Is Consciousness a Result of Evolution

[Sunstone]

You and others might find this article called "A New Theory Explains How Consciousness Evolved" at
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/06/how-consciousness-evolved/485558/ of interest. Here's an excerpt:

"What is the adaptive value of consciousness? When did it evolve and what animals have it? The Attention Schema Theory (AST), developed over the past five years, may be able to answer those questions. The theory suggests that consciousness arises as a solution to one of the most fundamental problems facing any nervous system: Too much information constantly flows in to be fully processed. The brain evolved increasingly sophisticated mechanisms for deeply processing a few select signals at the expense of others, and in the AST, consciousness is the ultimate result of that evolutionary sequence. If the theory is right—and that has yet to be determined—then consciousness evolved gradually over the past half billion years and is present in a range of vertebrate species."

It seems to me possible that consciousness serves more than one function, much like the throat in humans serves more than one function. Consequently, there may have been more than one reason that it evolved as it did. That is, I can see how it could have evolved to focus attention, aide in self defense, and provide or increase foresight all at the same time. The facts are that today it does all three things.

 

[David T]

The bicameral state is a hypothesis in psychology that argues that the human mind once assumed a state in which cognitive functions were divided between one part of the brain which appears to be "speaking", and a second part which listens and obeys.
It was the normal and ubiquitous state of the human mind as recently as 3000 years ago. Humans would have experienced the world in a manner that has some similarities to that of a schizophrenic. Rather than making conscious evaluations in unexpected situations, the person would hallucinate or get admonitory advice or commands and obey without question.
The Conscious of one's own thought processes that often direct the behavior of those labeled schizophrenic. So basically consciousness began when visual and auditory hallucinations of god stopped, so yes consciousness is a result of human evolution.

The literidiocracy hypothesis states that modernity is in fact delusional disassociated from reality due to hyper abstractionism. Seems that PhDs with hypothesis about stuff they clearly have no clue about are the worst victims of it.

 

[David T]

The question creates an infinite recursion identical to holding a mirror to a mirror. Therefore it's valid in context to implicit presuppositions and not valid because of recursion at the same time.

 

[idav]

The question creates an infinite recursion identical to holding a mirror to a mirror. Therefore it's valid in context to implicit presuppositions and not valid because of recursion at the same time.

We simply keep poking at things until it does something worth noting or says ouch. We are the best evidence that consciousness exists and the only animal on the planet with the potential knowledge and ability to test other species and physical objects. Things responding to stimuli is not implicit in the least.

 

[idav]

It seems to me possible that consciousness serves more than one function, much like the throat in humans serves more than one function. Consequently, there may have been more than one reason that it evolved as it did. That is, I can see how it could have evolved to focus attention, aide in self defense, and provide or increase foresight all at the same time. The facts are that today it does all three things.

Consciousness certainly supports evolution in that any species developing it will have distinct advantages. Those advantages just keep growing which we share with other apes. I'm not sure people like the idea of consiousness being a happenstance in evolutionary progression.

I'd be more receptive to idealism as soon as someone can explain how a plant is conscious and not just chemicals processes. I think plants are fine example of seeing rudimentary forms of awareness especially considering plants were the first animals to evolve from multicellular organisms.

Even if we were to consider a cell even remotely aware, it's the collective of these cells that produce the awareness that humans cherish. So one can consider humans having a fundamental awareness but that stops at a living cell, rudimentary awareness doesn't appear more fundamental than that and we couldn't rightly call a cell conscious. After all there is the binding problem to consider.
Neural binding - Wikipedia

 

[David T]

We simply keep poking at things until it does something worth noting or says ouch. We are the best evidence that consciousness exists and the only animal on the planet with the potential knowledge and ability to test other species and physical objects. Things responding to stimuli is not implicit in the least.

Well yea but when questions or statements start here I always just see it. You apparently can't I think that's probably normal.

 

[whirlingmerc]

Is consciousness a result of evolution or did it exist before life on earth began?

If consciousness already existed prior to life on earth existing what is so special about human consciousness?

