Bit 1
Subjective awareness does not appear to me to have been dealt with very deeply by philosophers, or at least whatever ideas and conclusions they have come up with have not been as deeply ingrained into the general population as with other subjects. An exception, of course, is the classic phrase from Descartes "I think therefore I am", which recognises the individual's subjective awareness (thought) as being the only fundamental certainty. Even then, as far as I am aware he does not go on to explore the phenomenon itself, but simply uses it as a basic given certainty upon which to base an exploration of the nature of reality; which ultimately leads, as I understand it, to a "proof" of the existence of god. A conclusion which is highly contested today.
The only other one I know of is someone I only learned anything about recently, Maurice Merleau-Ponty (yes whitecraw, from "Mr McGoo") who I understand concludes (approximately) that reality can only be experienced from the unique point of view of the individual, and knowledge of it can never therefore be complete. Which is no doubt interesting, but still has little to say about the actual nature of subjectivity itself.
I am not aware of there having been any in-depth analysis of the origin of subjective awareness. Of course I realise that doesn't mean that none has been done. I am a long long way from academia in my own life, so of course myriads of studies are bound to be in progress of which I am entirely ignorant. On the other hand, it seems to me that in this modern world, things of potential interest to the general public do tend to trickle into the public realm. And what could be of more interest to any member of the general public than an increased amount of knowledge about the nature of her or his own subjective awareness?
The general assumption today seems to be that the condition of subjective awareness is something which has arisen as a product of evolution. The theory I imagine goes something like this. That as life increases in complexity it develops reflexes which serve to enhance the capability to survive; that in time these reflexes in turn develop and evolve into a functioning organ to specialise in such things as finding food, self defence, habitat and so on, ie a brain; which continues to develop in complexity until it ultimately "trips" into subjective awareness, such as experienced by most human beings.
However, I am not aware of there ever having been any attempt to test this theory in any scientific way, or even of there having been any real consideration of any necessity to do so. It seems to me to be something which, contrary to scientific practice in most fields, has just been "assumed to be so". Maybe I'm wrong about that, in which case I shall no doubt be told so.
And indeed, from the Other Place I find the following:
Can this conclusion of David Hume's, regarding the self, be reasonably be paraphrased as "I am what I experience"? And has it been tested and supported by others? Has it been subjected, in any way, to the "scientific method"? And does it bring us any closer to an understanding of what precisely this subjectivity consists?White Craw wrote: I tend towards bundle theory myself; though I came to it through Hume rather than some New Age reading of Buddhist scripture. When Hume introspected, he discovered that he had no experience of any ‘continuing subject’ of the thoughts, feelings, impressions, etc. that constituted ‘his’ experience, but only of those thoughts, feelings, impressions, etc. themselves. He therefore concluded that, on the basis of experience alone, the ‘self’ cannot be said to be a substance that perceives (like Descartes’ ‘mind’), but can only be said to be simply that bundle of perceptions themselves. Radical empiricists later took Hume’s bundle theory of self as their main point of departure in the development of the theory that the basic ‘stuff’ of the universe is neither mind nor matter but experience. The world is just as it appears to be; nothing more, nothing less.
If that which I perceive to be my self comprises of the bundle of my perceptions then I remain curious as to why they remain "my" perceptions. I am myself, always at this particular centre of being. I accept of course that the actual atoms, cells, and so on which make up the framework for this particular bundle {... but now you see just writing this stuff makes me feel incredibly stoned. And I have to stop.
10-20 mins later.
OK, I went downstairs and watched a bit of a crap movie, and now I'm back to have another go at confronting this particular demon. Plus I have some Cheddars (munchies? My god I really was stoned!)}
I accept of course that the actual atoms, cells, and so on which make up the framework for this particular bundle ("me") have changed, although I continue to experience my self as a centre of perception, and despite Hume (above) that perception appears to be continuous. The "me" that exists now I feel as being the same "me" as when I was a child; I can remember things that happened when I was a child. However, when I specifically try and remember my first conscious memory I find I am unable to do so. It all gets vague. Some things I think I remember, such as watching the heavy rain falling through the french windows, are in all likelihood actually amalgams - not memories of single events but a composite, made up of many similar instants. And the fact of its raining is probably largely because, had it not been so, I would probably not be inside looking through the glass doors at the garden, but out there myself playing in it. Hence, no particular memory of looking out through them at the sunshine, although it is inevitable that I must have done so on occasion.
There is doubt therefore that my memory of what happened to me (whatever "me" is precisely) throughout my life is exactly the same as what actually did happen to me. More than doubt. It really is pretty certain that what I think of as a recollection of past events is actually a kind of mnemonic summary, more sketch than record of what actually happened. Yet it feels so real!
My little experience I had earlier made me think. I have had that kind of thing happen before, when thinking about or talking about this kind of stuff. A sensation very similar to being stoned on hash. How can I describe it? Trance-like, I guess. A kind of "silent buzzing" in the brain, and also a sense of reality drifting; a feeling of being unreal, akin to dreaming perhaps, only different in that one still feels awake. Here it comes again... just a touch that time, stops as soon as I stop typing, but then builds up as I get more and more conscious of my own self-examination.
I suppose something like it is to be expected. If what I am, as I read somewhere recently, is an instance of "nature perceiving itself" then it's pretty likely that any attempt, by me, to analyse that process of perception, is likely ... this is like typing through glue ... likely to get pretty convoluted. A bit like sawing through the branch you are sitting on, I guess. You have to take care to remain on the tree side of the saw cut else ... woops-a-daisy!
Wonder what my blood pressure is right now. 195/140 I shouldn't wonder! Yikes!
Anyway, it is now well gone my bed time so what I'll do is post this for now, and come back to it later. Leaving a question to sleep on:
Why am I this particular bundle though?
Oh yeah, and whitecraw, can I possibly ask a favour? I realise you'll be likely to have something very pertinent to say on the subject matter, but can I ask you, ever so humbly, to hold back for a bit in order to let us poor mortals (this poor mortal in particular) fumble and flounder around for a bit before attempting to haul us (me) out of the mire? I hope you won't mind me asking that of you, but I don't think you will, because you've been pretty understanding so far.