More than 50% of the sensory receptors in the human body are located in the eyes, and a significant portion of the cerebral cortex is devoted to interpreting visual information. — https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29494035/

That's an amazing statistic!

And, again, I'll maintain that the very process of falling asleep is regulated and brought about by the unconscious aspects of our mind. — javra

Indeed. It's not our conscious mind that makes us sleep. Our conscious mind often fights it in any way it can. Eventually failing.

Anecdotally, I know of people that benefit in their ease of falling asleep by having the TV on. — javra

Yes. Some need silence, and others need noise. I would guess the tv acts as white noise. Just background droning. I would guess, that's all it is, those people would not be able to sleep if the show varied greatly and sounds. Conversations of several minutes followed by bazooka and machine gun fire might not work for them. i've never tested what noises I could fall asleep too. I can read a book in a room with people talking, or on the couch next to the television. but that's not the same as trying to sleep.

What I was thinking is that we can go to sleep without shutting out sounds as thoroughly as we shut out sights. Sine people have white noise machines. Some people seem to require absolute silence. But, as a species, we can fall asleep in a room with many conversations taking place, and music playing. Why does that sensory input not as bother our sleeping as much as visual input?

My last few days have been crazy busy. i've only read your latest response to me once, which isn't enough for me to have absorbed much. hopefully soon!

As for the conversation the two of you are having, why not substitute hearing or smelling for vision?

I have to read more about the eye/brain connection. Amazing stuff!

The

As one example, although its difficult toward impossible to conclusively establish strictly via fossils and DNA, common consensus has it that cephalopods (like octopi and squid) and vertebrates have evolved their eyes independently via convergent evolution. A reference for this. — javra

Yes, I think this was mentioned in Other Minds: The Octopus, the Sea, and the Deep Origins of Consciousness, by Peter Godfrey-Smith.

These details aside, (maybe as you yourself imply (?)) I so far don’t find all this much mattering though when it comes to basic appraisals of the unconscious mind and consciousness’s dependence on it. — javra

No, I'm just curious.

However, I don't understand your use of "unconscious". I'm sure partly due to my ignorance of the topic. But also possibly because different people mean things in different ways. I'm wondering which, if any, of these you mean. And I'm seriously winging all this.

1) Any brain activity. Which could include those that control heartbeat, temperature, etc.

2) Brain activity like visual, audible, and tactile signals, as well as pain, fatigue, and I don't know what else, since we react to such things, but which are not, themselves, behavior.

3) Brain activity that is reacting to things like visual, audible, and tactile signals, as well as words, memories, and anything else, but which we are not consciously aware of. Which I mighty guess could include such things as Freudian Slips, posthypnotic suggestions, and conditioning. Also the vaguely-defined intuition.

That's rather fascinating information about the embryonic development of the retina!

I'm afraid, though, it throws my understanding of things into chaos. Lol. I thought the first step in the evolution of the eye was supposedly molecules that changed shape depending on the amount of light they were exposed to. Then these molecules, or groups of such molecules, became connected with parts of the entity that moved. Thus, it moved in different ways, depending on the light.

Then, the nature of the connecting structure between the eyespot and moving element changed, becoming a neuron, and eventually a brain.

If that's accurate, then the light-sensitive part did not originate as part of the connecting structure. So, at some point, the connecting structure started producing the light-sensitive material, and the old method of production ceased.

But that's another topic. :grin: I'm thinking that, even if sensory nerves of any other type, in any other part of the body, are not officially part of the brain, they serve the same function as the retina. That is, they send signals to the brain that contain information about things outside the body. And the signals they send to the brain play the same role as the signals the retina sends to the brain.

If the retina is part of the brain, then are the sensory nerves in the toes? I don't know what your definition of brain is.

If the sensory nerves in the toes are part of the brain, then are the signals generated by the toes when something brushes against them an event of the unconscious mind, just as signals generated by the retina when struck by photons are?

My way of explaining this is that it is not that you (i.e., that I-ness) which is the agential first-person point of view (i.e., which is the conscious intellect during waking states) that devises the given dream which one as first-person point of view experiences – no more than it is you as an agential first-person point of view which produces that which you see, smell, hear, etc. during waking states. Rather, it is that you (that I-ness) which consists of one’s total self or being (more specifically: one’s total mind, the unconscious aspects of it included) which produces the REM dream which is experienced by you as a first-person point of view during sleep. Just as its your unconscious mind which produces that which you are conscious of during waking states.

