Dear Dr. Tiwari,
I reply to your answer (Oct 10) for my post (Oct 9), but I've also read matthew kolasinski's post, above, with whom I totally agree. Allow me to rephrase the problem here:
We have at least two differing views about the "awareness of self" to compare. Let's put them side by side:
Your view says: "awareness of self existence is independent of body and mind(brain)".
My view says that the awareness of self-existence requires at least some neurons in a brain to function as they have been trained for years. No neurons means no awareness of self-existence. (I allow for the possibility that, in the remote future, when we have a complete "theory of mind", we'll learn how to program a computer so that its software, too, will have awareness of self existence; but let's leave that for the future; now we know only of brains and neurons.)
So, we have two possible "theories" that explain our observations, i.e., the observation that there is something we call "awareness of self-existence". What is it that we do when we have two opposing theories?
One solution is to start waving our hands, and shout to the top of our lungs in desperation, and whoever has a louder voice and better hand-waving gestures wins. Not a solution befitting civilized people.
Another solution is to appeal to authority. Whoever can point to some ancient and well-respected figure of the past that supported our opinions with his wisdom, wins. This is actually the solution still followed in many occasions in non-Western thought: "X said it, therefore it's true." (I don't want to be specific, lest I insult anyone.) The trouble with this solution is that it often happened that ancient/respected authorities often got it wrong. It didn't appear wrong in their times, but it proved wrong later. This solution puts the mind before the matter (or: the cart before the horse), and it doesn't lead us very far.
A third solution is to put the matter before the mind, i.e., look at whatever data we have, observe reality, and only then form some opinion that explains the data. If any of our observations contradict the theory, it is the theory that's abandoned, not the observations.
(If you know of some fourth solution, I'll be happy to consider it.)
Assuming that it is only the third solution that is compatible with the scientific view, which has led to our present state of affairs (evidence is the medium of communication that we use now, which would be inconceivable if we had only relied on authority), I suggest that we look at the available evidence that supports our corresponding two "theories", or views about awareness of self: yours, and mine.
Evidence that supports my theory comes from neuroscientists who examine a particular type of neurons in the brain, the "mirror cells," which are capable of responding when you see another person doing something, as if you do that something by yourself. It is suspected that mirror cells participate in making a model of yourself in your mind, so that you have awareness of yourself. It's not that your awareness depends _only_ on such cells, but that those cells are essential, i.e., without them you wouldn't have your awareness. You can read about these developments by a compatriot of yours, Dr. V. S. Ramachandran, at this site:
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/ramachandran07/ramachandran07_index.html
More evidence that self-awareness depends on the brain comes from simple observations that everyone can make, such as this one: suppose you are alone in a room, and you concentrate, being fully aware of yourself. However, I have inserted a pipe in that room (without you knowing it), through which I can transmit a gas that, when inhaled, causes you to lose your consciousness; you aren't self-aware anymore. But we all know what that gas does: it affects some neurons in your brain. (We even know exactly in which chemical ways your neurons are affected.) So, if your self-awareness does not depend on your brain, then how do you explain that when the gas influences your neurons in a well-known way, then you lose your self-awareness? Why is your "I" affected, if the "I" is independent of the brain?
And there is more trouble for your view coming from other observations. When does a human infant become aware of itself? Clearly, as a single fertilized cell it's not aware of anything. But as a five-year-old child, s/he is aware of the "self". When, at which magical moment during this time does the child acquire self awareness? Your view requires a magical moment. But my view requires no magic: because awareness is not an all-or-none issue, an infant with only a few brain cells trained, has very little awareness of itself. The more brain cells are trained, and the better they are trained, the better self awareness becomes.
You ask, "Do you find any flaw in the thought experiment?" Well, the flaw that I see is that you don't support it with evidence. So now, would you please be so kind as to list the evidence that supports your view? Or, if it is not evidence, then convince me why I should believe that you are right?
Thank you for this discussion, I'll be waiting to learn your opinion.
Kind regards,
José Eduardo Calderón