To Atheists & Agnostics: When did consciousness first appear?

[Kirran]

But surely the distinction between consciousness and non-consciousness is more than mere categorization?

Yeah, I reckon so. Consciousness precedes any efforts to categorise it. But living =/= consciousness.

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

Yeah, I reckon so. Consciousness precedes any efforts to categorise it. But living =/= consciousness.

Still we can categorize consciousness into materialist / spiritual consciousness.
Is it likely that materialists are not actually conscious?
Or perhaps they are pre-conscious?

 

[Kirran]

Still we can categorize consciousness into materialist / spiritual consciousness.
Is it likely that materialists are not actually conscious?
Or perhaps they are pre-conscious?

Materialism and spiritualism are just ideas. They can't have any impact on the consciousness that observes them. The witness is unsullied by the witnessed, just as water doesn't adhere to a lotus leaf.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Probably not plants either then?
Insects?
The queen bee perhaps?
She seems to have an organizational influence (at least) which seems quite advanced.

No, she doesn't. You might want to look up "emergent behavior." It will not only dispel your incorrect assumptions about bee behavior, but also might help give you some insight into consciousness.

 

[metis]

Yeah, I reckon so. Consciousness precedes any efforts to categorise it. But living =/= consciousness.

But this all depends on how one may define "consciousness", so which definition are you working from?

 

[Kirran]

But this all depends on how one may define "consciousness", so which definition are you working from?

Inconveniently, I find it rather indefinable. Any definition is observed by consciousness. It's passive, I find.

 

[columbus]

Inconveniently, I find it rather indefinable. Any definition is observed by consciousness. It's passive, I find.

To me, this is the main problem with the OP. Consciousness is simply beyond our understanding. We can describe effects, but we know next to nothing about how they come to be.
Appears to be an emergent property of neurological complexity. Humans appear more conscious than fish which are more so than earthworms which are more than vegetation. But we humans are notorious for defining everything in terms of ourselves, especially our individuality. Maybe the most sophisticated consciousness on earth is that of hive insects, and it's us who can't comprehend it.
Tom

 

[Kirran]

To me, this is the main problem with the OP. Consciousness is simply beyond our understanding. We can describe effects, but we know next to nothing about how they come to be.
Appears to be an emergent property of neurological complexity. Humans appear more conscious than fish which are more so than earthworms which are more than vegetation. But we humans are notorious for defining everything in terms of ourselves, especially our individuality. Maybe the most sophisticated consciousness on earth is that of hive insects, and it's us who can't comprehend it.
Tom

Good points. But to be honest I'm not sure 'more' or 'less' conscious is a thing. Consciousness is just awareness, it can't be more or less there. It doesn't do anything.

Personally, I think that the fact nervous systems are observed means that consciousness comes before them. I haven't yet been shaken of this.

 

[HonestJoe]

Are viruses alive?

Actually, “alive” in this context is as difficult to pin down as “conscious” and viruses are one of the reasons. They’re clearly not inanimate objects but they don’t quite meet all of the criteria previously established to differentiate between alive and not-alive (as opposed to alive and dead, which is an entirely different difficult distinction!).

 

[metis]

Inconveniently, I find it rather indefinable. Any definition is observed by consciousness. It's passive, I find.

That's my point as well, thus one simply cannot say whether plants have a "consciousness" or not unless we were to agree on a specific definition. My definition is very open, namely any perception that allows an organism to respond to outside stimuli.

 

[Kirran]

That's my point as well, thus one simply cannot say whether plants have a "consciousness" or not unless we were to agree on a specific definition. My definition is very open, namely any perception that allows an organism to respond to outside stimuli.

To be honest, I'm not really on that - I think that stimuli, responses etc are observed by consciousness, I don't think it can have any kind of direct active role. Then that's not consciousness, that's things doing stuff. Consciousness watches the stuff.

 

[metis]

To be honest, I'm not really on that - I think that stimuli, responses etc are observed by consciousness, I don't think it can have any kind of direct active role. Then that's not consciousness, that's things doing stuff. Consciousness watches the stuff.

To me it is. When a seed is in the ground, and it takes some warmth before it germinates, and they it grows towards the sun, that plant is making decisions. OK, it may not be quite on the same level as Steven Hawking, but it's still responding to the outside, even if we were to call it "instinctive", for example.

Where I use another word is when the organism can contemplate in which direction it may choose, which I feel is an example of "reasoning" that involves a higher lever of "consciousness".

Now some may disagree with me on any of this, but their reasoning may well be that we're not using the same exact set of definitions.