But this gets bound up in the philosophy or else psychology of what a self is constituted of. To use William James' basic dichotomy, which mirrors that of Kant’s and of Husserl’s, the first-person point of view is the “pure ego” which is that I-ness that experiences and thereby knows the phenomenal aspects of one’s total self; i.e., the “I” as knower of the experienced self; e.g., I see; I choose, I remember, etc. All aspects of selfhood that are experienced by this same pure ego is then broadly classified as the “empirical ego”; i.e., the “I” as the self which is known via experience (this by the pure ego); e.g. I am tall/short (or: I have two hands); I am stupid/smart in relation to some topic (or: I have an unconscious mind); I am of this or that nationality, etc. The first consciously experiences phenomena; the second is constituted of the phenomena experienced. So, during a dream, the agential first-person point of view (the pure ego) can well be surprised by that which agencies of its total unconscious mind present to it. To further complicate matters, the pure ego can in certain dreams hold an empirical ego quite distinct from its empirical ego during waking states. But this is a very broad and possibly very different topic. — javra

Thank you for your response. I'm understanding it a little more with each reading. But I'm not understanding this:.
Just as its your unconscious mind which produces that which you are conscious of during waking states.
I am conscious of the temperature, various sounds, my hunger, things that I see, itches and pains, symptoms of illness... How is my unconsciousness mind producing all of that? I would have thought it's role is in different areas.

IMO, the most amazing part of it is that, in my dreams, I am entirely surprised by everything. The scenery. What I find when I walk into a room. Who I run into. What others do. Events like the weather. I, obviously, created everything in my dream. Yet I chose to hide things from myself, and am somehow sble to do so. How do I make a character in my dream do and say everything it does and says, and still be surprised by everything it does and says?

Yes, Bach and Beethoven it is. Beethoven's quartets are the most sublime music every written.

I agree it is a source of wonderment. I'm glad to see you are apparently not one of those who go on to insist there must be something more than the merely material going on. — Janus

No, I'm one of those. :grin: I agree with Chalmers that there needs to be an explanation for why the physical processes don't take place without subjective experience. As Chalmers puts it:

This further question is the key question in the problem of consciousness. Why doesn't all this information-processing go on "in the dark", free of any inner feel? Why is it that when electromagnetic waveforms impinge on a retina and are discriminated and categorized by a visual system, this discrimination and categorization is experienced as a sensation of vivid red? We know that conscious experience does arise when these functions are performed, but the very fact that it arises is the central mystery. There is an explanatory gap (a term due to Levine 1983) between the functions and experience, and we need an explanatory bridge to cross it. A mere account of the functions stays on one side of the gap, so the materials for the bridge must be found elsewhere. — David Chalmers

At 7:00 of this video, Donald Hoffman says it well, while talking about the neural correlates of consciousness, and ions flowing through holes in membranes:

Why should it be that consciousness seems to be so tightly correlated with activity that is utterly different in nature than conscious experience? — Hoffman

So the physical activity of matter doesn't have any connection to consciousness that we can see.

I've quoted Brian Greene in Until the End of Time before. Here it is again;

And within that mathematical description, affirmed by decades of data from particle colliders and powerful telescopes, there is nothing that even hints at the inner experiences those particles somehow generate. How can a collection of mindless, thoughtless, emotionless particles come together and yield inner sensations of color or sound, of elation or wonder, of confusion or surprise? Particles can have mass, electric charge, and a handful of other similar features (nuclear charges, which are more exotic versions of electric charge), but all these qualities seem completely disconnected from anything remotely like subjective experience. How then does a whirl of particles inside a head—which is all that a brain is—create impressions, sensations, and feelings? — Brian Greene

And the physical properties of matter don't have any connection to consciousness that we can see.

Maybe we should consider the idea that this macro thing that isn't explained by any theory of physical activity is made possible by a micro property unlike those that a leading expert in the field says don't even hint at it.

Property dualism.

You have offered fairly extensive reasons for why you feel as you do. Do you feel the way you do for those reasons or are they just a rationalization of how you would feel regardless of those reasons. — Janus

I'm not sure it's not the same thing, looked at from opposite directions. However, not rationalization, but explanation.

