awareness is a main problem
for people with ASD. Researchers used functional magnetic resonance
scans (FMRI) to measure brain activity in volunteers being asked to make
judgments about their own thoughts, opinions, preferences, as well as
about someone else's. One area of the brain closely examined was the
ventromedial pre-frontal cortex (vMPFC) which is known to be active when
people think about themselves.
A study out of Stanford University has tried to map out brain
circuits with understanding self-awareness in Autism Spectrum Disorders.
This study suggests that self-awareness is primarily lacking in social
situations but when in private they are more self-aware and present. It
is in the company of others while engaging in interpersonal interaction
that the self-awareness mechanism seems to fail. Higher functioning
individuals on the ASD scale have reported that they are more self-aware
when alone unless they are in sensory overload or immediately following
social exposure.
Self-awareness dissipates when an autistic is faced with a demanding
social situation. This theory suggests that this happens due to the
behavioral inhibitory system which is responsible for self-preservation.
This is the system that prevents human from self-harm like jumping out
of a speeding bus or putting our hand on a hot stove. Once a dangerous
situation is perceived then the behavioral inhibitory system kicks in
and restrains our activities. "For individuals with ASD, this inhibitory
mechanism is so powerful, it operates on the least possible trigger and
shows an over sensitivity to impending danger and possible threats.
Some of these dangers may be perceived as being in the presence of
strangers, or a loud noise from a radio. In these situations
self-awareness can be compromised due to the desire of self
preservation, which trumps social composure and proper interaction.
The Hobson hypothesis reports that autism begins in infancy due
to the lack of cognitive and linguistic engagement which in turn results
in impaired reflective self-awareness. In this study ten children with
Asperger's Syndrome were examined using the Self-understanding
Interview. This interview was created by Damon and Hart and focuses on
seven core areas or schemas that measure the capacity to think in
increasingly difficult levels. This interview will estimate the level of
self understanding present. "The study showed that the Asperger group
demonstrated impairment in the 'self-as-object' and 'self-as-subject'
domains of the Self-understanding Interview, which supported Hobson's
concept of an impaired capacity for self-awareness and self-reflection
in people with ASD."
Self-understanding is a self description in an individual's past,
present and future. Without self-understanding it is reported that
self-awareness is lacking in people with ASD.
Joint attention (JA) was developed as a teaching strategy to help increase positive self-awareness in those with autism spectrum disorder.
JA strategies were first used to directly teach about reflected mirror
images and how they relate to their reflected image. Mirror Self
Awareness Development (MSAD) activities were used as a four-step
framework to measure increases in self-awareness in those with ASD.
Self-awareness and knowledge is not something that can simply be taught
through direct instruction. Instead, students acquire this knowledge by
interacting with their environment.
Mirror understanding and its relation to the development of self leads
to measurable increases in self-awareness in those with ASD. It also
proves to be a highly engaging and highly preferred tool in
understanding the developmental stages of self- awareness.
There have been many different theories and studies done on what
degree of self-awareness is displayed among people with autism spectrum
disorder. Scientists have done research about the various parts of the
brain associated with understanding self and self-awareness. Studies
have shown evidence of areas of the brain that are impacted by ASD.
Other theories suggest that helping an individual learn more about
themselves through Joint Activities, such as the Mirror Self Awareness
Development may help teach positive self-awareness and growth. In
helping to build self-awareness it is also possible to build self-esteem
and self acceptance. This in turn can help to allow the individual with
ASD to relate better to their environment and have better social
interactions with others.
Schizophrenia
Schizophrenia is a chronic psychiatric illness characterized by
excessive dopamine activity in the mesolimbic tract and insufficient
dopamine activity in the mesocortical tract leading to symptoms of
psychosis along with poor cognition in socialization. Under the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders,
people with schizophrenia have a combination of positive, negative and
psychomotor symptoms. These cognitive disturbances involve rare beliefs
and/or thoughts of a distorted reality that creates an abnormal pattern
of functioning for the patient. The cause of schizophrenia has a
substantial genetic component involving many genes. While the heritability of schizophrenia has been found to be around 80%, only about 60% of sufferers report a positive family history of the disorder, and ultimately the cause is thought to be a combination of genetic and environmental factors.
It is believed that the experience of stressful life events is an
environmental factor that can trigger the onset of schizophrenia in
individuals who already are at risk from genetics and age. The level of self-awareness among patients with schizophrenia is a heavily studied topic.
