Talk:Self-awareness/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Relationship

Restored with corrections and reference. What is difficult for Anome to grok is that self-awareness may be theater. Theater, in turn, may be focused mass awareness. As to personalizing my own state-of-mind from a single paragraph, is as we all know, unnecessary and counterproductive to Wikipedia's intent. Please see my own site. Whether I was high on dope or am a "hippy" is, perhaps, just the frame of denial necessary to maintain Anome's illusions regarding his own personality. There is nothing wrong with this. We all have to do it in order to maintain our self-authored masterpiece named "I." -- ArtificioSapiens —Preceding unsigned comment added by 04:59, May 30, 2005 (talk • contribs) ArtificioSapiens

You need to define what you mean by "Theater". In one sense, there is no difference significant to the topic of "self-awareness" between the play and the script on which it is based. Preserving the fourth wall is not necessary to maintain the perception of context. When it is broken the context merely shifts or expands. In fact it seems to me that the more fourth walls that you break the more self aware and the more aware of your environment you become, and the more effective person you are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 23:11, October 28, 2005 (talk • contribs) Hackwrench

Meditation

<< I disagree with the part concerning meditation: "Meditation or repetitive tasks, as well as some schools of thought in art theory and existentialism seek to reduce self-consciousness, and even self-awareness, at least temporarily."

Actually meditation seeks the increase of self-consciousness and consequently, increase in self-awareness through one's observation of oneself as a being, detaching temporarily from mind and ego. >> fst

As for joining the articles: Yes, they are two different subjects. But one is a direct copy of the other in places, and both speak to both topics. Please just put a note at the top with a link to the other and focus on the article at hand. If each expanded on their subject instead of wasting space on disambiguation then we could all continue on with our lives.

<< I made a mistake in my above statement: I don't see the diference between self-consciousness and self-awareness, for me, they are the same thing. Self-consciousness does not mean to be nervous or worried. Self-consciousness is the act of being aware of oneself as an individual or of one's own being, actions, or thoughts. When you meditate (in the traditional form, as in budhism, hinduism, etc), you are seeking an expansion of your consciousness by looking towards your inner being. That is the result of reducing your thoughts to a minimum (which is the same as detaching from mind and ego): consciousness expansion. Being afraid of eating in public is an irrational fear, because there's nothing wrong with that. Someone who suffers from an irrational fear lacks consciousness that a given situation will not bring any harm to him. >> fst

Removed from the article

There is a possible fractal correlation between the experience of the theater audience and individual self-awarenesss. 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 self-awareness is an artificial continuum (theatrical performance) that is produced by negating its very existence; which, in theater, is the function of a proscenium. The brain may still be a theater, but not the one that Descartes perceived.

<keanu>whoa.</keanu> -- The Anome 10:05, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

I removed the following sentences from the paradox discussion. The second is an absolutely outrageous claim, while the first is highly silly.

"Whenever any people lift their thoughts from daily routines, they may ponder these questions. The human condition is the central subject of all literature, drama and art." - Paul E. Wog 5/16/07

---

This sentence makes no sense: "There is a possible fractal correlation between the experience of the theater audience and individual self-awarenesss." The rest of the paragraph is not very intelligible either. I get the sense that the author has no idea what a fractal is, and has spent far too much time in theater classes. I can't see anyway for the word "fractal" to legitmately enter a discussion on the nature of self-awareness and the theater. I'm also not sure self-awareness really relates to one's experience in a theater the way the author suggests it does. Sometimes a paragraph will be confusing to read because it is trying to describe a confusing or complex topic. More often though, a paragraph that is confusing isn't actually describing anything at all.