It serms to me everybody's mind is drawn to, or resonates with, certain things. I prefer Bach to Mozart, by a long shot. It's not a close call. It wasn't a decision. I didn't mull it over, weigh various qualities, and decide which I preferred. It was automatic. After having taken piano lessons for several years, teachers always giving me Mozart Mozart Mozart, I heard my first Bach piece. BAM! I didn't have to understand why, and couldn't have said at the time. It was just an instant, unquestionable reaction.

Now I can say why, because I took classes in things like music theory, counterpoint, and music history. Why would there be no reasons? And if there are reasons, why wouldn't I be able to name them?

The two main factors are counterpoint and rhythm. Bach is the undisputed king of counterpoint. Can't imagine how many fugues he wrote. He probably spoke in fugue. :rofl: And the Baroque Era is sometimes called the Age of Unflagging Rhythm. It just goes on and on, driving, breathless. I'm not rationalizing my love of Bach's music with these things, and I'd love it without them. They are the reasons I love it - the things my mind is drawn to/resonates with - and I'm describing them.

Frankly, I did leave out a big aspect of my regard for human consciousness. It blows my mind that a clump of matter is aware of its own existence, its own awareness, its own thoughts. We are aware of some things that no other species is. There are also many things we are aware of that other species are also aware of, but which we are aware of to a much greater degree. We think in ways, and about things, nothing else we know of does. We can have end goals that can only be years or decades off, which require various components that, individually, don't have any obvious connection to them, and that will never exist anywhere in the universe but for us. And we bring them into being. The blind laws of physics do not bring about everything that can exist. We are doing things that the universe cannot do without us. Knowingly and intentionally, which are qualities no other part of the universe possesses. Absolutely mind blowing to me.

But I know there are any number of people who don't feel that way.

↪Patterner Nicely put. — Tom Storm

Thanks. But it was only the very lowest hanging fruit. :blush:

OK, I had thought that you were claiming that humans are more important than other animals per se, and not merely in your opinion. If that is how you feel, of course there is no argument against it other than to question just why you might feel that way. I mean it's easy to understand why you would feel that way when it comes to friends or loved ones. Do you think one should feel that way, even when it comes to those you don't know personally? — Janus

I don't know if one should. I do. I would cry my eyes out of I had to choose between saving the life of a beloved pet and a stranger, because I would save the stranger.

I feel the way I do for two reasons.

1) Life is extraordinary. Literally, by definition. It's a pretty huge universe. We can't claim to know terribly much of what's out there. But neither are we entirely ignorant, and we are not aware of any life anywhere other than on our planet. We don't even see signs of it, although there are possible signs that it's possible elsewhere. We haven't been able to create life from scratch, either by trying to follow any of the paths we think nature might have taken, or by stacking the deck as much as we can. I don't think I'm alone in thinking that rare things are worth more than common things. For that reason, imo, life is more valuable than non-life.

2) Awareness at the human level is, to our knowledge, unique to humans. That brute fact makes it even more rare - more valuable - than life. If there was only one flying species, I think that would be pretty special. If every oyster produced a pearl, it would still be very cool, even if the pearls did not demand as high a price. Elephant and walrus tusks are expensive because of their scarcity. My opinion is that human awareness is much more fascinating than wings, pearls, tusks, or anything else we are aware of. (If we could take it out of someone and put it into someone/thing else, I have no doubt it would be happening, with a worldwide crime organization behind it. Can you imagine how much such a thing word cost on the black market??) In support of that opinion, I offer every movie, book, and human conversation in history, as well as a pretty good percentage of all human thoughts.

And one aspect of human awareness is that it wants to continue. Life, in general, works to endure. The continuation of the species is always a primary focus of all species. But, in some species, the individuals are also working to stay alive. None moreso than humans.

Yes, it's subjective. I find human awareness/consciousness more fascinating and attractive than diamonds, chocolate, the aurora borealis, or anything else. Even more than music, which wouldn't exist without us. But I know different people feel different ways.

All that says is that humans are more important to you. — Janus

Of course. We're talking about subjective judgement.

I agree.

So to refine my thought. If burning the Quran is intended only to offend, I see no good in that. If it is to demonstrate against, and reform fanaticism, yes. — ENOAH

Quran or Bible, if you burn the whole thing, you're probably just trying to cause trouble. Burning a specific part means you have a specific concern. That can be addressed. At least discussed.

