'Mortal as I am, I know that I am born for a day. But when I follow at my pleasure the serried multitude of the stars in their circular course, my feet no longer touch the earth.'
 
HomeCalendarFAQSearchMemberlistRegisterLog in

Share | 
 

 Self-identity/awareness & the fear of death

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
AuthorMessage
Thrasymachus
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3699
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Will to Power

PostSubject: Self-identity/awareness & the fear of death   Wed Feb 29, 2012 3:08 pm

This came up in a conversation between myself, Aleatory and Pezer, among some others. It was my contention that non-human animals do not fear death, that they are incapable of fearing anything abstract-conceptual and derivative such as would be an understanding of the fact of one's own eventual non-existence. Fear is a response in an organism to certain stimuli, perceived/sensed objects which have, either through learned conditioning or past genetic conditioning, been associated with detrimental effects upon the organism itself (of course it is also the case that once the fear drive-system exists it can 'malfunction' or respond to incorrect stimuli, causing fear where it is otherwise unwarranted or unjustified, but that is an entirely different subject and does not impose meaningfully upon this conversation and its thesis). In the first case learned conditioning takes advantage of an already-existing 'fear drive-system', the ability to pair a perceived stimuli with an emotional-affective response that we call "fear". This is simply a case of classical or operant conditioning, and requires first that a functional affective system able to produce the fear affective response is in existence within the organism. In the second case we see that genetic conditioning has produced this fear drive, through natural selection and based on the clear correlation between possessing such a fear drive and an increased survivability potential, with respect reproductive survival. Organisms which possessed versions of a fear drive, of an affective impelling motivation-cause able to attach to potentially harmful stimuli gained an increased survival potential over organisms not possessing such a system, or possessing a less efficient or functional version of the fear drive.

To fear something, which is to have an affective-emotional reaction that we call "fear", requires only that some stimuli exists which triggers this system into action. No amount of cognitive or conceptual understanding is implied here. However, what we humans typically call fear is already bound up within many conceptual and cognitive associations. This is because our fear becomes an object itself, and is conceptualized and abstracted within the mind. Fear itself operates as a powerful object of consciousness---because of the fact that we are beings able to conceptualize, abstract, derive and cognize we experience the fear drive under these faculties, thus coloring our experience of fear in a manner different than beings without these conceptual-abstracting faculties. When we fear we experience a whole host of associated images, ideas, logical implications and derivations, imagined possibilities, all of these depending for their possibility upon the fact that as humans we employ a complex ability to abstract-extract conditions in the imagination, separating these from immediate sensory perception, and through symbolic-representational langauge make of these sensations an object of consciousness, a highest form of abstraction. In short, we utilize reason. When a non-human animal fears something, however, lacking this power of reason, of abstract consciousness, of imagination divorced from the immediate sensory perceptive, and of symbolic-representational language able to objectify sensations into a new register of experiential meaning, it remains, for the non-human animal, a mere automatic reactivity, an emotional response to an immediately perceived stimuli which has been associated, either through a genetic-physiological structuring preconditioning or a learned classical or operant conditioning, with something threatening or harmful. Once the animal's fear drive engages in the presence of a fear-inducing sensation, the form/s of this sensation, in a more or less generalizable manner, is imprinted upon the fear drive's memory and will produce a similar fear response if encountered in the future.

A non-human animal cannot fear death, because such an animal has no conceptual understanding of its own existence. This is to say, the fact that it exists is not meaningful to it, does not legislate upon its behaviors, thoughts or feelings. Such an animal's thoughts, feelings and behaviors are immediate reflections of current environmental conditions and do not attain to a sufficient distance and objectification/abstraction in the realm of possibility in order that they may become under conscious consideration at a time of their not saliently obtaining presently to the animal from within its environment. This is not to say that such an animal has no memory or capacity to remember/learn/associate, but rather that this capacity is again based in a more or less "simple" stimulus-response mechanism, and, most importantly, such cognitive or affective experiences depend for their possibility upon an immediacy of stimulated-necessitated causation from the environment. Even while memory serves a function of internal environment and thus possible environmental necessitating cause here, this does not raise to the level of abstract possibility or conceptual-objectified form which would allow the animal to react to situations that are merely possible but not actual.