Schizophrenia as a disease state is characterized by severe
cognitive dysfunction and it is uncertain to what extent patients are
aware of this deficiency. Medalia and Lim (2004) investigated patients’
awareness of their cognitive deficit in the areas of attention,
nonverbal memory, and verbal memory.
Results from this study (N=185) revealed large discrepancy in patients’
assessment of their cognitive functioning relative to the assessment of
their clinicians. Though it is impossible to access one's consciousness
and truly understand what a schizophrenic believes, regardless in this
study, patients were not aware of their cognitive dysfunctional
reasoning. In the DSM-5,
to receive a diagnosis of schizophrenia, they must have two or more of
the following symptoms in the duration of one month: delusions*,
hallucinations*, disorganized speech*, grossly disorganized/catatonic
behavior and negative symptoms (*these three symptoms above all other
symptoms must be present to correctly diagnose a patient.) Sometimes
these symptoms are very prominent and are treated with a combination of antipsychotics
(i.e. haloperidol, loxapine), atypical antipsychotics (such as
clozapine and risperdone) and psychosocial therapies that include family
interventions and socials skills. When a patient is undergoing
treatment and recovering from the disorder, the memory of their behavior
is present in a diminutive amount; thus, self-awareness of diagnoses of
schizophrenia after treatment is rare, as well as subsequent to onset
and prevalence in the patient.
The above findings are further supported by a study conducted by Amador and colleagues.
The study suggests a correlation exists between patient insight,
compliance, and disease progression. Investigators assess insight of
illness was assessed via Scale to Assess Unawareness of Mental Disorder
and was used along with rating of psychopathology, course of illness,
and compliance with treatments in a sample of 43 patients. Patients with
poor insight are less likely to be compliant with treatment and are
more likely to have a poorer prognosis. Patients with hallucinations
sometimes experience positive symptoms, which can include delusions of
reference, thought insertion/withdrawal, thought broadcast, delusions of
persecution, grandiosity, and many more. These psychoses skew the
patient's perspectives of reality in ways in which they truly believe
are really happening. For instance, a patient that is experiencing
delusions of reference may believe while watching the weather forecast
that when the weatherman says it will rain, he is really sending a
message to the patient in which rain symbolizes a specific warning
completely irrelevant to what the weather is. Another example would be
thought broadcast, which is when a patient believes that everyone can
hear their thoughts. These positive symptoms sometimes are so severe to
where the schizophrenic believes that something is crawling on them or
smelling something that is not there in reality. These strong
hallucinations are intense and difficult to convince the patient that
they do not exist outside of their cognitive beliefs, making it
extremely difficult for a patient to understand and become self-aware
that what they are experiencing is in fact not there.
Furthermore, a study by Bedford and Davis
(2013) was conducted to look at the association of denial vs.
acceptance of multiple facets of schizophrenia (self-reflection,
self-perception, and insight) and its effect on self-reflection (N=26).
Study results suggest patients with increased disease denial have lower
recollection for self-evaluated mental illnesses. To a great extent,
disease denial creates a hardship for patients to undergo recovery
because their feelings and sensations are intensely outstanding. But
just as this and the above studies imply, a large proportion of
schizophrenics do not have self-awareness of their illness for many
factors and severity of reasoning of their diagnoses.
Bipolar disorder
Bipolar disorder is an illness that causes shifts in mood, energy,
and ability to function. Self-awareness is crucial in those suffering
from this disease, as they must be able to distinguish between feeling a
certain way because of the disorder or because of separate issues.
"Personality, behavior, and dysfunction affect your bipolar disorder, so
you must 'know' yourself in order to make the distinction."
This disorder is a difficult one to diagnose, as self-awareness changes
with mood. "For instance, what might appear to you as confidence and
clever ideas for a new business venture might be a pattern of grandiose
thinking and manic behavior".
Issues occur between understanding irrationality in a mood swing and
being completely wrapped in a manic episode, rationalizing that the
exhibited behaviors are normal.
It is important to be able to distinguish what are symptoms of
bipolar disorder and what is not. A study done by Mathew et al. was done
with the aim of "examining the perceptions of illness in self and among
other patients with bipolar disorder in remission".
The study took place at the Department of Psychiatry, Christian
Medical College, Vellore, India, which is a centre that specializes in
the "management of patients with mental and behavioural disorders". Eighty two patients (thirty two female and fifty male) agreed to partake in the study. These patients met the "International Classification of Diseases – 10 diagnostic criteria for a diagnosis of bipolar disorder I or II and were in remission"
and were put through a variety of baseline assessments before beginning
the study. These baseline assessments included using a vignette, which
was then used as an assessment tool during their follow-up. Patients
were then randomly divided into two groups, one who would be following a
"structured educational intervention programme" (experimental group), while the other would be following "usual care" (control group).
