Why was consciousness naturally selected?

[Gambit]

On the materialist view, consciousness is considered an epiphenomenon. That is, it is a causally inert by-product. (To argue otherwise is to presuppose free will and therefore dualism.) So, this raises the question: Why was consciousness naturally selected?

 

[Nietzsche]

On the materialist view, consciousness is considered an epiphenomenon. That is, it is a causally inert by-product. (To argue otherwise is to presuppose free will and therefore dualism.) So, this raises the question: Why was consciousness naturally selected?

I do not have the slightest idea if this is true, by which I mean this is entirely my own opinion cobbled together from what I've read on the subject, and it should not be treated as the words of someone who works in the fields that deal with it;

I think consciousness is just a matter of how 'powerful' your brain is, from a mechanical standpoint. Namely that once you reach a certain brain-to-body-mass ratio, consciousness starts to pop up more and more. I say that because generally speaking, the other animals that are as smart as we are tend to have similar sizes in that regard. Chimps, elephants, dolphins and so on. So it isn't so much consciousness that is naturally selected as much as it is a result of attaining X level of intelligence and thus stacking the odds in your favour from a survival & breeding point of view. You would inherently out-compete most other creatures, even those of your own species who were not-quite-conscious. And because of that, it stands to reason that it would be passed on more readily.

It wouldn't be a significant difference at first, your 'level' of consciousness, but it would keep on happening until you reached a threshold and attain what we'd consider the modern human brain. Not merely brain size but also wiring and what have you. Our brain size has been rather constant for a very long time, so I think it's fair to conclude that it is likely that it isn't just the ability to store lots of information, but the ability to cross-reference it at higher and higher speeds. This gives you a further edge. Wash, rinse, repeat until you're where we are now.

 

[Gambit]

I think consciousness is just a matter of how 'powerful' your brain is, from a mechanical standpoint. Namely that once you reach a certain brain-to-body-mass ratio, consciousness starts to pop up more and more. I say that because generally speaking, the other animals that are as smart as we are tend to have similar sizes in that regard. Chimps, elephants, dolphins and so on. So it isn't so much consciousness that is naturally selected as much as it is a result of attaining X level of intelligence and thus stacking the odds in your favour from a survival & breeding point of view.

I understand why a more powerful carbon-based information processing system would be naturally selected over a less powerful one. But what I'm asking is why a sentient carbon-based information processing system was naturally selected over an insentient one. There is nothing that a sentient one can do that an insentient one cannot do in theory.

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

I think you both kind of said the same thing, but different. Kind of.

Neitzsche, you said consciousness is how powerful the brain is, which I think is a little like saying that consciousness is a byproduct of brain power. I'd take it further and say that consciousness is a subjective experience that correlates with, and is a byproduct of, brain power. But none-the-less, it's a subjective experience. It's just like our sight. We see images in our head due to sight, and how detailed and refined the image is depends heavily on how the eyes are configured.

But the image it self is the brain making sense of the data the eyes have detected. It's an experience in our mind -- subjective by definition.

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

I understand why a more powerful carbon-based information processing system would be naturally selected over a less powerful one. But what I'm asking is why a sentient carbon-based information processing system was naturally selected over an insentient one. There is nothing that a sentient one can do that an insentient one cannot do in theory.

I think what he's saying is, consciousness is a direct result of a powerful carbon-based information processing system. As in, there can't be a non-sentient one.

 

[Gambit]

I think what he's saying is, consciousness is a direct result of a powerful carbon-based information processing system. As in, there can't be a non-sentient one.

This argument would seem to imply that all carbon-based information processing systems are conscious.

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

This argument would seem to imply that all carbon-based information processing systems are conscious.

Sure, why not?

Though again, we're treating consciousness as a spectrum. We could say some things are 'more' conscious than others. I don't think there's simply "conscious" and "unconscious". Rather, I think there's "more" conscious and "less" conscious. I imagine if there's aliens out there with brains millions of times more powerful and sophisticated than ours, they'd be vastly "more" conscious than us. We'd probably seem like vegetables to them.

Again, consciousness is a subjective experience. It's in our heads.

 

[Ouroboros]

This argument would seem to imply that all carbon-based information processing systems are conscious.

Maybe all systems have a level of consciousness. Many levels. Many kinds. Just talking out loud.

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

Maybe all systems have a level of consciousness. Many levels. Many kinds. Just talking out loud.

Yeah, I wouldn't limit it to carbon-bases systems. Maybe a computer, if sophisticated and powerful enough, can have the "level" of consciousness of a human.

