Pansychism & The Purpose of Consciousness

[Rational Agnostic]

I've been thinking about the problems of consciousness a bit lately, and am becoming increasingly intrigued by the panpsychist position--the position that consciousness is ubiquitous in matter. The reason for this is because I have a hard time envisioning consciousness as being an emergent property beginning as a biological mutation and being favored by natural selection. As far as I can tell, consciousness serves no purpose in biological evolution, and conscious life forms would have no survival advantage over non-conscious life forms, as long as the non-conscious life forms performed the same actions as the conscious ones. I can think of no survival or reproductive advantage that a conscious life form would have over a non-conscious, replicating organism (a biological robot) that does the same things as the conscious entity. As a result, I believe there is a strong possibility that consciousness was always a part of the universe. The fact that we could be biological robots but are not tells me that consciousness may be a fundamental property of matter, and that more complex arrangements of matter have more vivid levels of consciousness that are built from simpler forms of matter with simpler forms of consciousness. Since consciousness produces no conceivable survival advantage, there is no reason that it should have arisen via natural selection.

 

[dybmh]

As far as I can tell, consciousness serves no purpose in biological evolution

Collected wisdom is a function of consciousness?

I can think of no survival or reproductive advantage that a conscious life form would have over a non-conscious, replicating organism (a biological robot) that does the same things as the conscious entity.

Just curious, do you think that a biological robot would be able to have an epiphany?

The fact that we could be biological robots but are not tells me that consciousness may be a fundamental property of matter, and that more complex arrangements of matter have more vivid levels of consciousness that are built from simpler forms of matter with simpler forms of consciousness. Since consciousness produces no conceivable survival advantage, there is no reason that it should have arisen via natural selection.

It's a really interesting idea. You may be right, I don't know. But I'm not sure that what you've presented so far shows there's no reason that it should have risen via natural selection. I think there is indeed an evolutionary advantage for conscious beings over robots. The examples are above.

 

[Polymath257]

The way you ask this makes it seem that you think that philosophical zombies are possible (it is possible to be physically identical to a conscious being and still not be conscious). Is this correct?

if not, why do you think that consciousness (awareness of surroundings) and self-consciousness (ability to place oneself in the surroundings) wouldn't be a survival trait?

 

[Left Coast]

I've been thinking about the problems of consciousness a bit lately, and am becoming increasingly intrigued by the panpsychist position--the position that consciousness is ubiquitous in matter. The reason for this is because I have a hard time envisioning consciousness as being an emergent property beginning as a biological mutation and being favored by natural selection. As far as I can tell, consciousness serves no purpose in biological evolution, and conscious life forms would have no survival advantage over non-conscious life forms, as long as the non-conscious life forms performed the same actions as the conscious ones. I can think of no survival or reproductive advantage that a conscious life form would have over a non-conscious, replicating organism (a biological robot) that does the same things as the conscious entity. As a result, I believe there is a strong possibility that consciousness was always a part of the universe. The fact that we could be biological robots but are not tells me that consciousness may be a fundamental property of matter, and that more complex arrangements of matter have more vivid levels of consciousness that are built from simpler forms of matter with simpler forms of consciousness. Since consciousness produces no conceivable survival advantage, there is no reason that it should have arisen via natural selection.

Really interesting possibility, but how would we test this idea, to see if it matches reality? What sort of consciousness does copper have? Or an electron? If everything is conscious, what does consciousness actually mean?

 

[Rational Agnostic]

The way you ask this makes it seem that you think that philosophical zombies are possible (it is possible to be physically identical to a conscious being and still not be conscious). Is this correct?

if not, why do you think that consciousness (awareness of surroundings) and self-consciousness (ability to place oneself in the surroundings) wouldn't be a survival trait?

I think that philosophical zombies are possible but I'm open to changing my mind. Can you think of any obvious reasons why they are logically impossible?

 

[Terry Sampson]

Just curious, do you think that a biological robot would be able to have an epiphany?

Ooooo, ... what a novel thought. Surely some clever person has written sci-fi incorporating the notion?

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Really interesting possibility, but how would we test this idea, to see if it matches reality? What sort of consciousness does copper have? Or an electron? If everything is conscious, what does consciousness actually mean?

I fully admit it's probably an unprovable idea. But that doesn't mean it's not true.

And I would define consciousness as subjective experience and ability to perceive. Most already accept a "spectrum" of consciousness in biological organisms.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Collected wisdom is a function of consciousness?

