Why was consciousness naturally selected?

[Ouroboros]

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.

Yup. And we don't know all the conditions necessary for consciousness to arise, so perhaps there are "minds" out there based on energy only.

 

[Ouroboros]

This is a pantheistic belief.

Yup. Agree. I know you were really asking the pure materialist, which of course I'm not. But I still wanted to throw that in there since I think that's the only answer that actually works. Materialism is really dead as a philosophy nowadays. Some just haven't realized it yet.

 

[Ouroboros]

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.

What Gambit is aiming for is the pure materialist idea of how consciousness comes about. There is an issue of how consciousness--being aware of ones own existence--has evolved, and how it works. Materialism doesn't have any good answers. The issue isn't really with atheism, but with materialism as such (which is a form of atheism).

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

What Gambit is aiming for is the pure materialist idea of how consciousness comes about. There is an issue of how consciousness--being aware of ones own existence--has evolved, and how it works. Materialism doesn't have any good answers. The issue isn't really with atheism, but with materialism as such (which is a form of atheism).

Well if Wikipedia is anything to go by, according to that, materialism explains that consciousness arises from material interactions. I think that's a good answer, and I don't see that as conflicting with everything being conscious to some level.

There's also physicalism which I guess derives from materialism. I do think everything, ultimately is, physical. I don't believe in the supernatural and don't think consciousness is anything supernatural.

 

[Nietzsche]

How could anyone truly know?

While we may never fully understand our own path to consciousness, it should be possible to observe in other animals. Of course, there would be tons of trial & error involved but there is no reason to think we couldn't do it.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

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?

Would you mind supporting the claim that consciousness has no causal influence itself, unless we presuppose dualism? How is consciousness qualitatively different than awareness? It is merely a compounding of quantitative differences.

A single celled organism can be aware of the presence or absence of light. It reacts to the presence of light and this gives it an adaptive advantage. Million and millions of years latter awareness becomes self-awareness. Agains adaptive advantage increases. Awareness precipitates into anticipation and again adaptive advantage increases.

Perhaps if you were more specific in your description of consciousness.

 

[Gambit]

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.

This depends on how naturalism or supernaturalism is defined. That being said, there are definitely naturalistic forms of pantheism (e.g. the metaphysics of Spinoza qualifies as a naturalistic form pantheism).

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)

Universal consciousness is definitely a "God-concept." So, if you believe in universal consciousness, then you believe in pantheism. Pantheism is compatible with panpsychism, dualism or idealism. All primitive forms of religion (e.g. animism and/or shamanism) can be classified as pantheistic. There are also more sophisticated forms of religion (e.g. Buddhism, Hinduism, and Taoism) that can be also classified as pantheistic.

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 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.

But this presupposes that consciousness plays some kind of causal role that the materialistic view prohibits. Why? Because the exercising of free will is the only possible causal role that consciousness can play.

 

[Nietzsche]

But this presupposes that consciousness plays some kind of causal role that the materialistic view prohibits. Why? Because the exercising of free will is the only possible causal role that consciousness can play.

How so?

 

[Gambit]

How could anyone truly know?

It doesn't appear that materialism can give a plausible account for why consciousness was naturally selected.

 

[Gambit]

Yup. Agree. I know you were really asking the pure materialist, which of course I'm not. But I still wanted to throw that in there since I think that's the only answer that actually works. Materialism is really dead as a philosophy nowadays. Some just haven't realized it yet.

Agreed.

 

[LuisDantas]

It doesn't appear that materialism can give a plausible account for why consciousness was naturally selected.

Do you mean awareness of the environment? If you do, then it is a very big adaptative advantage.

 

[Gambit]

Would you mind supporting the claim that consciousness has no causal influence itself, unless we presuppose dualism? How is consciousness qualitatively different than awareness? It is merely a compounding of quantitative differences.

Consciousness is awareness (They're interchangeable terms.)

Question: What can a "carbon-based information processing system (or stimulus-response system) with consciousness" do that a "carbon-based information processing system without consciousness" cannot do (in theory)?

Answer: Nothing. Why? Because awareness in and of itself plays no causal role.

 

[Gambit]

How so?

How so what? That you're presupposing that consciousness plays some kind of causal role? You're presupposing that consciousness some how makes a "carbon-based information processing system" clever. If consciousness plays no causal role, then a carbon-based information processing system does not require it to become clever. Whether a carbon-based information processing system is aware or not is completely inconsequential as to the efficacy of its functionality.

 

[Nietzsche]

How so what? That you're presupposing that consciousness plays some kind of causal role? You're presupposing that consciousness some how makes a "carbon-based information processing system" clever. If consciousness plays no causal role, then a carbon-based information processing system does not require it to become clever. Whether a carbon-based information processing system is aware or not is completely inconsequential as to the efficacy of its functionality.

Clever was a poor word. A better word would be creative. The kind of creativity that allowed us to craft the first tools, the first clothes, train the first wolves so on and so forth.

 

[Gambit]

Do you mean awareness of the environment? If you do, then it is a very big adaptative advantage.

Awareness in and of itself plays on causal role. Processing sensory information does not require consciousness for a "stimulus-response system" to respond to environmental stimuli.

 

[LuisDantas]

Awareness in and of itself plays on causal role. Processing sensory information does not require consciousness for a "stimulus-response system" to respond to environmental stimuli.

If I understand what you mean, awareness of oneself and of other beings (family) is also a powerful adaptative advantage. It directs strategic thought.

 

[Gambit]

Clever was a poor word. A better word would be creative. The kind of creativity that allowed us to craft the first tools, the first clothes, train the first wolves so on and so forth.

I have already addressed "creativity" extensively in my thread entitled "The Argument "For" and "Against" Creative Intelligence (Human or Divine)."

 

[Nietzsche]

If I understand what you mean, awareness of oneself and of other beings (family) is also a powerful adaptative advantage. It directs strategic thought.

This here.

 

[Gambit]

If I understand what you mean, awareness of oneself and of other beings (family) is also a powerful adaptative advantage. It directs strategic thought.

Directs? Consciousness is an epiphenomenon (on the materialist view). It is a by-product of an underlying physical process. It plays no causal role. Therefore, it does not direct anything.