 

[Gambit]

Sure, why not?

Though again, we're treating consciousness as a spectrum. We could say some things are 'more' conscious than others. I don't think there's simply "conscious" and "unconscious". Rather, I think there's "more" conscious and "less" conscious..

It's sounds reasonable to me. In fact, most (atheistic) materialists would draw the same conclusion as you. But, if this is indeed the case, then this supports panpsychism - not materialism.

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

It's sounds reasonable to me. In fact, most (atheistic) materialists would draw the same conclusion as you. But, if this is indeed the case, then this supports panpsychism - not materialism.

I guess we can call it that, but I don't see why panpsychism and materialism have to be mutually exclusive.

Panpsychism says consciousness is a universal feature of all things. Materialism says consciousness is the result of material interactions. I don't see why both can't be true.

After all, material interactions happen everywhere which, if it indeed results in consciousness, would mean that consciousness is everywhere. But again, at different levels, due to different levels of complexity of material interactions.

 

[Gambit]

Maybe all systems have a level of consciousness. Many levels. Many kinds. Just talking out loud.

This is a pantheistic belief.

Panpsychism is the philosophical view held by many pantheists that consciousness, mind, or soul is a universal feature of all things.[73] Some pantheists also subscribe to the distinct philosophical views hylozoism (or panvitalism), the view that everything is alive, and its close neighbor animism, the view that everything has a soul or spirit.[74]

(source: Wikipedia: Pantheism)

 

[Gambit]

I guess we can call it that, but I don't see why panpsychism and materialism have to be mutually exclusive.

Panpsychism says consciousness is a universal feature of all things. Materialism says consciousness is the result of material interactions. I don't see why both can't be true.

After all, material interactions happen everywhere which, if it indeed results in consciousness, would mean that consciousness is everywhere. But again, at different levels, due to different levels of complexity of material interactions.

That's fine. But this would qualify as pantheistic materialism, not atheistic materialism.

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

That's fine. But this would qualify as pantheistic materialism, not atheistic materialism.

Not really, because pantheism includes all that other stuff about universal divinity and what-not. Divinity implies supernaturalism, which is in fact mutually exclusive to materialism.

I'm only taking the part about consciousness. I'm leaving out all that other jazz. Pantheists believe in universal consciousness. But believing in universal consciousness doesn't necessarily make someone pantheistic (someone that believes in universal divinity).

This is also why I stress that consciousness is merely an experience in our minds. It doesn't exist on it's own. It's merely our subjective experience of our brain power, or more broadly, the experience of the interactions of the very material that makes up our physical bodies, and the environmental stimuli it reacts to.

 

[Skwim]

On the materialist view, consciousness is considered an epiphenomenon. That is, it is a causally inert by-product. (To argue otherwise is to presuppose free will and therefore dualism.) So, this raises the question: Why was consciousness naturally selected?

Ahhh, SPECULATION! The CandyLand of the idle mind.

It ain't the goal that's important, but the effort trying to achieve it.

GOOD LUCK TO ALL.

 

[Nietzsche]

I think what he's saying is, consciousness is a direct result of a powerful carbon-based information processing system. As in, there can't be a non-sentient one.

This argument would seem to imply that all carbon-based information processing systems are conscious.

I think both of you misunderstood just a bit. And that is likely my fault for how poorly I worded it.

I was not trying to say that consciousness is a direct result of a more powerful brain but that the odds continue to increase as the brain grows more and more powerful as well as faster. You must first achieve a brainpower level, and then you must wait until eventually due to some fluke somewhere your offspring become conscious. That is then passed down because conscious thought, however miniscule, allows for a sort of cleverness that other animals are simply not capable of.

 

[Willamena]

On the materialist view, consciousness is considered an epiphenomenon. That is, it is a causally inert by-product. (To argue otherwise is to presuppose free will and therefore dualism.) So, this raises the question: Why was consciousness naturally selected?

Do, or do not. There is no why.

There is a how, but not a why.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Though again, we're treating consciousness as a spectrum. We could say some things are 'more' conscious than others. I don't think there's simply "conscious" and "unconscious". Rather, I think there's "more" conscious and "less" conscious.

Yes, even simple life-forms are aware of their environment, a sort of rudimentary consciousness.

 

[Gambit]

Do, or do not. There is no why.

There is a how, but not a why.

I see that you are a sage - somewhat like a female version of "Yoda." Huh?

I believe there is not only a "how," but also a "why." In fact, I'm inclined to believe that, ultimately, they are both one and the same.

 

[LuisDantas]

How could anyone truly know?