I agree with the keanu joke-tag above--now *that's* something I can understand. -- Anonymous_Person 7:48AM, Nov 25th, 2005, CST

some1 else: 'self-consciousness - self-awareness plus the additional realization that others are similarly aware of you'

rather than support merging both definitions surely that clarifies that they mean two different things; so itd make sense to have 2 separate articles?! the fact that ur debating them in the first place......agree with taking more psychological approach tho, buddhism and theatre seem a bit incongruous to the definition given

To really understand oneself one must realize that one is finite. It is useless to think that your "beingness" will exist after your body has died and decayed. It does NOT matter to the world or the universe if you are bad, good, or enlighted. There are millions of good people and millions of bad people, and thousands of so called enlighted people. There was Jesus, there was Mohammed, there was Zeus, there was "The Buddha". All YOU ARE DOING IS: "FOLLOWING THE PATH THAT THEY BELIEVED IN". What you must do for yourself, and what really matters is that YOU at this very, very instant, now and untill you very last moment of your (sense of awareness}, be centered, forgiving of ignorance, and love, love without judgement. Without these preambles' followed 100%, one CANNOT have awareness, or sense of one's beingness. Let it be understood that there is a vast difference between reality and philosophy. One is only fooling onceself if one can THINK about reality. Reality can ONLY be EXPERIENCED without thought, without judgement, without being taught how to see things THEIR way. What is "THEIR" way?. "THEIR" is your family, your education, your religion, your workmates, the strangers that you meet on a day to day basis. Colin Chico,California U.S.A.

Proposed Merge Self-awareness and Self-consciousness

Opposed to merger. I am opposed to a merger of the articles on self-awareness and self-consciousness. Although there is some overlap in both articles and how both words are defined in the dictionary, they do not overlap enough to call them synomyms nor to consider one a subset of the other.
Self-awareness is ontologically an entity in-and-of-itself that has a rich history in existentialism, artifical intelligence, theater, religion, and even science fiction. Even in the above sentence I talk about self-awareness as something to be studied; a concept that is itself used. Self-conscioussness is merely a state that a self-aware individual might experience. A self-aware individual can experience any number of states, but we need not merge all the possibles states of awareness with the article on self-awareness.
In order to simply relate self-consciousness with self-awarness, one must talk about self-awareness. The dictionary definition for self-awareness is, "Awareness of your own individuality." It is self-contained. Self-conscioussness is different on the other hand. There are two definitions for self-consciousness:
1.) "Embarrassment deriving from the feeling that others are critically aware of you."
2.) "Self-awareness plus the additional realization that others are similarly aware of you."
Not only does self-consciousness carry the denotation of something completely unrelated to self-awareness with the first definition, it also only relates to self-awareness after referencing self-awareness in the second definition. The relation between self-awareness and self-consciousness as contained in the above reference to self-awareness in the definition of self-consciousness is entirely satisfied by a link to self-awareness in the article on self-conscioussness. Nothing more is needed.
Let's not begin on the path of merging the self-awareness article with every article on a state or human condition.
~mystyc1 1:48am 5/22/06