Just curious, do you think that a biological robot would be able to have an epiphany?

It's a really interesting idea. You may be right, I don't know. But I'm not sure that what you've presented so far shows there's no reason that it should have risen via natural selection. I think there is indeed an evolutionary advantage for conscious beings over robots. The examples are above.

How do you define "epiphany?"

 

[Left Coast]

I fully admit it's probably an unprovable idea. But that doesn't mean it's not true.

That's true. But the only reason we should believe it is true is if we have evidence for it, right? Do we have any?

And I would define consciousness as subjective experience and ability to perceive. Most already accept a "spectrum" of consciousness in biological organisms.

Indeed, but as far as I know they're all biological organisms with brains. What subjective experience and ability to perceive does a grain of sand have?

 

[dybmh]

How do you define "epiphany?"

A spontaneous useful idea?

 

[Terry Sampson]

A spontaneous useful idea?

 

[Rational Agnostic]

That's true. But the only reason we should believe it is true is if we have evidence for it, right? Do we have any?

The evidence is that consciousness has no evolutionary purpose at least as far as I can tell. So consciousness may be fundamental to the matter in the universe.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

A spontaneous useful idea?

By spontaneous, I assume you mean uncaused? If so, I don't believe such an idea exists.

 

[Left Coast]

The evidence is that consciousness has no evolutionary purpose at least as far as I can tell. So consciousness may be fundamental to the matter in the universe.

I'm not sure how you get from one to the other. You don't understand why something is the way it is, so therefore you're proposing an explanation there is no evidence for and that contradicts everything we do know about consciousness. It just replaces one problem for an even bigger one, doesn't it?

 

[Mock Turtle]

The evidence is that consciousness has no evolutionary purpose at least as far as I can tell. So consciousness may be fundamental to the matter in the universe.

Do you think memory has any evolutionary purpose? Since, for me at least, I suspect that this is where consciousness might have originated, and survival being what enhanced such. I'm sure memory enabled those with such to survive better than those without any.

 

[danieldemol]

I've been thinking about the problems of consciousness a bit lately, and am becoming increasingly intrigued by the panpsychist position--the position that consciousness is ubiquitous in matter. The reason for this is because I have a hard time envisioning consciousness as being an emergent property beginning as a biological mutation and being favored by natural selection. As far as I can tell, consciousness serves no purpose in biological evolution, and conscious life forms would have no survival advantage over non-conscious life forms, as long as the non-conscious life forms performed the same actions as the conscious ones. I can think of no survival or reproductive advantage that a conscious life form would have over a non-conscious, replicating organism (a biological robot) that does the same things as the conscious entity. As a result, I believe there is a strong possibility that consciousness was always a part of the universe. The fact that we could be biological robots but are not tells me that consciousness may be a fundamental property of matter, and that more complex arrangements of matter have more vivid levels of consciousness that are built from simpler forms of matter with simpler forms of consciousness. Since consciousness produces no conceivable survival advantage, there is no reason that it should have arisen via natural selection.

I’m neither a philosopher nor a great thinker, but the way I look at it is like the difference between a plant and an animal with a brain (and by extension conscious awareness).

If a predator eats a plant, the plant does not make attempt to evade the predator.

If an animal with a brain consciously detects a predator coming it will endeavour to evade or fight off the predator - hence the selective advantage of consciousness.

 

[Terry Sampson]

• On-line collection of papers on panpsychism, by various authors, compiled by David Chalmers
  