What the human language and conceptual capacity does is create a frame/medium in which such "merely possible but not actual" in effect does become actual, becomes able to enter into the present moment of environmental causation. In order to achieve this feat a new realm of reality must be developed, what we call imagination, which is able to construct objects and stimuli within itself which lack immediate correlate to any present entities in the (non-imaginary) environmental fields. To a lesser extent than imagination, socialization also operates in this regard here, becoming sufficiently "deep" and complex enough to store information in such a way so as to act as a sort of "repository" and temporary storage-house for potentially necessitating causes that are otherwise absent from the general environment. The human, armed with a conceptual-abstract possibility through symbolic-representational language, an imagination strongly able to be divorced from "reality", and a social milieu deep and subtle enough to act as a storage-house of information, now possesses a repitoire of abilities and faculties that grant it new means of experiencing, among many other things, the fear drive and the fear response. Conceptualized objects gain embedded meaning from the conceptual framework in which they are situated, a large influx of associational, conditioning meaning; these objects appear in the imagination and are extracted from immediate environmental necessity; and are rendered as objects under the symbolizing-representing possibility of language. Not only this, but the fear response itself, the affect-emotion, flows through each of these channels as well, drawing from them a certain amount of their essence, qualia and character. Fear is an object, this objects becomes a conceptual category the input into which falls all manner of extra-associational relations and objects, from past, present or future. Because of this, and because the human has the 'ego' of self-identity, which is to say Da-sein, "The being for whom its own being has become an issue," (for more on this, we must get into the structure of consciousness, which we can certainly do. Myself or Parodites could elaborate this more here, I am sure, were we inclined to spend the time) the meaningful understanding of "self" in a manner which is akin to "I exist" having direct impact upon the subjective structure and overt behaviors of the entity as a whole, after a long chain of inference and learned conditioning comes to understand that this "I exist" is conditional and temporary, and will at some point cease. The awareness of death goes hand in hand with the awareness of self. And once this assocation occurs, which we could call the moment of the birth of the self-consciousness in the sense above defined ("I exist" having a direct impact upon the subjective structure and overt behaviors of the entity as a whole), this understanding is, like all understanding, objectified in some manner and entered into the conceptual-linguistic field of meaning-relations. The fear-drive may now engage in response to the presence of this object, since the object's character is such that it clearly represents a potential threat and detriment to the organism itself (i.e. that of its own non-existence).

Here we may appropriately ask why it is that the understanding of one's own eventual non-existence is such to stimulate the fear drive. Here we must remember that the fear drive itself is based in the pre-human animal past, and functions largely automatically, simply causally even where the objects to which it has habituated itself to respond have grown more complex, deep and objectified-abstract. However there is still what seems to be a disconnect between the understanding of death, conceptually speaking, and the fear of it. Here we might affirm that man has been taught to fear death, that perhaps this did not arise "naturally" or at the same moment of the understanding of the fact of death, but some time later. This would be an interesting area of exploration, but falls outside the necessary purview of this topic, since we are making the claim that the non-human animal does not fear its own death because this animal does not possess the conceptual-cognitive-linguistic appartus to make of the fact of death a meaningful object, a possible subject or sensation of consideration/affectation. Thus whether or not man learned to fear death or this fear was immediately aroused at the very moment of his awareness of the fact of death is irrelevant to the question of whether or not the non-human animal fears death.