I am sorry to barge in front of the line, but I could not let people who are searching this encyclopedia go through all the self-rightious jibberish that follows me. Self-consciousness is no more than the fact that "I can see, feel, drink, deficate, fornicate, and perform tasks that have been taught me". Self-awareness ,however, is on a higher level of intelligence. It proposes that one is not only seeking self-fullment, but to understand and be of BENEFIT to other humans that one comes in contact with in onces' everyday life. Why does a "self-aware" person do this? because He/She knows that it will give him/her a "high" that cannot be understood by words or thoughts but only spiritually. A truly aware being does not need praise, money, or glory. It means absolutely NOTHING. AWARENESS IS SPIRITUAL, IT SEPARATES US FROM PLANTS AND ANIMALS. ROBOTS ONE DAY WILL BE ABLE TO SEE, HEAR AND POSSIBLY FEEL ON A BASIC LEVEL. BUT THE HUMAN THAT HAS EVOLVED FROM THE CRAWLING FISH FROM SEA TO LAND CAN FEEL SOMETHING IN ITSELF THAT IS TRULY PRICELESS. Humankind can either kill or love. Humankind can either give or take. The truly self-aware human can only be kind. Why? BECAUSE HE WILL LOSE HIS SOUL, THAT IS WHY. Why is this significant? IT IS BECAUSE IT IS A GIFT THAT ONLY HUMANS POSSESS. A GIFT THAT YOU HAVE RIGHT NOW. STOP HATING, STOP STEALING, STOP CHEATING, STOP DECEIVING, STOP LYING. AND ABOVE ALL ELSE UNDERSTAND THAT TRUE PEACE COMES THROUGH KINDNESS. Colin Chico,California U.S.A. Hi Spencerk. What are your reasons? The two terms means wildly different things to me. Particularly consider this quote from the self-consciousness page: "Unlike self-awareness, self-consciousness has connotations of being unpleasant, and is often linked to self-esteem." ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 08:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC) hey metta bubble. funny you chose that quote, i wrote it, then started to doubt myself. really i dont feel one way or another toward the merge, just i know its gonna happen eventually, and the pages are forming in different directions. Id be interested to know if the two terms are wildly different, in my phil of mind class we used them interchangeably. heres a blogish site that says they are different [1]. I also just found this [2] that says:
self-consciousness - self-awareness plus the additional realization that others are similarly aware of you
ok so maybe that does it. what do others think? Spencerk 08:36, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Hahaha! Does what? Yes well, I think you nailed it when you said it depends on how the articles develop. If the self-esteem thing becomes an afterthought to the self-consciousness article I mightn't oppose so much. But then again, since the articles are developing in different directions perhaps it's a good sign that they should stay separate and see if they form independant beings... so to speak... like Siamese twins [I hope someone doesn't make me regret saying that]... eeek. Better run. Peace. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 11:00, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

• haha, okay. we'll play the waiting game. lets keep merge templates up for a third opinion Spencerk 17:33, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

some1 else: 'self-consciousness - self-awareness plus the additional realization that others are similarly aware of you' rather than support merging both definitions surely that clarifies that they mean two different things; so itd make sense to have 2 separate articles?! the fact that ur debating them in the first place......agree with taking more psychological approach tho, buddhism and theatre seem a bit incongruous to the definition given

• Hello. I agree that the concepts are different, though perhaps not "widly" different, and I also agree that the can remain on separate pages. The section at Self-consciousness#Development of self-consciousness is really talking about self-awareness and should be deleted or rewritten. The rest of the Self-consciousness should be re-written just to make it more readable e.g. the whole introduction seems to me not so much describing self-consciousness but defending it as a different concept. I think the prase "acute sense of self-awareness" or "vivid sense of self-awareness" could be used to good effect. Ewlyahoocom 09:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• hi, i decided to be bold and tried the merge. what are your thoughts everyone? i am quite pleased with it. Spencerk 19:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I think you have 3 recent editors disagreeing with the merge. Jumping in and editing in the middle of a discussion is being beligerent, not bold. Peace. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 23:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments on my talk page Spencerk. Is it to be my understanding now that you intend to merge carefully so that the articles both become more distinct? Peace. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 00:30, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

• yes i would like to see the 2 terms become more distinct, and would support the splitting into two articles once it becomes more fit to do so. When i combined the two articles, i didnt delete anything i dont think. Im pleased with how the page(s) is coming along, like 2 months ago there was a 2 sentance stub for self-consciousness. woo hoo! Spencerk 17:59, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm just not diggin' this merge. Sci-fi novels never start off with a artifically intelligent computer becoming "self-conscious"; that slight sense of paranoia is never (well, hardly ever) referred to as self-awareness. So am reverting it. You're welcome to try again, though. (For future reference, when you redirect a page which has redirects to it you should fixup the double-redirects.) Ewlyahoocom 23:37, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

