For a consciousness to be considered alive, would you require it to recognize itself?
Also, it perhaps show a sign of will which is based on a motive.
Without that, an inanimate object otherwise considered not alive, however possessing consciousness, would also be considered alive.
Is it fair to draw the line for living consciousnesses at having motive, self-awareness, and direction?
It means we are requiring a consciousness to have an ego to exist. Is it necessary to have ego to exist?
My head hurts. Stop it.
Animal psychologists point out that some animals (monkeys, elephants) recognize themselves in a mirror and others (cats, dogs) do not.
So many questions that are easy to answer but difficult to explain. But I'll ltry.
For consciousness to be alive, in the sense that I think that you mean it, it must be aware of itself.
Curiosity provides motivation (potentials to be explored) as a way for consciousness to be more aware of its own nature - which it desires because it is self-aware.
Ego is a belief construct. It is created when one accepts a belief in separation of itself from itself. It is evidence of a form of insanity - though it may be necessary to accept an ego in order to inhabit a body. I'm not so sure about that one. The more I know, the less impact ego has on my life, so I am coming to believe that ego is not necessary at all - but it is encouraged by current social norms.
Life is defined not by possession of consciousness, but by function. Eating, breathing, reproducing.
Not necessarily. If you already have motive, self-awareness and direction your consciousness in full use.
Interesting question. Can we consider consciousness to be alive apart from the brain. Do you really think that the conscious is self aware? If it was self aware, wouldn't it know what it was going to think before it thought it? We are self aware and can predict our own movements and even direct our thoughts at times. But how does the consciousness become self aware? Wouldn't that involve knowing where thoughts come from, how they are generated and of course how to generate the thoughts you want while eliminating those you don't want? Or would you do that at all. If consciousness was self conscious would it not be conscious of you? Are you your conscious? Who would be in charge of what to do or think? Can consciousness be independent and self aware? How would we know it?
It's necessary to have an ego to exist? The Buddhists all over the world would disagree with you. We have one but it is not needed to exist. Let me take that even a step further. The "Ego" is a term from psychoanalytic theory. There are other theories of psychology where there is no Ego at all. Behaviorism, Gestalt, Reality Therapies, and more. Buddhist psychology has hundreds of Egos and asserts that your ego changes in each new situation. Wear a suit to the beach and you will be a different person than if you were wearing a bathing suit.
For consciousness to be considered alive, we would have to fist prove that there is such a thing, Locate it and then be able to test it in some way. Science is not even sure at this point whether or not consciousness is located inside the brain.
Welcome to the mind - body split. The research will continue.
You have confused consciousness with self awareness.
They are not the same.
Many life forms with brains have consciousness.
Not many at all are self aware.
Example, guess which species, along with us, recognizes that their reflection in a mirror is not another one of us?
Our closest cousins, the chimps.
First every human and I would even say animal has an ego. Whether it is good or bad, they have one.
Consciousness, self consciousness=aware of self-ego/ others,interpersonal, about human nature in general realities of human nature, universe, aesthetic and about the external world .
Transcendent awareness is available to those who are able to go beyond the confines of space—time frame work. It is said when one experiences transcendence, one is open to other realities.
The interrelatedness of different aspects of consciousness leads to the breakdown of compartmentalized outlook resulting in the awareness of the Self.
Interesting thought, Shankara says, “If you do not have a consciousness, then everything is dark and nothing in the universe exists.”
Can I be self-aware without being an object of consciousness? When I am conscious of an object 'this', I am conscious that 'I' know 'this'. This subject-object duality forms an essential ingredient of the mind. Can I have awareness of the subject 'I' without the associated object awareness 'this' in the mind? If there are no thoughts, could the mind still be called mind?
In the statement by Descartes (17th Century) 'I think, therefore I am', my existence is ascertained by the thinking process. This was criticized later by Immanuel Kant (18th Century). According to Kant, the self-consciousness or subject consciousness is established by the consciousness of objects. Thus, 'this' is required to establish 'I am' since the mind can operate only in a subject-object duality.
Is consciousness of 'this' required in order to establish 'I am' or is it the other way around? At the ego level, we do operate without being keenly aware of it, when we say 'I am'. Without 'this' to identify with, I do not seem to have any existence to point to. Nobody stops their introductions saying 'I am' without attaching an object 'this' to it. Therefore Kant's conclusion that self-consciousness arises only with the object consciousness seems to be justified. However, in the deep sleep state there are no objects of consciousness and yet there is a continuity of awareness, therefore Kant's conclusion is only right in relation to the Ego.