Although I don't know if any of it matters to Muslims. If Cat Stevens can call for Salmon Rushdie's execution, then I wouldn't be surprised if the religion has an All Or Nothing attitude. But I really don't know. If I know any Muslims personally, I'm not aware of it.

Humans are more important.
— Patterner

For humans, humans are more important than cats.
For cats, cats are more important than mice.
For mice, mice are more important than cockroaches
For cockroaches, cockroaches are more important than bed bugs.

Philosophically, is it right that one part of nature is more important than another part of nature? — RussellA

Yes, it is. It's a judgement call, and that is my judgement.

That's why the difference between being able to judge and not being able to judge is more philosophically important than the difference between the electron and the Higgs Boson.
— Patterner

That means that philosophical questions about the nature of time, space and the Universe are less important than philosophical questions about the human mind.

Is it right that humans consider themselves more important than the world in which they live? — RussellA

Yes, it is. Humans are more important. In some bizarre scenario in which a human is about to be killed, some glorious natural wonder is about to be destroyed, and I can only prevent one, I'm saving the human. It's not even a close call. I will say, "Damn! What a shame! That was very pretty!"

If the second thing in danger is a star, it's still not a close call.

I anticipate many tweaks to the scenario, and have already written out answers to what I think are the more likely ones. But I wanted to just say this much in this post.

↪Patterner Maybe. But end of the day, the burning of Romans is still not a functional response to the hypothetical conflict between the hypothetical Christians and the hypothetical LGBT. — ENOAH

There doesn't seem to be a conflict between the two groups in your scenario. The LGBT people are pointing out that certain verses are evil, and should not be part of a religion based around an all-loving deity. A good response to their action would be, "You're right. Those verses are wrong, and should have been removed long ago." Anyone who has a problem with what they do is the party in the wrong. Worrying about offending them is much like worrying about offending some pre-Civil War Americans by burning copies of state laws that allow slavery. Sure, they got mad. But it was still the right thing to do.

A very good philosophical question. The philosophy of particle physics is an academic topic. — RussellA

That's why the difference between being able to judge and not being able to judge is more philosophically important than the difference between the electron and the Higgs Boson. The former is about how we should behave, treat each other, and respond to how we are treated by others. The latter is about the physical nature of primary particles. Unless we come to realize primary particles are conscious entities, we don't need to concern ourselves with flinging them into each other at extreme speeds in order to smash them to pieces the way we concern ourselves with doing the same to people.

If the LBGT community called upon its members to burn copies of Paul's letter to the Roman's, I don't see how that could be seen as not offensive to the millions of Christians who might cherish that scripture, and have no ill regard for LGBT community; and I don't see how burning Romans would advance their cause. — ENOAH

Maybe those who have no ill regard for the LGBT community should reconsider their cherishement of certain verses of Paul's Letter to the Romans. Maybe the offense taken by the LGBT community over the verses that call their love shameful is more legitimate than the offense taken by Christians who cherish those verses when those verses are burned.

Yes, something having the ability to judge, such as a human, is different to something that doesn't have the ability to judge, such as a tree, but how can this be argued to be of special importance, if no more than a natural expression of nature.

Why is the difference between being able to judge and not being able to judge more philosophically important than the difference between the electron and the Higgs Bosun? — RussellA

There is a philosophical difference between being able to judge and not being able to judge. Is there a philosophical difference between the electron and the Higgs Boson?

What was the name of the bosun on the good ship 'higgs'? — Janus

Nicely done! :grin:

I haven't read too much of this thread. But I've seen a lot of wrong ideas. Try to imagine being on fire. All the time. Jumping in water doesn't help. Rolling on the ground doesn't help. Nothing nothing nothing helps, and the burning goes on and on and on. If being dead is the only thing that will stop the burning, eventually, that's going to be your solution.

"Look at all the things you have to live for" is crap when you're on fire. So is "That's the coward's way out" and "You're going to hurt a lot of people if you kill yourself." It is all meaningless compared to the burning.

Obviously, burning is not a perfect analogy for mental illness. But it gets the point across of how constant mental illness is. And between physical and mental pain, mental is worse. How many of us have had something like a broken bone, bad burn, horribly painful illness, or serious cut that took weeks or months to heal? How much do we suffer from it now? How many of us were emotionally abused, even as adults; excluded by classmates when we were children; made to live in fear? Does all that go away as soon as the emotional abuser is gone? Or does it live with people for the rest of their lives?