argh, okay. Ewlyahoocom, i reverted the mass deletions on Self-consciousness, overlap is okay. let me comment later on the paranoia and that "everyone is looking at" one idea. Spencerk 03:22, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm reverting. I'm starting a new temporary page for your porposed changes: Self-consciousness/mergedversion. Please make your edits there so we can all have a look before implementing them. May I also suggest that what we're really disagreeing on is the meaning of the terms themselves? I am from the US and the changes I made reflect their usage there, they are not synonymous. How do you define these terms? Are they synonymous? Ewlyahoocom 03:50, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

thank you for making a mergedversion page ewlyahoocom, that page isn't really 'my edits', its just both pages combined, with no deletes. It looks like im alone in thinking that these two terms are more similar than different. From all the discussions ive come across, it seems self-consciousness = self-awarness + a leaning toward self-esteem, paranoia

also, science fiction and artificial intellegence use self-awareness, not self-consciousness

I dont think nationality is much of a bias, i have a bias as being a philosophy major, i have read a wack of literature which uses "self-consciousness" in consciousness studies. The way the self-consciousness page is right now, it has zero mention of self-consciousness as consciousness! Surely both uses of the term should be mentioned, then we can grind at how much attention each usage gets, which is the dominant usage etc...

Proposal

what about both "self-consciousness (consciousness)" and "self-consciousness (shyness)" for different pages, self-consciousness as a disambig? "self-consciousness (consciousness)" will eventually merge to self-awareness, but atleast both uses of the term will be evenly represented. I think this is reasonable. Spencerk 06:31, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

• Well, your first mistake was just dumping all the text on to one page with no edits or deletes and calling that a "merge". Merging usually requires a bit more work than that.
• I didn't ask for your nationality, only your definitions. You've kind of given a definition of "self-consciousness" in terms of "self-awareness" (and low self-esteem), but you haven't given any for "self-awareness". As a philosophy major (is that philosophy as in Sartre? or as in Gödel?) the books you're reading probably go on page after page after page just defining the terms. The best I have to offer is Merriam-Webster's aware which lists conscious as a synonym but adds "conscious implies that one is focusing one's attention on something or is even preoccupied by it e.g. conscious that my heart was pounding". (Would it surprise you that "the way the consciousness page is right now, it has zero mention of self-consciousness!" It does mention self-awareness 3 times, though.)
• The distinction could easily be lost on an International audience. If we can come up with names for these pages (or sections in a merged article) that are universally clear we may avoid getting a lot of misdirected edits. So, what would you call that uncomfortable feeling one might get while being observed (I'd call that self-conscious)? What would you call looking in a mirror and understanding that that's you (I'd call that self-aware)? (And what would you call just being awake? I'd just call that conscious). Ewlyahoocom 11:00, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

• Ewlyahoocom, are you not willing to comprimise at all?Spencerk 18:48, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I have been trying very hard to compromise with you, Spencerk. If you check above you'll find I was the editor who wasn't totally opposed to your idea to merge the articles in the first place:

• You wrote "lets keep merge templates up for a third opinion"
• I then came along with "I agree that the concepts are different, though perhaps not "wi[l]dly" different, and I also agree that the[y] can remain on separate pages"

You must have interpreted that as support, because later that day you merged the articles. Unfortunately it was not the merger I envisioned. Now, I'm just trying to make sure I understand how you mean the terms -- a simple question which you are either unable or unwilling to answer. Therefore, let me revise my opinion in what I hope is clear language: I OPPOSE ANY MERGER OF THESE ARTICLES Ewlyahoocom 03:59, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

• how i mean the terms:
  

