In some ways, we human beings are similar in structure to a computer.

We too are made of material stuff. Like the computer, we too have input/ output devises, a processing unit, and memory areas to store data. We too need a constant supply of energy; and indeed, we also need to be cooled and kept at the correct working temperature.

But we are also, in many ways, unlike the computers that we construct out of matter. It is said that we are "self aware", in a way that the computer is not. (Or at least, not yet so!).

So what is this "self awareness" that is stated to be the vital difference between man and man-made machines?

Let us first define as to what constitutes "self awareness". I suppose that this is being aware of one's own "self" -- as opposed to being aware of the reality surrounding us. But then, is one not INCLUDED in the other? Can we conceive of awareness of external surroundings, other than as an "experience" that segregates the "self" from "non-self"?

Both Vedanta and Buddhism regard such "dualism" to be an illusion. The highest form of "realization" or "nirvana" is supposed to be when we get to recognize the oneness of "self" and "non-self" -- or when we abandon "self-awareness"!

However, whether or not the feeling of "self" is illusory, there can be no doubt that a human being has a strong sense of being "self aware".

A dog too would appear to be "self aware", though perhaps not to the extent that this is so in case of human beings. What about a gold fish? With a memory of only a few seconds -- and hardly any foresight, this creature is not aware of its own birth -- nor that death is inevitable. Yet the fish knows when it needs food, and when it needs to mate. This too is a form of "self awareness", right? What about a plant, or a bacteria? Are these too "self aware"? Certainly so -- more so than a non-living stone, even if less "self aware" than even a gold fish.

What I am driving at is that "self awareness" is not an ALL or NONE binary state. There are grades of self awareness. Even if we consider human beings, the fertilised egg within the womb (the ovum that would eventually "grow" to be a human) is not "self aware", any more than an amoeba is (or perhaps less so). Along the tortuous path of embryonic growth, "self awareness" of an individual human being too slowly evolves.

Even a new born baby can only be loosely recognized as "self aware". As we grow up to become adults, our "self awareness" too peaks at some stage. And as we move on to very old age, a point comes when self awareness starts to fade.

Even before old age, self awareness would appear to get extinguished temporarily when we sleep, and severely so when in a coma, or in some conditions of mechanical damage to the brain. Finally, death would seem to signal the irreversible end to our "self awareness".

So WHAT is "self awareness"? And how has this come about? Why do we have this?

Definitely, "self awareness" is something that came to us in slow graded steps through the process of biological evolution.

Why did "self awareness" evolve in nature? It is obvious that "self awareness" evolved to it's present level of complexity BECAUSE this helped gene lineages to persist -- the same reason why the first forms of primitive life (in the primordial soup of the oceans) accumulated the full complement of complexity that characterises modern living beings (particularly human beings). This has come to be, across millions of generations of gradual evolution.

Are computers "self aware"?

Not even remotely so -- in the manner that we human beings are self aware! But perhaps more so than a 1 day old embryo, or an amoeba.

But there is nothing theoretically impossible about "programming" a machine to "behave" as if it is "self aware". In fact, we do have programs that that enable a computer to "detect" attacks by viruses, and also to initiate self measures to quarantine or to expel these.

We can conceive of programming a machine to "respond" to pain, anger, pleasure as if it is self aware. In a very rudimentary sense, any computer program is just this -- responding to "inputs" in an algorithmic way. And "deciding" on an "output" based on this. We do NOT need a "ghost in the machine" for this. All we need is a software "program" that conditionally responds to inputs.

What is evident is that we human beings too do NOT require an immaterial "ghost in the machine" to be "self aware". All we need is software. That leads us to the computational theory of the mind.

A few physicists (well past their prime) during the mid-20th century, suggested "explanations" involving quantum mechanics, "collapse of wave function" etc. to understand the mind (or animal perception or "awareness"). However, not even a SINGLE biologist has had any need to invoke quantum mysteries to explain the mystery of life and consciousness! Nor do modern physicists propose these as plausible explanations for biological phenomena.

Today, few scientists would doubt that Schrödinger (and a few others) were simply overawed by the strangeness of the laws of the quantum world, and thus went overboard with untenable speculations on an area of science where they were poorly informed.

There can be no theory regarding "self awareness" without a clear understanding of the process of biological evolution, and of the computational theory of the mind...

Anand