God is conscious from eternity and so consciousness precedes creation

 

[idav]

Well yea but when questions or statements start here I always just see it. You apparently can't I think that's probably normal. View attachment 16335

I see what your saying but I don't agree and gave justification. You said something like "yeah but nah"?

 

[idav]

God is conscious from eternity and so consciousness precedes creation

How do you conclude this logically?

 

[David T]

I see what your saying but I don't agree and gave justification. You said something like "yeah but nah"?

Yes because we do poke and and prod. And maybe through that procesd we come to realize oh that was a house of mirrors we abstractively created and then we breathe. There is a predisposed ingrained culturally driven assumption to ask who is that person in that mirror. That way of understanding is awesome in context to my trade construction but falls flat at questions such as the one proposed. I think this is the reason Richard Feynman wouldn't entertain the question at all. But I could be wrong.i could ask which little girl is the reAl one? The answer none of them.

 

[idav]

Yes because we do poke and and prod. And maybe through that procesd we come to realize oh that was a house of mirrors we abstractively created and then we breathe. There is a predisposed ingrained culturally driven assumption to ask who is that person in that mirror. That way of understanding is awesome in context to my trade construction but falls flat at questions such as the one proposed. I think this is the reason Richard Feynman wouldn't entertain the question at all. But I could be wrong.i could ask which little girl is the reAl one? The answer none of them.

I actually do think consiousness is like a trick with mirrors, awareness of awareness, and like mirror tricks it's an illusion. That isn't to say it isn't explainable.

 

[David T]

I actually do think consiousness is like a trick with mirrors, awareness of awareness, and like mirror tricks it's an illusion. That isn't to say it isn't explainable.

I blame it on the university

 

[David T]

God is conscious from eternity and so consciousness precedes creation

That's Pythagoreanism. Heraclitus said Pythagoras was a cleaver idiot!!! And Homer should be beaten. I am not saying you are I don't wAnt to offend anyone here I am just repeating what was said 2,600 years ago. Recently I called an atheist a pinhead and got in trouble. apparently they were a snowflake!!! So i try and be pc.

 

[idav]

I blame it on the university

That must explain why people like to appeal to ignorance when it comes to consciousness.

 

[shmogie]

Our consciousness is a special what if scenario: What if consciousness were a time bound process? What if knowledge was limited? In another sense we are answers to the questions "What is knowledge?" "What is knowing?" and "What am I?" People can consider questions about what is real and where did we come from. This is a special thing to do. Rocks cannot do it. Omniscient things could not do it either. Our consciousness is neither tiny nor enormous. It is the right size to ponder what it means to know.

I also agree that evolution is what gives rise to our consciousness, but I think our consciousness models some latent potential that exists in the Mathiverse.

Hmmmm, evolution, a proposed natural and material process, led to not only a brain, but a mind. How does matter do this ? Deep Blue, is a material computer that defeated the chess world champion, but it has no mind. How did matter through material processes, create imagination ?

 

[Etritonakin]

Is consciousness a result of evolution or did it exist before life on earth began?

If consciousness already existed prior to life on earth existing what is so special about human consciousness?

If we consider the big bang as the beginning of "physical" matter, we see that complex matter developed/was developed from simple matter. The elements which formed with the big bang from more simple matter can then be arranged into even more complex matter (compounds, etc.)

If we consider physical "life" forms on earth -we see that complex consciousness developed/was developed from simple consciousness. Plants might be considered not conscious, but they are actually more simply conscious than other life forms. A life form must be somewhat aware of its environment in order to interact and adapt.

If we consider that physical life forms are made of the same things as things which are not considered to be alive, we see that even those things which are not considered to be alive must also be somewhat "aware" in order to interact -to affect and be affected -and that simple awareness is that upon which complex awareness is based.

So -EVERYTHING is BASICALLY BOTH material and conscious -and can be varied in arrangement and complexity.

Though physical life was preceded by the formation of the elements, complex consciousness itself does not depend on the elements -but could be by complex arrangement of the more simple "matter" which preceded the big bang.

What is special about human consciousness is that it far exceeds its present body.

Other life forms are fairly balanced in body and consciousness/awareness/ability -but humans even have the power to re-imagine their bodies.