[3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17]
The above are examples of the term 'self-consciousness' used in terms of consciousness (as a synonym for self-awareness, or, "What would you call looking in a mirror and understanding that that's you"). Amung these examples are: international conference of self-consciousness, the institute of self-consciousness, and books called "self-consciousness". Now, I understand that self-consciousness is also used as the opposite of 'confidance', but you will find a google search makes it clear that this is the secondary usage of the term. The page must reflect this. I had hoped the merge of the two articles could explain both usages of 'self-consciousness', but if thats not what you envisioned, then lets have self-consciousness list both in a disambig. Lets do this, i hate edit conflicts.Spencerk 05:12, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I've added dablinks to the top of each page. This should be sufficient (in the mundane sense of the word sufficient). Ewlyahoocom 06:19, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

• the dablinks are good, thanks, please see what links to self-consciousness. This, combined with my last post, should be more than enough indication that it is not just a secondary usage of the term, and the page would be better a 'self-consciousness (consciousness)' page with a dablink to self-consciousness (ego), now, i mean 'better' in the mundane sense ;), i would be most pleased with a disambig with equal representation.Spencerk 15:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
• I oppose merger (as stated above under mystyc1), and I may support a modified version of this proposal. If there were a disambiguation page that mentioned that mentioned some common states of awareness that are confused with self-awareness itself, then I might support that. However, I am unsure of what that page should be. I do not think I agree with that page being the self-conscioussness page. I should make it clear that in this modified version of the proposal, there is no merger of self-awareness with self-conscioussness. Personally, I think both are fine just the way they are, but Spencerk's references do show some use of self-conscioussness as a synomym for self-awareness by some parts of the modern philosophical community, particuluarly within the philosophy of the mind. However, in other parts, most notabally existentialism, self-awareness is used. So like I said above, there is some overlap, but there is not enough to warrant calling them the same, nor one a subset of the other.

~mystyc1 2:37am 5/22/06

No merge. Self-consciousness is the way in which one views oneself, which is rather separate, and indeed on a totally different level, than self-awareness, which is the ability to recognize oneself as an individual. Self-awareness is dictated by logic, while self-consciousness is dictated by emotion. They are very different subjects, and should remain as two separate articles. A possibility might be to merge self-awareness into consciousness, although the latter is plenty long as is, and the former is noteworthy enough to deserve its own separate page. Just my two cents. There's been plenty of discussion on this topic - how about a straight-up vote, yes or no? Mistamagic28 22:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Apposed to merger clearly these two concepts are different enough to warrent keeping them seperate, as I think the opening explanation on each page make clear. One is about sentience, the other about the feeling that you are being watched, judged etc.Colin 8 20:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

STRONG Oppose To Merge as per opening section paragraph, two subjects are different on not only a philosophical, but psychological level. Neuro√Logic 00:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Reverting merge again

• as requested on my talk page by Ewlyahoocom: "My wish is for you to merge the similarities of the two articles but leave the differences.". so here goes. i am uneasy doing this, so please adjust it, if something is left out, it is not intentional Spencerk 19:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

perhaps someone can write a heading - two='s - clarifying the two usages of the term. i am not the best person to do this.Spencerk 20:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm reverting your merge (again). I am sorry. 1. At this point the merge is disputed; 2. there is no consensus; and 3. there is very little support for a merge. Furthermore, I have not made any request for you merge the articles and in fact, I have requested that you NOT merge these articles. So I don't know what you're talking about. Ewlyahoocom 20:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, please don't get me wrong. I think some of the edits you want to make are good and I would like to encourage you edit Self-awareness as much as you'd like. If you feel you must, you could even use the term "self-consciousness" in the article (although this will be very confusing for the reader). But for now, please stop pushing for the merger of the 2 articles. Ewlyahoocom 10:14, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

• My wish is for you to merge the similarities of the two articles but leave the differences. My overall objection is if you merge too much and then try to delete one of the articles. Discussion on the page indicates both articles can exist as distinct topics. But there needs to be time for the other article to develop. Peace. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 00:28, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Ewlyahoocom, you have been helpful in discussion, i am requesting mediation. please agree to mediation at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation so this issue can be resolved. Spencerk 19:00, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

• thanksSpencerk 06:07, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think they should be merged, self-consciousness is too vague and can include many other mental states. BTW, I think a large relevent section is missing in this article about the role of consciousness in behavior and evolutionary biology etc., and the opposing between the two thoughts. Fad (ix) 18:40, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

• anyone know why our mediation is not getting any attention? Spencerk 02:48, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know. Wikipedia:Requests for mediation has a note "The Mediation Committee is currently backlogged with requests, due to a shortage of available mediators and an increased number of requests...." Ewlyahoocom 12:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• The separate meanings should be enough to have separate articles.

