The locus of self and its implications for
our understanding of ourselves as well as the society we are a part of is the
topic of this article. I have written about this topic in bits and pieces in
other articles preceding this. However, the topic is major enough in itself to
be explored separately.
At the heart of it, the conclusion is this:
we (at least as we seem to know and model ourselves as) are not residents of
the brains and the bodies that we seem to be a part of. We are not outside it
in a spatial sense (that would be spooky!) We simply do not have a spatial
location. We are enabled by the brains and the bodies in turn. However we do
not reside there.
Now the explanation. Firstly ‘we’ in the
above needs definition. Let us simplify to define the singular of it i.e. I. The
self that we refer to using the pronoun ‘I’ is an illusion, convenient fiction,
narrative center of gravity and so on (much has been written by others as well
as me on this in previous articles). Hence it does not anyway make sense to
look for the location of the illusion. Where does the picture of Mona-Lisa
belong? In the pixels, at the retina of the observer or in the abstract plane
where that arrangement in that specific pigmentation of color for a specific
species called humans has some semantic value (beauty, mystic or whatever
else.)?
The self is a complex entity – even as an
illusion. It is also very high up in the hierarchy. It seems so obviously
mundane to us because the ‘us’ observing and commenting on it is also on the
same plane as the self. This is the plane of the strange loop that Hofstadter
refers to in his book. The plane of this entity is in the motion and
arrangement of the hardware – the primeness and chainium being a good
illustrator of it (I have written on this separately.) The hierarchy of
systematization is as follows. This tree has some branches that do not grow
much beyond their starting point.
•Pre-Energy??
•Energy
•Matter
•Isolated
sub atomic particles
•Atoms
consisting of sub-atomic particles in a specific arrangement
•Atoms in isolation
•Molecules
•Simple
molecules
•Chained
carbon based molecules
•Non-self-replicating
•Self-replicating
•Without nervous system
•With
nervous system
•With
language and complex society
•Social
institutions with causal potency
•Static
societies with rigid institutions
•Individuals
or simple socities without generative language
The
continuity of the structure as the primary identifier of the unit
What makes an atom unique? If we tracked
the existence of a specific oxygen atom, is the atom supposed to be different
after an exchange of electron with another oxygen atom in forming a O2
molecule? What if it returns to the atomic state – and we have no idea whether
it is the same electron that it “contributed” while forming the molecule that
it got back? We do not ask such questions and some may even (partially
correctly) brand them as silly. Why? Because the atom is the specific
arrangement of nucleus and orbiting electrons. Till such time that arrangement
prevails, there is no question to be asked about the identity of specific
constituents. The constituents if you may, are fungible. The structure is the
identity. Ship of Thesius if you will!
Now moving up, it is trivially obvious that
this applies to simple as well as complex molecules – the atoms that make them
can come and go as long as the overall structure of the molecule is maintained.
One more level up and we bump into genetic material or simple organisms like Viri.
Here too, it is universally acknowledged that the complex molecules that make
these systems are fungible even if potent. One level up to complex organisms
and we realize that even the specific cells (which themselves treat the
specific molecules as fungible) are now dispensable. The higher level
arrangement matters more.
With human beings, things move forward to
abstractions. This is a crucial jump. It is very evident that we never think
twice about someone being the same person after an organ transplant (other than
brain that is – but that’s anyway a matter of fiction for now.) Entire organs
have been replaced in human beings with little difference to their personality
or being.
This individuality is what we need to
examine to understand the locus of human self.
Where
am I?
It is at the juncture that I would
introduce the other inference I have reached (and some others before me have
reached too.) It is as follows – it is not that animals evolves into apes that
evolved into us as we know them. Instead it is the substrate of life that
upgraded gradually through evolution to support more and more complex beings
with increasing levels of abstraction. This continues down to the pre nervous
system animals too. The Maturana model of animals and their nervous systems is
relevant here. The nervous systems evolve in response to the pressures of
environment. Some of them evolve sufficiently to enable linguistic domains and
language. This language enables complex societies. After the complex societies
and language are in place, there is sufficient infrastructure for the emergence
of selves on the set. We have arrived, not evolved.
In this sense, we are aliens to the bodies.
The predecessors to the bodies did not have less evolved versions of the
equivalents of the selves. We showed up relatively suddenly (on the timescale
of evolution.)