 

[columbus]

Personally, I think that the fact nervous systems are observed means that consciousness comes before them.

Suppose it does. What would that mean about reality?
We humans think a great deal of ourselves. We think our minds are an emergent property of our super brains. Crown of Creation.

But if you look at the reality, we are rapidly ruining the biosphere that we depend on. We are sucking all the sequestered carbon out of the earth's crust and warming up the surface. We're raising the background radiation level, and could raise it a whole lot more if the political systems don't change radically. They show no signs of doing so.
Maybe the true intelligent consciousness on this planet are just using a bunch of clever, but blind, apes for their own ends. Creatures like ants and termites would benefit enormously from expanding the warm places they can inhabit. As r selected species they would benefit from a little more "random mutations". And they wouldn't lose anything if all the big vertebrates went off a cliff.

When in doubt, I tend to "follow the money". Current human aggregate behavior, which shows no signs of changing, looks aimed at a world that is great for ants.

Not all that long ago we thought that earth was a gigantic solid immovable thing, and the celestial bodies were tiny and revolved around us. It just seemed obvious from our limited perspective. Suppose we are just as wrong about the reality of consciousness as we used to be about cosmology and for the same reasons?
Tom

 

[Kirran]

To me it is. When a seed is in the ground, and it takes some warmth before it germinates, and they it grows towards the sun, that plant is making decisions. OK, it may not be quite on the same level as Steven Hawking, but it's still responding to the outside, even if we were to call it "instinctive", for example.

Where I use another word is when the organism can contemplate in which direction it may choose, which I feel is an example of "reasoning" that involves a higher lever of "consciousness".

Now some may disagree with me on any of this, but their reasoning may well be that we're not using the same exact set of definitions.

Haha, yeah, that is all it is. We just mean different things by the word consciousness.

To me it's largely synonymous with the word 'awareness'. Reasoning capacity and responding and doing and all that aren't it's purview.

 

[Kirran]

Suppose it does. What would that mean about reality?
We humans think a great deal of ourselves. We think our minds are an emergent property of our super brains. Crown of Creation.

But if you look at the reality, we are rapidly ruining the biosphere that we depend on. We are sucking all the sequestered carbon out of the earth's crust and warming up the surface. We're raising the background radiation level, and could raise it a whole lot more if the political systems don't change radically. They show no signs of doing so.
Maybe the true intelligent consciousness on this planet are just using a bunch of clever, but blind, apes for their own ends. Creatures like ants and termites would benefit enormously from expanding the warm places they can inhabit. As r selected species they would benefit from a little more "random mutations". And they wouldn't lose anything if all the big vertebrates went off a cliff.

When in doubt, I tend to "follow the money". Current human aggregate behavior, which shows no signs of changing, looks aimed at a world that is great for ants.

Not all that long ago we thought that earth was a gigantic solid immovable thing, and the celestial bodies were tiny and revolved around us. It just seemed obvious from our limited perspective. Suppose we are just as wrong about the reality of consciousness as we used to be about cosmology and for the same reasons?
Tom

I tend to believe there's only consciousness, and every phenomenon rises and falls within that one consciousness.

But to be honest, I don't think it need impact our doing stuff to prevent the massive damage we're continuing to inflict upon the biosphere.

 

[metis]

To me it's largely synonymous with the word 'awareness'. Reasoning capacity and responding and doing and all that aren't it's purview.

I had a feeling that this is what you were basing your comments on, and I can live with that because I'm obviously using a different definition for "consciousness".

 

[columbus]

But to be honest, I don't think it need impact our doing stuff to prevent the massive damage we're continuing to inflict upon the biosphere.

But we are not damaging the biosphere from every perspective. Mainly just from our own perspective. Such consciousness as prefers warmth and mutations would find all the changes quite nice.

Tom

 

[Kirran]

I had a feeling that this is what you were basing your comments on, and I can live with that because I'm obviously using a different definition for "consciousness".

Two people talked, worked out the source of their disagreement and settled it out. This was great, we should do it more often.

 

[Kirran]

But we are not damaging the biosphere from every perspective. Mainly just from our own perspective. Such consciousness as prefers warmth and mutations would find all the changes quite nice.

Tom

Yeah, fair enough. In my own use of the word consciousness it can't prefer anything. But I take your point. Nevertheless, rapid climate change is damaging biodiversity overall and causing harm to human societies specifically. So I'm for doing some mitigation.

 

[metis]

Two people talked, worked out the source of their disagreement and settled it out. This was great, we should do it more often.

Sounds like a good plan to me.