Let's say, as a child, a parent caused you great physical pain at times, but always made it seem like an accident, always told you they loved you, and that they were so happy you were their child. Or, let's say they never caused you any physical pain whatsoever, but made it clear that they wish you had never been born, and wish you were not their child. In which scenario will you turn out happier, with better mental health?

Our minds are where it all happens. Some people's minds hurt, constantly, unbearably. Telling them to suck it up, or look at the goods things, or think of others, is not going to help them. Ever. When someone commits suicide, think of how long they were in excruciating pain before they finally stopped enduring it for others, or in the hope that it would end.

A momentary irritation on my part with reading a thread mired in confusion. I'm not really a great burner of books, or even threads. — unenlightened

Spoilsport

Yes, it is. Which means my idea was wrong.

It happens all the time. It was the defining characteristic of American law for a very long time. Many will argue that it still is, and they have a case.

Just this one thread? SPS (Smarty-Pants Syndrome) is everywhere. The whole site could be given a fresh start. It would be good for all. We all need to learn to let go of attachments, even to our own words. Too much ego.

Moral Relativism rather than Moral Absolutism. — RussellA

Certainly, morality is relative. But I'm suggesting there's a common reason for all morality. All have the same goal, but have different, even opposing, ideas about how the goal should be achieved.

Do you dump your partner or stay with her until she is ready for separation? — MoK

You absolutely do not stay with her until she is ready for separation. That would often mean you will never be allowed to go. Sometimes because she is manipulative and controlling. Sometimes because she innocently will never be emotionally able to let you go. Sometimes because staying with her, being kind, understanding, and patient will it make her more attracted to you.

Regardless of the reason she will noy let you go, her need to have you remain with her does booty overrule your need to find happiness elsewhere. It is wrong to insist you stay with her.

Everyone knows it's a risk to love someone. Everyone knows you might be hurt. Few people go through life without having their heart broken.

Sometimes people do things intuitively because it makes sense at the time. Sometimes these acts are intuitive, such as giving up a well paid job or starting to take a particular drug. It may not be possible to put their reasons into words, other than the feeling that it is the right thing to do. — RussellA

I think people often act out of things like fear and low self-esteem. The things they do do not make sense, but are done to punish themselves, or sabotage their future.

Moral codes can be described but not justified. — RussellA

Perhaps moral codes are all rooted in what gives the individual the best chance of continued life and prosperity. The Nazis thought their best chance was to kill everyone not like themselves. The American enslavers amassed wealth by brutalizing others. Many believe the best chance for anyone is to makes things better for everyone, so you won't need to kill or steal from me in order to survive and prosper yourself.

I can't think of anything good that results from burning it. I can think of bad that comes of it. The stabbing is a good example.

We are leaps and bounds above any other species of this planet.
— Patterner

No, we're not. You're not above a shark. Not when you swim under it. — Arcane Sandwich

I hadn't expected anyone to take what I said to mean above in relation to Earth's gravitational pull. But if that's the example you want to use, the vastly overwhelming majority of humans are above the vastly overwhelming majority of sharks at all times. You would do better to use probably most any flying species.

The point I'm trying to get it, is that while it's true, of course, that h.sapiens evolved from simian forbears, during the course of evolution, a threshold was crossed which makes humans very different from other species. But every time I say that, the response is, hey, caledonian crows can count! What makes you think we're so special? Which is what I'm saying is the 'blind spot'. — Wayfarer

"Different" is certainly an understatement. We are leaps and bounds above any other species of this planet.

No one owns The Philosophy Forum. — Arcane Sandwich

Someone created the site by purchasing the domain name and setting up the operating system. Someone, maybe the same person, pays every year for the domain name. Someone, maybe one or more people in addition to whoever pays for the domain name, has the power to shut it down, and even delete every post.

Bill Clinton is an excellent example. Who in the world is being watched more closely, and has less reason to think they can get away with anything, than the POTUS? Who has more important things to do than the POTUS? And he was married, to boot. But there he was, having his fun with Monica.

I agree with the idea that people of like mind should be allowed to discuss something in depth, to explore it fully, without having to justify the premise every several posts. Exploring nuances, discussing why one solution or other failed, and hypothesizing courses of action, is a far cry from preaching to the choir or being in an echo chamber. Of course, it's easy enough to ignore posts of someone or other who you know is going to argue against the premise. But someone new to the thread might not want to wade through it all, and just leave.

