>>12989723>The realization is something I came to before I discovered [Hofstadter's] work but man, does he not kind of miss the point ...?
So deep, but mostly non-sense. What is the point? That the "I" is as far back as you can go? There are things we can say about it without getting caught up in a self-referential loop. The key to breaking the loop is time or memory. As long as the "I" in the present is trying to understand the "I" in the past then no self-reference occurs, these are two different "I"s. If you reduce that period to zero, to the same "I" you can break your mind, cf. meditation.>If we take our sense of "I" as an emergent property of self-referencing, then anything we can say about it, is merely the product of that same referencing system at work.
Our concepts related to consciousness are very primitive today. The essence of "I" is freewill, the capacity to focus (choose) the object of our awareness and to identify. The "self" is a wider concept. Children are not self-aware until, what 2-5yrs? Forming the concept of "self" is turning that focus internally and saying "I am doing this" >Information at its core is inherently self-referential.
Agree, all knowledge is relational but consciousness is irreduceable but also dependent on being aware of things external to self. That one is conscious, i.e. self conscious, is a later identification.>At the end of the day there isn't anything to say. You can pretend you understand this system and get caught up in physics, mathematics, philosophy etc. but at that point you've already missed it.
Here we part ways but from an evolutionary view point, consciousness has survival value to all animals (not just humans). All life needs to extract food/energy from the environment to power the chemical processes of life. All animals do this but animals with conceptual consciousness (physics, math, philosophy, etc) do this on the widest scale to be successful, i.e. to live, which is another primary fact.