The fact that we are "physical" means that we are essentially UNDER the laws of physics (essentially ...the laws applied to more simple matter to form the elements).
Our minds can think far beyond our bodily ability -and we presently enhance our ability with external tools -but a body which was not subject to physical law, and had a more direct interface (making the body a more advanced "tool"), would balance the two -and that fact basically hints at our future (however one believes it might come to pass).

Php 3:21 Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself.

 

[idav]

How did matter through material processes, create imagination ?

As an evolutionary tool like knowing whether what is in the bushes, food or prey.

 

[idav]

If we consider the big bang as the beginning of "physical" matter, we see that complex matter developed/was developed from simple matter. The elements which formed with the big bang from more simple matter can then be arranged into even more complex matter (compounds, etc.)

If we consider physical "life" forms on earth -we see that complex consciousness developed/was developed from simple consciousness. Plants might be considered not conscious, but they are actually more simply conscious than other life forms. A life form must be somewhat aware of its environment in order to interact and adapt.

If we consider that physical life forms are made of the same things as things which are not considered to be alive, we see that even those things which are not considered to be alive must also be somewhat "aware" in order to interact -to affect and be affected -and that simple awareness is that upon which complex awareness is based.

So -EVERYTHING is BASICALLY BOTH material and conscious -and can be varied in arrangement and complexity.

Though physical life was preceded by the formation of the elements, complex consciousness itself does not depend on the elements -but could be by complex arrangement of the more simple "matter" which preceded the big bang.

What is special about human consciousness is that it far exceeds its present body.

Other life forms are fairly balanced in body and consciousness/awareness/ability -but humans even have the power to re-imagine their bodies.

The fact that we are "physical" means that we are essentially UNDER the laws of physics (essentially ...the laws applied to more simple matter to form the elements).
Our minds can think far beyond our bodily ability -and we presently enhance our ability with external tools -but a body which was not subject to physical law, and had a more direct interface (making the body a more advanced "tool"), would balance the two -and that fact basically hints at our future (however one believes it might come to pass).

Php 3:21 Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself.

This is interesting and well thought out. I have to ask, how do you come to the conclusion that because all things are made of the same things then everything must be aware. Couldn't we just as easily say if rocks aren't conscious and everything is made of treat stuff then nothing is really consious beyond simple cause and effect with added complexity? Simple chemicals can act alive but they ar not, only seem that way cause we see them doing stuff but it only based on reactions.

 

[Etritonakin]

This is interesting and well thought out. I have to ask, how do you come to the conclusion that because all things are made of the same things then everything must be aware. Couldn't we just as easily say if rocks aren't conscious and everything is made of treat stuff then nothing is really consious beyond simple cause and effect with added complexity? Simple chemicals can act alive but they ar not, only seem that way cause we see them doing stuff but it only based on reactions.

...but your life is dependent on those reactions -and is essentially made of those and other reactions/interactions. So -you are alive in a complex way -and they are "alive" in a simple way.
If those sorts of things did not act and react -you (in your present form) would not be able to exist, act or react.

I use terms in a very elastic manner.
I am not saying that everything is aware on the same level -but that complex awareness is by arrangement of simple awareness.
By "simply aware", I can mean something as simple as two marbles becoming "aware" of each other by contacting and being affected by each other -or two atoms becoming "aware" of each other by contacting, interacting, etc.

If atoms did not become "aware" of each other by contact and interaction, DNA-based life forms could not have become aware in a complex way (but that is not to say that life and awareness must be DNA-based)

How are we able to be aware? Of what are we aware?
It's pretty much the same stuff in a different arrangement.

It may seem strange or counterintuitive, but.....
Our actions are not SIMPLY the result of action and reaction -we can DECIDE how to react -but that power of decision/unpredictability -mastery of simplicities -is made possible by COMPLEXITY (or complex arrangement of those more simple and predictable reactions) -and also makes possible creation of greater complexities.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Decisions are reactive based which is a process of overall awareness which is consciousness. An emergent property of matter.

Think biological virusas. Upon stimuli it reacts and activates in a certain way.

We work essentally the same way.