But, you can only get such a setting in your own home/on your own site. Don't invite the denier to your house when you and those who agree want to discuss it. Or find/create a site geared toward your views.

I have a personal moral code precisely because some things make sense and some things don't. — RussellA

Yet people do things that do not make sense all the time. Indeed, things that are very bad for them, things that ruin their lives, and even things that kill them. We say some of these people are addicts, and that addiction is a disorder or disease. Does everyone who does things that don't make sense have a disorder?

↪Wayfarer

You're right about everything.
— Patterner

Well, if that's the case, then why are people so dismissive towards his idealism? — Arcane Sandwich

Well, I didn't mean everything everything. I meant the things he had said in his last couple posts. Factually accurate, but I think a different interpretation applies.

My proto-consciousness views are also generally dismissed, so I don't put much stock in someone's ideas being dismissed.

P1 Assume that within nature there is no objective judgment of good and evil
P2 Humans are part of nature
P3 Each individual's judgment as to what is good or evil is particular to them and is subjective
C1 As between different individuals there may be a range of judgments as to what is good or evil, it is not possible to determine an objective judgment of what is good or evil.
C2 Within nature, whilst there may be a range of judgments as to what is good or evil, there can be no objective judgment of what is good or evil. — RussellA

I believe this is the accurate option.

In conclusion, within nature there may be an objective judgement of what is good or evil, but humans are not aware of it. The fact that humans are part of nature and make subjective judgments as to what is good or evil does not mean that within nature there is an objective judgment of what is good or evil. — RussellA

I agree. I never said there is an objective judgement of what is good and evil. In fact, I suggested there is no such thing as objective judgement. Judgement is subjective.

You're right about everything. But I think it all needs to be viewed and/or labeled differently. Humans evolved in the universe, through the laws of physics. That makes us natural beings. How could anything that came about through the natural processes of the universe not be natural?

The fact that we manufacture things that the laws of physics would never manufacture without us doesn't mean we, or our consciousness, or teleology, isn't natural. It means the laws off physics aren't the be-all and end-all of what is natural.

It's possible that consciousness like ours already exists elsewhere inn the universe. It's possible it will pop up more asked now throughout there universe. And all the conscious beings will manufacture more and more things that would not exist if the laws of physics were the only thing at play. Will we say the universe is no longer natural when >50% of the universe is either conscious or things manufacturers by conscious beings?

Humans make subjective not objective judgements. — RussellA

Subjective judgement might be redundant. What is an objective judgement?

In nature there are no judgements. — RussellA

Humans are natural. Humans judge good and evil. Therefore, nature judges good and evil. The fact that not every cc in the universe judges good and evil doesn't mean nature doesn't judge good and evil. Just as, while every cc in the universe is not involved with fusion reaction, stars are.

A judgement is not about a certainty. — RussellA

It can be for a specific action in a specific setting.


Certainly, what we judge to be good and evil can be different in different circumstances. It's subjective. The fact that killing a human in Scenario A is judged to be good, but killing a human in Scenario B is judged to be evil, does not not mean it is not good in A.

Humans are a part of nature, and as nature has no objective judgement neither do humans. — RussellA

Humans have subjective judgement. Which, again, is the only kind there is. And humans are a part of nature. Subjective judgement is a part of nature.

Humans are a part of nature and not separate to it. Particular features of human existence, such as self-awareness, ability to judge, being intellectual rather than instinctive and having a morality may be explained as natural expressions of nature. Nature is using the agency of the human to express these particular features, rather than being expressed by a human existing separately to a world in which they have evolved. — RussellA

You understand exactly.

That humans are self-aware is not evidence that humans are separate to nature. If humans are a part of nature rather than separate to it, then it may be argued that it is the case that nature is self-aware through the agency of the human. Human self-awareness is the mechanism by which nature is self-aware. — RussellA

Very well put.

That humans are self-aware is not evidence that humans are separate to nature.

That humans are self-aware is not evidence that humans are separate to nature.

That humans have free-will is not evidence that humans are separate to nature. — RussellA

Nothing can conceivably be evidence that humans are separate to nature. The fish is part of the aquarium. The snail is part of the aquarium. The gravel is part of the aquarium. The water is part of the aquarium. Humans are part of nature.