  • Online papers on consciousness
    • Zombies -
      
      • Andrew Bailey, Physicalism and the preposterousness of zombies
      • Andrew Bailey, Zombies support biological theories of consciousness
      • Peter Bokulich, Putting zombies to rest: The role of dynamics in reduction
      • Selmer Bringsjord, In defense of impenetrable zombies
      • Selmer Bringsjord, The zombie attack on the computational conception of mind
      • David Chalmers, Self-ascription without qualia: A case-study
      • Allin Cottrell, Sniffing the camembert: On the conceivability of zombies
      • Daniel Dennett, The unimagined preposterousness of zombies
      • Daniel Dennett, The zombic hunch: Extinction of an intuition?
      • Owen Flanagan & Tom Polger, Zombies and the function of consciousness
      • Stevan Harnad, Why and how we are not zombies
      • Larry Hauser, Revenge of the zombies
      • Mike Kearns, Could Daniel Dennett be a zombie?
      • Robert Kirk, Zombies
      • Christof Koch & Francis Crick, On the zombie within
      • Jaron Lanier, You can't argue with a zombie
      • Dan Lloyd, Twilight of the zombies
      • Michael Lynch, Zombies and the case of the phenomenal pickpocket
      • Peter Marton, Zombies versus materialists: The battle for conceivability
      • Chris Mathieson, Reining in Chalmers: On the logical possibility of zombies
      • John McCarthy, Todd Moody's zombies
      • Todd Moody, Conversations with zombies
      • Tom Polger, Zombies
      • William Seager, Are zombies logically possible? -- and why it matters
      • Nigel Shardlow, Zombies
      • Paul Skokowski, I, zombie
      • Jan Sleutels, Greek zombies
      • Daniel Stoljar, Actors and zombies
      • Tamler Sommers, Of zombies, color scientists, and floating iron bars
      • Julia Tanney, On the conceptual, psychological, and moral status of zombies, swamp-beings, and other 'behaviourally indistinguishable' creatures
      • Nigel Thomas, Zombie killer
      • Tillmann Vierkent, Zombie Mary and the blue banana: On the compatibility of the knowledge argument with the argument from modality
        

 

[Terry Sampson]

Do you think memory has any evolutionary purpose? Since, for me at least, I suspect that this is where consciousness might have originated, and survival being what enhanced such.

I still need/want to figure out for myself the relationship between consciousness and awareness, but at this moment, it would seem to me that, assuming that awareness is at the root of consciousness, some memory capacity (i.e. the ability to remember), IMO, is essential in order for consciousness to have any survival value. For example: There doesn't seem to be any survival value in being aware of something getting larger in front of me. But there's a lot of survival value in being aware of the fact that the something in front of me is a train moving toward me and that I am standing on the track that the train is moving on.

 

[Polymath257]

I think that philosophical zombies are possible but I'm open to changing my mind. Can you think of any obvious reasons why they are logically impossible?

Well, a p-zombie is supposed to be exactly the same physically and do exactly the same things as an ordinary conscious person, but still not be conscious.

For example, a p-zombie would see a sunset and exclaim how beautiful it is. They would go to an art museum and notice fine interpretations and mention how wonderful a piece makes them feel. They would hold long discussions on internet forums about their internal conscious states while having none of them. They would even say that their qualia need an independent interpretation than the physical even though they actually have no qualia at all.

Sorry, but I simply don't find that to be a credible state of affairs. Remember that p-zombies aren't, externally, unthinking robots. They *seem* to be thinking feeling individuals in *all* ways, but they don't actually have 'internal experiences'. I just don't find that to be credible at all.

We can go further. It may well be possible *you* are the only non-zombie in the world and *everyone* else is a p-zombie with no experiences. That includes all the artists, all the musicians, all those who have said that they love you, everybody.

To say that p-zombies are a real possibility means that the p-zombie world *identical* to ours except that nobody is conscious is possible.

Now, it is a *logical* possibility that we are all brains in a vat or that I am the only thing in the universe and everything else is an illusion. There is nothing *logically* that says these scenarios are impossible. But I don't take such notions seriously. And I don't take the p-zombie worls seriously for exactly the same reasons.

But let me go one more. How do I know that *I* am not a p-zombie? Maybe I only *think* that I am having experiences, but what is actually happening is something so different than what happens to others that using the world 'consciousness' for both is an abuse of language. Maybe I don't have experiences, but only the 'pseudo-experiences' that a p-zombie has. How would I know?

 

[Mock Turtle]

I still need/want to figure out for myself the relationship between consciousness and awareness, but at this moment, it would seem to me that, assuming that awareness is at the root of consciousness, some memory capacity (i.e. the ability to remember), IMO, is essential in order for consciousness to have any survival value. For example: There doesn't seem to be any survival value in being aware of something getting larger in front of me. But there's a lot of survival value in being aware of the fact that the something in front of me is a train moving toward me and that I am standing on the track that the train is moving on.

I just don't know what consciousness might be without sensory perception and especially memory. And neither of these might be of much value without some means of discrimination (processing), such that what exactly would consciousness be without any of these? This is why I tend towards the view that consciousness has had a development process, and why it should exist in so many other creatures as well as humans - but obviously to varying degrees. Consciousness, and awareness, just seem too dependent upon other things to be prior to these.