The issue of the mirror test was raised in defense of the idea that non-human animals fear death. This was done so in order to demonstrate that some non-human animals possess self-awareness, and thus an understanding of their own existence, and thus, finally, an understanding of the fact of the eventual termination of this existence. The logical mis-steps along this path of thinking become obvious here, and I barely think I need explicate them in great detail. Firstly it does not follow that the mere recognition of one's body in a reflective surface, as an object to which one's own behaviors are correlated necessarily, constitutes self-awareness. Properly speaking all that the mirror test can necessarily affirm is that the animal which passes it is self-recognizing. This means the animal possesses a complex enough sensory-conceptual apparatus so as to learn-habituate to the association between reflection of itself and its own behaviors as a consequent of this reflection. What we mean by "self-aware" is precisely that one possesses a direct, meaningful sense and understanding of the fact of one's own existence, that this understanding is such that is impacts directly the entire manner of the being's subjective judgment and behavior. Why is this? Because awareness of self in this manner adds an entire new tier of possible computation and relation to all experience. It sets up an internal reciprocity and reflexivity between sensation and effect, this flow now passing through a derivative and secondary stage of self-application under the form of projected possible interpretation, i.e. imagination of the possible. Self-identity, self-awareness internally cleaves the subject, introducing distance into this subject which allows for the juxtaposition of current stimuli-meaning with non-present imagined stimuli and possible non-actual meaning. This is of course a far cry from the mere fact of self-recognition that occurs when an ape grooms itself in a mirror, or behaves in such a way so as to touch its own body while viewing the reflection of this body in the mirror. These behaviors only require that the ape is able to form a basic relation of connection between the image reflected and the movements of its arm, for instance in the case of grooming. The ape does not "understand" that "I am that reflection in the mirror", rather its cognitive-behavioral and perceptive faculties are able to arrange in such a way so as to form the relation, "arm moves here" based on the combination of the information passed on by the reflected image combined with the proprioceptive sense of the ape's own head and arm, and the relation between them. It is NOT necessary that an ape "know" that "That is me" when looking in a reflection, it merely learns, over time (and this is the case with the mirror test, which gives the animals time to habituate to the mirror, to experiement with it's presence) that, and in an unconscious-instinctive manner, "If I do this, that happens." In the case of the mirror, the arm is able to gain a bit of useful information on how/where to move in order to achieve a certain goal (grooming, whatever), and the relation of this new information afforded by the reflected surface is incorporated into the causation of the arm automatically, instinctively, after the manner of rudimentalry conditioning-learning. There is no reason to, and many reasons not to, make the leap from "ape grooms itself based on the reflection of its image" to "the ape understands, 'That is me' ".

Now, there are great apes which can learn signs in sign language and combine these into novel meaning-strings, "sentences" which they were not taught to do. This would be a better argument for "self-awarness" than the mirror test. But even here, even IF we accept that the mirror test or the use of such sign language meaning-creation is a true sign of self-awareness in the sense which we fully mean it, it does NOT follow that such an animal is able to understand the idea of it's eventual death. A further level of logical derivation and abstraction is required to move from, "I exist" to "I will die". The one implies the other only where a sufficient enough possibility for logical inference and deduction exists. Can we claim that such a thing exists in apes, even great apes? Perhaps, but it remains highly doubtful. And yet, even here, the ape would need to be able to form the meaningful thought-object of death, the IDEA of non-existing, as an object, in order for it to associate the meaning of this with, finally, itself and its "I exist". This is an entirely new level of inference and reasoning which we have no reason to think any animal but the human capable of doing.

Effectively, it is a mere anthropomorphizing and logical error to assume that merely because an animal passes the mirror test it "knows that it exists", has a meaningful-direct understanding of the fact of its own existence as a being and in a way that centrally and impositionally informs and organizes the subjectivity of this being. Equally it is anthropomorphic and irrational to conclude that this animal, in possession of a complex enough sensory-conceptual relay system to form relations between its behaviors and proprioceptive senses and goals through the information afforded by the reflected image in the mirror, somenow now must "understand death", the idea of non-existence, let alone fear this. So much less then to claim that "My dog fears death," which is an entirely unjustified and irrational claim. Animals fear individual stimuli and the more or less generalized forms of these stimuli, they do not fear "ideas" or "abstract concepts". Only man possesses these, only man possesses a meaningful, direct understanding of the fact of his own existence as a separate being, and in a way where this understanding informs directly and powerfully the nature of this very being itself. Likewise, only many employs symbolic-representational language and thus the capacity for abstraction, logical inference, conceptual objectification and unreal imagination. The idea that non-human animals fear death is absurd, or at best, totally unfounded.

 

___________
"Since the old God has abdicated, I shall rule the world from now on." --Nietzsche

"It would be wise to exercise caution with one's wishes." --Penny Royal AI

Odinwar <---[truth]---> Jeraz

Peace. War. Love. Wordz




“Grow a pair, preferably between your eyes.” -Styxhexenhammer666

104 Qdd5#
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Arcturus Descending
arrow
arrow
avatar

Posts : 293
Join date : 2011-12-07
Location : Hovering amidst a battle of Wills

PostSubject: Re: Self-identity/awareness & the fear of death   Sat Mar 03, 2012 1:55 pm

An animal may not understand the concept of death but I assert that it is fully capable of sensing when it is in danger and running from that. That doesn't speak to you of being 'a fear of death'? Anything which has the instinct to survive will also have the instinct to at least 'feel' that it 'exists'. Why does an animal run from another which it instinctively knows is more powerful and may destroy it? Have you ever seen an animal who 'happily' lays down and waits to be destroyed?

So...animals may not understand the concept of death as we humans do - and as you may know, many of us do not even understand that concept. We still muddle through it in our fruitless effort to not only understand it but to eliminate it, and our fear of it.