The study was based on an interview in which patients were asked
an array of open-eded questions regarding topics such as "perceived
causes, consequences, severity and its effects on body, emotion, social
network and home life, and on work, severity, possible course of action,
help-seeking behaviour and the role of the doctor/healer". The McNemar test
was then used to compare the patients perspective of the illness versus
their explanation of the illness. The results of the study show that
the beliefs that patients associated with their illness corresponds with
the possible causes of the disorder,
whereas "studies done among patients during periods of active psychosis
have recorded disagreement between their assessments of their own
illness". This ties in to how difficult self-awareness is within people who suffer from bipolar disorder.
Although this study was done on a population that were in
remission from the disease, the distinction between patients during
"active psychosis" versus those in remission shows the evolution of
their self-awareness throughout their journey to recovery.
Plants
Self-discrimination in plants is found within their roots, tendrils and flowers that avoid themselves but not others in their environment.
Self-incompatibility mechanism providing evidence for self-awareness in plants
Self-awareness
in plants is a fringe topic in the field of self-awareness, and is
researched predominantly by botanists. The claim that plants are capable
of perceiving self lies in the evidence found that plants will not
reproduce with themselves due to a gene selecting mechanism. In
addition, vining plants have been shown to avoid coiling around
themselves, due to chemical receptors in the plants' tendrils. Unique to
plants, awareness of self means that the plant can recognise self,
whereas all other known conceptions of self-awareness is the ability to
recognise what is not self.
Recognition and rejection of self in plant reproduction
Research
by June B. Nasrallah discovered that the plant's pollination mechanism
also serves as a mechanism against self-reproduction, which lays out the
foundation of scientific evidence that plants could be considered as
self-aware organisms. The SI (Self-incompatibility) mechanism in plants
is unique in the sense that awareness of self derives from the capacity
to recognise self, rather than non-self. The SI mechanism function
depends primarily on the interaction between genes S-locus receptor protein kinase (SRK) and S-locus cysteine-rich protein gene (SCR).
In cases of self-pollination, SRK and SCR bind to activate SKR,
Inhibiting pollen from fertilizing. In cases of cross-pollination, SRK
and SCR do not bind and therefore SRK is not activated, causing the
pollen to fertilise. In simple terms, the receptors either accept or
reject the genes present in the pollen, and when the genes are from the
same plant, the SI mechanism described above creates a reaction to
prevent the pollen from fertilising.
Self-discrimination in the tendrils of the vine Cayratia japonica mediated by physiological connection
The
research by Yuya Fukano and Akira Yamawo provides a link between
self-discrimination in vining plants and amongst other classifications
where the mechanism discovery has already been established. It also
contributes to the general foundation of evidence of self-discrimination
mechanisms in plants. The article makes the claim that the biological
self-discrimination mechanism that is present in both flowering plants
and ascidians, are also present in vining plants. They tested this
hypothesis by doing touch tests with self neighbouring and non-self
neighbouring pairs of plants. the test was performed by placing the sets
of plants close enough for their tendrils to interact with one-another.
Evidence of self-discrimination in above-ground plants is demonstrated
in the results of the touch testing, which showed that in cases of
connected self plants, severed self plants and non-self plants, the rate
of tendril activity and likeliness to coil was higher among separated
plants than those attached via rhizomes.
Theater
Theater also concerns itself with other awareness besides
self-awareness. There is a possible correlation between the experience
of the theater audience and individual self-awareness. As actors and
audiences must not "break" the fourth wall in order to maintain context, so individuals must not be aware of the artificial, or the constructed perception of his or her reality.
This suggests that both self-awareness and the social constructs
applied to others are artificial continuums just as theater is.
Theatrical efforts such as Six Characters in Search of an Author, or The Wonderful Wizard of Oz, construct yet another layer of the fourth wall, but they do not destroy the primary illusion. Refer to Erving Goffman's Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience.
Science fiction
In science fiction, self-awareness describes an essential human property that often (depending on the circumstances of the story) bestows personhood onto a non-human. If a computer, alien
or other object is described as "self-aware", the reader may assume
that it will be treated as a completely human character, with similar
rights, capabilities and desires to a normal human being. The words "sentience", "sapience" and "consciousness" are used in similar ways in science fiction.
