Why was consciousness naturally selected?

[Guy Threepwood]

I previously asked the 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)?" To which you replied: "Respond to that which it is aware." This implies that all stimulus-response systems require consciousness to respond to their environment. Why? Because if there are any stimulus-response systems that do not require consciousness to respond to their environment, then concsciousness is clearly not needed to elicit an environmental response. So, this begs the question (that I asked in the OP): Why was a stimulus-response system with consciousness naturally selected over a stimulus-response systems without consciousness (because consciousness is clearly not required to elicit an environmental response)?

Similar to another recent thread discussion on this- why out of millions of other species and 100's of millions of years of evolution, would this particularly unique 'natural selection' materialize so suddenly in humans? apparently sentience is not an inevitable gradual product of evolution-
i.e. apparently there is no particularly good reason for evolution alone to select for our level of consciousness.

 

[viole]

Consciousness is inherently subjective, not objective. As such, it is not amenable to the methodology of the physical sciences which require objectivity. This fact alone invalidates materialism.



Technically speaking, epiphenomenalism actually qualifies as a form of dualism - specifically, property dualism. The only truly materialistic position in the philosophy of mind is eliminative materialism which denies qualia (subjective experience.) Of course, this is absurd. But, if we take materialism to its logical conclusion, then we come to the realization that it is absurd.



This is just making my argument. Either epiphenomenalism is false, or consciousness is a brute fact of existence. Either way, atheistic materialism is invalidated.



The is known as the "spandrel" argument. And no one espouses it because it would imply that there may very well be "organic robots without consciousness" walking amongst us.



Quantum entanglement (nonlocality) and quantum indeterminism have simply rendered materialism obsolete. Why? Because if some phenomenon doesn't have a physical cause, then it doesn't have a physical explanation. It's that simple. Also, renaming "materialism" as "physicalism" is simply a case of "moving the goal posts." If it's not really physical, then why call it physicalism? It's intellectually dishonest.



If a phenomenon does not reduce to the physical, then it is not physical. IOW, non-reductive physicalism is an oxymoron.

Can you give me an example of something subjective that involves no consciousness whatsoever?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Gambit]

They aren't, at least not in the literature; hence the term "self-aware". Consciousness (or the "mind") are generally taken to be awareness that includes a sense of and awareness of "self".

Consciousness is the quality or state of awareness, or, of being aware of an external object or something within oneself.[1][2]

(source: Wikipedia: Consciousness)

Associative learning is an older term I dislike (the plurality of terms for memory seems a cancerous growth within the cognitive science, demonstrated dramatically in Tulving's "Are there really 256 different kinds of memory?"). It reflects and understanding of memory when most of what we knew of memory systems came from behavioral studies. However, the key difference between the kind of learning information processing systems that are conscious have over those that are capable of non-associative/stimulus-response learning is to abstract away from specifics. We readily classify novel stimuli, such as a car that looks different from any we've ever seen, as belonging to the concept (category) "car", but not being that concept- only an instantiation of it.

Okay. Let's see if I understand what you are attempting to verbally communicate here: Conscious "carbon-based information processing systems" ("organic stimulus-response systems" or "living organisms") have the capacity for "associative/stimulus-response learning." Those that are not conscious do not have this capacity. They only have the capacity for "non-associative/stimulus-response learning." Also, "associative/stimulus-response learning" involves the capacity to abstract universals from particulars. Is this all correct?

.
When it comes to animals capable of conceptual, rather than purely syntactic, information processing, we cannot begin to simulate this kind of learning. We spent several hundred years formalizing mathematics to remove semantic content and then built calculators/computers designed from the ground up to mindlessly manipulate what can only be (for such systems) meaningless input.

You seem to be implying that the capacity to abstract universals from particulars is a non-computational process. Is that right?

 

[Sapiens]

I don't know why folks have to think of things like consciousness or self awareness or free will as a binary, either or, situation. I can see how easy it would be to ridicule ideas like half-conscious or barely self-aware, etc., but it's kind or like the origin of life, where people want to say something is alive or not but can't really come to grips with the existence of viruses or prions.

 

[Nietzsche]

Similar to another recent thread discussion on this- why out of millions of other species and 100's of millions of years of evolution, would this particularly unique 'natural selection' materialize so suddenly in humans? apparently sentience is not an inevitable gradual product of evolution-
i.e. apparently there is no particularly good reason for evolution alone to select for our level of consciousness.

As I and others stated in the other thread, we didn't just materialize suddenly. We've got the benefit of an extra 65 million years of evolution over the dinosaurs.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

As I and others stated in the other thread, we didn't just materialize suddenly. We've got the benefit of an extra 65 million years of evolution over the dinosaurs.

our brains doubled in size , developing sentience in an extremely short space of time only a 100K or so years ago- a matter of mere thousands of generations, something dinos didn't do in countless millions despite far larger skulls all along- in geological terms that's practically instantaneous

 

[Gambit]

No, plants respond to stimulus without any awareness, as do fungi, bacteria, animals, and almost every form of multicellular life.

Okay. Then awareness is not required in order to respond to stimulus.

 

[Gambit]

Similar to another recent thread discussion on this- why out of millions of other species and 100's of millions of years of evolution, would this particularly unique 'natural selection' materialize so suddenly in humans? apparently sentience is not an inevitable gradual product of evolution-i.e. apparently there is no particularly good reason for evolution alone to select for our level of consciousness.

Right.

 

[Gambit]

Can you give me an example of something subjective that involves no consciousness whatsoever?

Subjectivity persupposes consciousness by definition.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Okay.

The response to my reply about self-awareness and the definition of consciousness written off with a snippet from wikipedia was enough for me to spend some time trying to organize in order to take pictures of the ~200-300 volumes on this subject I own and led to the giving up only to try to take a screen shot of the 128 academic e-books I have in my main “e-book library” just to contrast the utter triviality of a wiki quote on one of the most difficult subjects in all of academia and one which is touched upon or focused on in more fields than perhaps any other with you quote-mining an online encyclopedia relative to what those whose fields even tangentially relate to this question deal with. If anything could better define anti-intellectualism I don’t know what. However, your reliance on dictionaries to make specious arguments about topics you don’t understand comes close.

Let's see if I understand

You don’t. That you’ve made clear. Apart from your use of an online dictionary and wiki, there’s the nearly paradoxical combination: “carbon-based information processing system”. The entire point of information theory and information-theoretic approaches is that it is fundamentally irrelevant what the chemical composition of the system is. Again, if there is a better way to indicate you haven’t a clue what you are talking about, I don’t know what it might be.

Those that are not conscious do not have this capacity.

Note that I ignored, and deliberately did not comment on the idiocy of specifying the chemical make-up of information processing systems given its utter irrelevancy and how counter it is to information-theoretic approaches, thus making your question meaningless. I didn't say anything about “carbon-based” because to do so portrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the subject.

They only have the capacity for "non-associative/stimulus-response learning."

I can’t answer questions about information processing systems or consciousness until you understand enough about information theory to not misquote me and mischaracterize my response as relating to whatever irrelevant nonsense you think important when you include the “carbon” part in your questions/responses.

Also, "associative/stimulus-response learning" involves the capacity to abstract universals from particulars. Is this all correct?

Wrong. Completely wrong.

You seem to be implying that the capacity to abstract universals from particulars is a non-computational process. Is that right?

Finally, something more or less correct. For argument and simplicity’s sake: yes.

 

[viole]

Subjectivity persupposes consciousness by definition.

So, consciousness must be objective. Because if it was subjective, it would also presuppone consciousness, and saying that X presuppones X in order to exist is absurd.

Ciao

- viole

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Subjectivity persupposes consciousness by definition.

Which non-specialist entry in which online dictionary are you referring to that you believe so thoroughly encapsulates the notion of consciousness (that which has baffled the greatest minds for the last several thousand years) you feel is adequately wrapped up in a 2-3 lines?

 

[LuisDantas]

Okay. Then awareness is not required in order to respond to stimulus.

Indeed. Even mousetraps respond to stimulus.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Indeed. Even mousetraps respond to stimulus.

This doesn't make them aware. For a physical system to be said to be "aware" requires at the minimum that the representation of the changes that the physical system is aware of may be encoded in the physical representation of what the system is aware of in the state changes of the system. A mousetrap changes state, but does not represent the changed state as (barring outside repair) this is the final configuration of the system, not an internal representation.

 

[LuisDantas]

Of course.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Consciousness is inherently subjective, not objective.

So incredibly and obviously wrong one wonders how you can even broach such subjects. Were it “inherently…subjective” then there would be no possible way for any scientist to begin to investigate it and no possible method by which it could even really be usefully defined, let alone your method of online dictionary quote-mining.

As such, it is not amenable to the methodology of the physical sciences

Having spent years on the physics of neuronal networks as they relate to consciousness, I have to wonder what if any knowledge of “the physical sciences” you possess that doesn’t come from an online dictionary or Wikipedia.

which require objectivity.

Wrong again: Revonsuo, A. (2010). Consciousness: the science of subjectivity. Psychology Press.

This fact alone invalidates materialism.

Also wrong. However, I’ll wait for you to begin to address the vast gulf between the subject matter you bring up and your knowledge of it.

Technically speaking

A phrase followed by non-technical sources.

This is just making my argument.

Your comprehension of the subject matter precludes your ability to make any such “argument”.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

Okay. Then awareness is not required in order to respond to stimulus.

Wow. In general yes, that's correct. In order to respond to stimulus, there must be stimulus (DUH!) Some stimulus is purely physical or chemical, some comes only through awareness. Continue to ride donuts around the pertinent facts if you wish.

How do you respond to the thoughts I have tried to communicate, without being aware?

 

[Gambit]

If anything could better define anti-intellectualism I don’t know what. However, your reliance on dictionaries to make specious arguments about topics you don’t understand comes close.

Self-awareness presupposes awareness. This is not difficult. So, just for the sake of clarity, I'm asking why consciousness (awareness, not self-awareness) was naturally selected.

You don’t. That you’ve made clear. Apart from your use of an online dictionary and wiki, there’s the nearly paradoxical combination: “carbon-based information processing system”. The entire point of information theory and information-theoretic approaches is that it is fundamentally irrelevant what the chemical composition of the system is. Again, if there is a better way to indicate you haven’t a clue what you are talking about, I don’t know what it might be.

It is relevant if we are talking about living organisms which are carbon-based. And we are talking about living organisms here (hence, the qualifier "carbon-based"). (I am asking why consciousness was naturally selected.)

You seem to be implying that the capacity to abstract universals from particulars is a non-computational process. Is that right?

Finally, something more or less correct. For argument and simplicity’s sake: yes.

Then it defies a strictly mechanistic and therefore materialistic explanation. IOW, your argument serves to undermine materialism.

 

[Gambit]

So, consciousness must be objective. Because if it was subjective, it would also presuppone consciousness, and saying that X presuppones X in order to exist is absurd.

I'm not sure what you're trying to get at. I'm employing the terms "subjectivity" and "consciousness" interchangeably.

 

[Gambit]

Indeed. Even mousetraps respond to stimulus.

And this begs the question: If organic stimulus-response systems do not require consciousness (awareness) to respond to environmental stimuli, then why was consciousness naturally selected? Or, to phrase the question in slightly different terms, if carbon-based information-processing systems do not require consciousness (awareness) to process information, then why was consciousness naturally selected?