Does a dog enjoy romping through the park and enjoy the feeling that comes over it when it sees his companion walking into a room? Does a cat not happily stretch itself out on the floor and roll around because it gives it such pleasure? Does a pig not enjoy rolling around in the mud because it enjoys being cooled off and getting rid of those nasty bugs. Have you ever seen two squirrels romping around and chasing one another or one simply 'looking on' enjoying its present moment? Do you think that animals in their responses to sensory stimuli are so far removed from us human ones in our sensing and responding to the same? How can you know that an animal looking up at the sky does not perceive and have that same feeling of magic come over it as does the human animal?

Animals may not have the awareness or consciousness which we have (and that may actually be debatable, IMHO) but they do have consciousness of sorts. If they enjoy their existence and do what they instinctively do for that enjoyment - doesn't that speak to you that they value their existence (in their own way)? When one - whether it be human animal or otherwise, is aware of their existence and values it though the pleasurable feelings which come to it in moments - though not being able to mentally interpret those feelings, - wouldn't you think that the natural instinct is to preserve life? fear death?

We do not experience our existence simply through thinking - we experience it through feeling too. At least for me, "I feel therefore I am - has at least the same amount of value and validity (perhaps more) as does "I think, therefore I am". Isn't it sort of ludicrous to suppose that an animal who has feelings would not be aware of its own existence? Is an animal who lays outside in the sun like a rock unconscious of it's self? From what I see, it is more the human animal who is unconscious of its 'self' and what it has - the animal has a heightened consciousness of what surrounds it and gives it pleasure and therefore perhaps more a heightened sense of 'self' or 'being'.


You would rob the animal of its fear of death thereby destroying its sense of 'being' and happiness and therefore its own species?

 

___________
Each of our lives is a part of the lengthy process of the universe gradually waking up and becoming aware of itself.


Philosophy is the childhood of the intellect, and a culture that tries to skip it will never grow up."


"If I thought that everything I did was determined by my circumstancse and my psychological condition, I would feel trapped."

Thomas Nagel
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Parodites
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 753
Join date : 2011-12-11

PostSubject: Re: Self-identity/awareness & the fear of death   Sat Mar 03, 2012 2:05 pm

Animals do not have an "instinct to survive" or a will to life. They have no fear of death. What they have is an instinct to pursue food, comfort, and to avoid pain. They do not abstract. They don't want to live and they don't want to die: they want to avoid pain and pursue what their drives dictate, ie. food. In fact they just assume they are eternal and will go on forever: when they run from a predator they are running from pain, not destruction. They don't have any concept of life and death, they know pleasure and pain.

 

___________
A sik þau trûðu


Nisus ait, "Dine hunc ardorem mentibus addunt,
Euryale, an sua cuique deus fit dira cupido?"

Have the gods set this ruling passion in my heart,
or does each man's furious passion become his god?
- Virgil.


It is not opium which makes me work but its absence, and in order for me to feel its absence it must
from time to time be present.-- Antonin Artaud
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Aleatory
bowstring
bowstring
avatar

Posts : 50
Join date : 2011-11-15

PostSubject: Re: Self-identity/awareness & the fear of death   Mon Mar 05, 2012 9:04 am

Parodites wrote:
Animals do not have an "instinct to survive" or a will to life. They have no fear of death. What they have is an instinct to pursue food, comfort, and to avoid pain. They do not abstract. They don't want to live and they don't want to die: they want to avoid pain and pursue what their drives dictate, ie. food. In fact they just assume they are eternal and will go on forever: when they run from a predator they are running from pain, not destruction. They don't have any concept of life and death, they know pleasure and pain.

I have a long response on the way, but I think it's an interesting point (and actually pertinent to my pending response) to observe how you have essentially described the Christian (or other soteriological doctrine-abiding individual). I will be questioning the extent to which the quotidian man does conceptualize his death rather than merely parrot a concept he's been told (like Capable suggests with the great apes). I'm reading a few studies, so this response will take some time.

Edit: My research has shown me that the questions above may be equally applied to non-human mammals and savants alike, so that it is doubtful as to whether they can conceptualize death. Oh well, I got some good studies to put in References.

 

___________
Suis-je un homme, ou un omelette?
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: Self-identity/awareness & the fear of death   

Back to top Go down
 
Self-identity/awareness & the fear of death
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 1 of 1

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Before The Light :: Tree :: Psychology-
Jump to: