Why was consciousness naturally selected?

[Ouroboros]

One thing I'd like to add is that some animals show levels of self-awareness. Just wanted to let that out there. And if we know that we evolved from these animals (apes specifically), and also after looking at how our ancestors (Australopithecus and earlier Homo) lived, we can assume that self-awareness exists in lower lifeforms and has evolved.

 

[LuisDantas]

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?

Mechanical awareness is still awareness.

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?

Because it is advantageous for natural selection.

 

[Gambit]

Mechanical awareness is still awareness.

This is a non sequitur.

Because it is advantageous for natural selection.

This is unintelligible.

 

[Gambit]

One thing I'd like to add is that some animals show levels of self-awareness. Just wanted to let that out there. And if we know that we evolved from these animals (apes specifically), and also after looking at how our ancestors (Australopithecus and earlier Homo) lived, we can assume that self-awareness exists in lower lifeforms and has evolved.

But I am employing the term "consciousness" to be interchangeable with "awareness," not "self-awareness."

 

[LuisDantas]

This is a non sequitur.

You are mistaken. If awareness is acknowledging stimuli from the environment and reacting to them, then there is really no denying that many mechanical devices are aware.

This is unintelligible.

It shouldn't be. Being aware and conscious of oneself and one's society is a very clear advantage for natural selection.

It that not clear?

 

[Ouroboros]

But I am employing the term "consciousness" to be interchangeable with "awareness," not "self-awareness."

Which means that it includes even more animals.

These animals have awareness. They're aware of their surrounding, can think and reason (to some extent). They can learn, and are also aware about their social situation. Apes have shown to be not just able to learn but to teach to some degree. They learn from each other. They're aware of the situations where they need the knowledge and apply it differently depending on conditions. Also, some can learn to use tools. Like the parrot species that know how to use rocks to crack nuts. Or chimps using sticks to poke in tree stubs to get brush babies out.

 

[mainliner]

is your SUB-conscious.......memory space ?

 

[Ouroboros]

is your SUB-conscious.......memory space ?

That's where you store your sandwiches.

 

[mainliner]

That's where you store your sandwiches.

funny ....... But where's my answer mister Ouraoborauos

 

[Ouroboros]

funny ....... But where's my answer mister Ouraoborauos

It's a good question. Not sure what the answer should be.

 

[mainliner]

It's a good question. Not sure what the answer should be.

well its not a sandwhich box lol

it must be my brain

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

I haven't read most of the posts from the last two pages, but would you guys say it's fair to define consciousness as subjective experience?

I saw robots mentioned. So for example, a robot with AI, camera eyes, sound detection -- basically any electronic version of the human senses -- would it subjectively have perception from these minds? Like, would it perceiving images in it's mind from it's sight? Or would it simply react to it's senses without subjectively perceiving it, much like a person with blindsight?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Self-awareness presupposes awareness.

Duh. All billionaires are millionaires. The converse is not true.

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

And as I noted, your question is a major criticism against your (largely 19th century understanding of) consciousness.

It is relevant if we are talking about living organisms which are carbon-based.

No, it isn't,. It can't be, as the entire mother****ing framework was designed s.t. it COULD'T be relevant. Read a goddamn book before spouting crap you get from online dictionaries and wiki pages.

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

When you can intelligently...no, strike that (it's too optimistic)...when you can asked informed questions or put forward statements that don't involve 19th century "science" then repeat your question/statement as relevant today. If you would like some literature so as not to appear to anybody who has any ****ing clue about the fields you rely on dictionaries for, I'd be more than happy to upload as many peer-reviewed papers as you could read. Until, then, stop talking about subjects you so clearly know nothing of and using ignorance to reach conclusions.

 

[ImaTroll]

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?

it is merely an assumption that consciousness is an epiphenomenon. it can also be assumed that consciousness is both effect and cause.

 

[viole]

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

Well, you can't, lol. They are two completely different things. You cannot define one in terms of the other without introducing an indirect logical circularity.

It is actually pretty easy to see why you cannot interchange them.

You said subjectivity presupposes consciousness. If the two things are interchangeable, then I can replace one with the other without changing the meaning of the sentence, can't I?

If I do that, then I come to the conclusion that subjectivity presupposes subjectivity. Or consciousness presupposes consciousness. Which are obviously logically absurd. Nothing presupposes its existence in order to exist.

Is that correct? If not, why not?

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

Duplicate

 

[Gambit]

You are mistaken. If awareness is acknowledging stimuli from the environment and reacting to them, then there is really no denying that many mechanical devices are aware.

Mechanical devices are not aware. For example, thermastats do not literally "sense" the temperature. However, if awareness is required for an organic stimulus-response system (i.e. a living organism) to respond to environmental stimuli, then all organic stimulus-response systems are conscious. If there are any that do not require consciousness in order to respond to environmental stimuli, then you have to explain why consciousness was naturally selected.

 

[LuisDantas]

I just don't understand what you mean.

 

[Gambit]

Which means that it includes even more animals.

Of course, all living organisms are conscious because conscious is a brute fact of existence. Anyone who has given this a modicum of intelligent reflection would come to the same conclusion.

 

[Gambit]

Duh. All billionaires are millionaires. The converse is not true.

And as I noted, your question is a major criticism against your (largely 19th century understanding of) consciousness.

No, it isn't,. It can't be, as the entire mother****ing framework was designed s.t. it COULD'T be relevant. Read a goddamn book before spouting crap you get from online dictionaries and wiki pages.

When you can intelligently...no, strike that (it's too optimistic)...when you can asked informed questions or put forward statements that don't involve 19th century "science" then repeat your question/statement as relevant today. If you would like some literature so as not to appear to anybody who has any ****ing clue about the fields you rely on dictionaries for, I'd be more than happy to upload as many peer-reviewed papers as you could read. Until, then, stop talking about subjects you so clearly know nothing of and using ignorance to reach conclusions.

Shouting expletives at me does not qualify as a counterargument. You obviously have issues. I suggest you take a deep breath and try to get yourself together. Until then, I see no point in continuing this debate with you.