But the correlation should be emphasized in its own sub-category and the articles should link to each other under "other meanings" with a description of contexts they are synonymous to each other ....."Ressonans 00:51, 17 Aug 2006 (GMT)

• Also opposed to the merge. These are two very distinct concepts. Gzabers 08:48, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Case for Opposition

Self-consciousness is also an emotional state. The term "self-awareness" is NOT used that way. Prysorra 10:44, 14 Jun 2006 (UTC)

New proposal

May i add a section of levels of awereness? something like this:"Levels of consciousness" Only if you can correctly define any levels of consciousness by a well reasoned proof.3Ptsqred 08:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

 -Not aware  (Sub-conscious)
 -Weak awareness (Phenomenal consciousness)
 -Self-awareness 
  -awareness of ones existense
  -awareness of ones observation
  -awareness of ones calculation
  -awareness of ones psychological aspects 

I just need some help to complete the list and to make it more representative to reality.. Ressonans 00:32, 18 aug 2006 (GMT)

I agree that self awareness and self consciousness should be separate. A person who knows what is going on around him, is aware of his/her own thoughts, thinks about the reasons and consequences before acting is a person who is "self aware" or aware of what self is doing. Self should not be thought of as if it were a "thing" separate from one's body. One, meaning self, is responsible for his/her own body's actions. I do not know if there is a upper limit where one reaches "full self awareness" or not. Neither should we divide awareness into levels. I believe that self awareness is gradually developed through many factors that include individual experiences, self learning through reading, listening, and observing, and guided learning. I am sure that there are many people out there who have developed a high degree of self awareness without even learning that self awareness is a concept that can be taught or debated on.

From personal experience, I think that I started to be aware of the concept of self awareness when I started studying my Master's in Education. It was as if a light bulb had turned on in my head. I started analyzing myself, my thoughts, my actions, my future. It has helped me to plan what my ultimate goal in life is and how I aim to reach that goal. Of course, I believe that I had already developed a certain degree of self awareness prior to learning about it but was never fully in control of it. Even now, I do not think that I have reached the pinnacle of full self awareness. It is a gradual learning process throughout life. The more we are aware of our thoughts and actions the better.

Wouldn't it be great if EVERYONE, not only psychologists and teachers, could learn about the concept of self awareness? Wouldn't it be even greater if this concept could be taught in school to younger children? Wouldn't that give them an advantage most of us never had? They wouldn't have to wait until they were adults to understand this. How about teaching it when we teach about VALUES in every level of schooling? What if all organizations and companies set aside some time to give seminars on self awareness to their employees? Don't you think our world could become a better place faster?

ps. Many of you will probably argue with me but I believe that most of us think of the word "self conscious" in a negative way. To us, to be self consious, probably means to be kind of paraniod, thinking and worrying too much until decisions cannot be made.

If the concept of self consciousness involves the psychic or spiritual, I think that you should put it in another article.

Philosophy

Wessam Reda 01:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

God created us to be tested by the most we scare of, for those who keep their patience and prayers to get the most they dream of, and those who don't the most they hate. Watch your thoughts, they make your destiny!

Reach for the phorehead, phlipper

"The ability to self-analyze (or scrutinize) is widely believed among psychologists not to develop until mid-childhood, and arguably is present in only a few species of animals. Tests performed for self-consciousness include applying a bright dot to a subjects forehead, and then placing them in front of a mirror – if they reach for their own forehead, it appears they may realize their own existence in a self-aware sense. Species such as dolphins, elephants, and some primates can pass this test."

Can someone explain to me how a dolphin can "reach for their own forehead" ? User:Pedant 20:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

"such as" reaching the forehead. another equivalent test could be formulated for dolphins. e.g. following their tail or sth. --87.194.72.129 11:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Physiological location for self-awareness

"lol I like to poopeh on myself :D" is what was written in this section...I've returned it to its original state.

btw, while it's not our primary job to judge sources, i have to say the source that bases the physiological section makes a very questionable claim. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn9019-watching-the-brain-switch-off-selfawareness.html they talk about finding a certain frontal part of the brain that is more functional when one is asked to say "how did you feel" and less when asked to do "press a button if you listened to a trumpet" and similar. this was like introspection vs simple judgement, not self-awareness vs non self-awareness. for example, if one sleeps, he completely loses self-awareness (de facto), but if one watches an exciting movie, he may not be that into introspect or even judgemental but it still is a basic form of self-awareness. i think they confuse loss of self-awareness with the expression "losing oneself" which is not directly a loss, many times it means losing oneself in a very self-aware thought. anyway, no point going on about it in an encyclopaedia too much, just wanted to say i suspect it doesn't look like a stable scientific conclusion at all. --87.194.72.129 01:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Merging wine and vinegar

I would have thought that self-awareness is part of the self-actualisation process (theory of mind) enabling individuals to continuously re-adjust. Self-consciousness on the other hand is a rather nasty feeling holding us back from enjoying social interaction. Wine and vinegar are both made from fermented grape juice but we can all taste the difference, no?

www.thefreedictionary.com/self-consciousness

www.thefreedictionary.com/self-awareness —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.68.146.127 (talk • contribs)

An excellent analogy and an excellent point! Ewlyahoocom 06:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Science fiction

There is a place for a page "self awareness (science fiction)". Writers like Arthur C. Clarke and Robert A. Heinlein used this a term to describe the essential property of the human mind, and used it to describe machines that had acquired human-like intelligence, morality, emotions, etc.

This use is fundamentally different than the use of the term in neurology, psychology, cognitive science, philosophy, etc.

Some of the things that link here intend to point to this meaning. ---- CharlesGillingham 18:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Comments

I strongly suggest too merge Self-awareness and Self-consciousness under Self-consciousness. Both are possible translations of the german term Selbstbewusstsein, which was coined a.f.a.i.k. by Immanuel Kant. I checked 2 translations of the Critique of pure Reasoning, both use the word self-consciousness. Of course, there is a differnce between the use of self-consciousness in western philosophy and in colloquial english, and the philosophical meaning of self-consciousness could in colloquial english possibly better be expressed by the word self-awareness. But since self-consciousness seems to be the the common expression in english philosphy, self-conciousness should be used for the article. If there are works (in philosophy or psychology e.g.) that make a distincion between self-awareness and self-consciousness you are, of course, welcome to mention them. --Zara1709 02:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Self-awareness and Self-consciousness.

I believe that there is a difference between these two terms. You can be self-aware without being self-conscious but can't be self-conscious without being self-aware. Self-consciousness is one of those social inhibiting emotions/feelings like embarrassment and guilt. I suggest that they be separate articles and not be use interchangably in this one. Even if you don't agree that they are different I think one term or the other should be used for the sake of consistency.

Agreed. There is a a very distinct difference between the two terms. Merging them would likely create much confusion. Best to leave them as separate articles.--UniverSoul 19:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Instead of merging:

I strongly suggest moving the information in this article on Locke's theories of self-consciousness to the "Self-consciousness" essay - that is where it belongs. That would be consistent with the terminology used by Locke and subsequent philosophers. That way, the philosophy stays in a philosophy article and other issues can be dealt with in the "Self-awareness" entry. DJProFusion 17:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)