Why was consciousness naturally selected?

[Midnight Rain]

Surely the more pertinent question would be, How the heck could it mutate something such as consciousness in the first place, seeing as we would be pretty much stuffed without it.

But we are not. Bacteria, Fungi and plants do just fine without it. Sponges (which are animals) do just fine without it.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I'd dispute that we're incapable of swarm intelligence

Can you indicate why?

our 'differences' are greatly and fundamentally superior in our capacity for learning and awareness of creation itself

Normally I'd be agreeing with one expressing such sentiments, except you aren't doing so based either on evidence or on any familiarity (at least as so far demonstrated) with the subject matter. Our capacity to learn in certain respects is so vastly inferior to smart phones it is pathetic. There are several qualitative types of learning. We are terrible with respect to many we hold extremely important, while mindless machines engage mechanisms to far outstrip the greatest geniuses the world has ever seen.

Notions such as awareness, consciousness, mind, intelligence, and so forth are difficult enough as defined within specialist literature. To treat such concepts informally is to render meaningless the entirety of any possibly relevant discussion.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Can you indicate why?

swarm intelligence? I sense a semantics debate in the cards here, but humans are certainly able to operate as a group , demonstrating emergent group intelligence, without centralized control, - and we can program software/ robots to do the same. short of putting on bee costumes it's pretty close to any definition of swarm intelligence- which is a pretty loosely defined concept anyways..

Normally I'd be agreeing with one expressing such sentiments, except you aren't doing so based either on evidence or on any familiarity (at least as so far demonstrated) with the subject matter. Our capacity to learn in certain respects is so vastly inferior to smart phones it is pathetic. There are several qualitative types of learning. We are terrible with respect to many we hold extremely important, while mindless machines engage mechanisms to far outstrip the greatest geniuses the world has ever seen.

Notions such as awareness, consciousness, mind, intelligence, and so forth are difficult enough as defined within specialist literature. To treat such concepts informally is to render meaningless the entirety of any possibly relevant discussion.

as I keep saying, I understand and agree 100% that there are different types of learning, intelligence, and that mice or dolphins could be our masters, etc etc etc

None of this has anything to do with our unparalleled awareness of creation itself.

whether or not Narwhals and cellphones are vastly intellectually superior in any number of ways, they are not demonstrably aware of, pondering, investigating questions of life and the universe

Humans and only humans do this, regardless of whether Midnight's cat is able to solve a Rubik's cube faster than any human but simply chooses not to do so.. all of these arguments are entirely besides the point

which is that humans, unambiguously, have a vastly superior awareness of creation itself, which is consistent with being it's primary beneficiaries

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

swarm intelligence? I sense a semantics debate in the cards here

Not so much, at least not really. You see, swarm intelligence refers to methods in computational intelligence methods which means they must be so well-defined that computers are capable of processing them, which means they can't have semantic content. They must be mathematically/formally defined. So either you know what you are referring to here, or you don't.

demonstrating emergent group intelligence, without centralized control, - and we can program software/ robots to do the same. short of putting on bee costumes it's pretty close to any definition of swarm intelligence- which is a pretty loosely defined concept anyways..

Ok. Having covered that, can you address swarm intelligence and how humans are capable of it?

as I keep saying, I understand and agree 100% that there are different types of learning, intelligence, and that mice or dolphins could be our masters, etc etc etc

You do. What you haven't done is indicate the nature of these types or why they are absolutely, fundamentally important and in what ways.

whether or not Narwhals and cellphones are vastly intellectually superior in any number of ways, they are not demonstrably aware of, pondering, investigating questions of life and the universe

And humans are completely incapable of the kind of swarm intelligence ants are. You are simply asserting that we are capable of learning certain things while ignoring what we are not without any indication that what we are capable of learning is somehow superior.

which is that humans, unambiguously, have a vastly superior awareness of creation itself, which is consistent with being it's primary beneficiaries

What creation? The foremost authorities in the world radically disagree over basic notions about whether there actually even was any "creation" or initial point at which the universe (if there is one one) "began".

 

[Ouroboros]

You are saying a man with no brain can drive a car??

I think there's a bunch out there already. See at least a couple a day.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Not so much, at least not really. You see, swarm intelligence refers to methods in computational intelligence methods which means they must be so well-defined that computers are capable of processing them, which means they can't have semantic content. They must be mathematically/formally defined. So either you know what you are referring to here, or you don't.

I must have ESP, OK we're talking about using a simple set of rules applied to a group, producing an emergent sort of group 'intelligence' by the mathematical algorithms , it's the same concept whether you're talking about bees, robots or people

you can observe the bees, program a robot to follow the rules, or ask people to.. it doesn't alter the principle.

You are simply asserting that we are capable of learning certain things while ignoring what we are not without any indication that what we are capable of learning is somehow superior.

once again, I am more than happy to surrender to the intellectual superiority of a brick at being a brick, and I don't dare to presume that my sort of intelligence is better than the bricks, or pretend to know exactly what the brick is thinking. For the sake of argument I am happy to concede that a brick could beat me at chess any day..

This does not alter the fact that humans, unambiguously, have a vastly superior awareness of creation itself.
There's just no way around this one

What creation? The foremost authorities in the world radically disagree over basic notions about whether there actually even was any "creation" or initial point at which the universe (if there is one one) "began".

Not everybody accepts the Big Bang, but that was pretty creationy and pretty well supported. Hoyle didn't like it either and for the same unfashionable theistic implications, atheists all preferred static models for the opposite rationale (no creation = no creator) and that has remained a guiding rationale to this day.

Still, philosophical speculation aside, the only verifiable empirical evidence points to a very specific singular creation event.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I must have ESP, OK we're talking about using a simple set of rules applied to a group, producing an emergent sort of group 'intelligence' by the mathematical algorithms , it's the same concept whether you're talking about bees, robots or people

The great thing about algorithms is that something utterly mindless can process them. There is no concept in the implementation of any swarm intelligence algorithm, or it would fail.

you can observe the bees, program a robot to follow the rules, or ask people to.. it doesn't alter the principle.

Just the ability for it to work. I can write code in MATLAB, R, C, Java, Mathematica, etc., to compute thousands upon thousands of iterations of a function in a less than a minute. Get a group of people to do that and it will take a long, long, time. Individual ants can coordinate almost as well as the cells in your body: each ant mindless yet the colony capable of forming teams to make themselves into bridges for other teams to carry prey. Humans cannot begin to imitate such coordination (in the case of colonies) or computations (in the case of algorithms). The principle does remain the same, it's just that humans are pathetically inept when it come to attempting to implement them compared to ants or calculators.

For the sake of argument I am happy to concede that a brick could beat me at chess any day..

A brick can't. You seem to wish to conflate all kinds of intelligence and learning, granting that some might exist among other systems apart from humans to some extent only to ultimately declare without merit and without support and indeed without defining the terms or concepts involved that humans:

have a vastly superior awareness of creation itself.

...among other things. But let us stick with this. Again, what creation? What evidence do you possess that there was this "creation" you speak of?

Not everybody accepts the Big Bang, but that was pretty creationy and pretty well supported.

There is nothing in the standard model, known to be defective but in which the "big bang theory is a part", that suggests creation. Nothing. So perhaps you confuse your understanding with fiction, not physics or evidence.

Hoyle didn't like it either and for the same unfashionable theistic implications, atheists all preferred static models for the opposite rationale (no creation = no creator) and that has remained a guiding rationale to this day.

Why is it I always here the same names as if Hoyle or Viliken or whomever were the sole persons railing against a creationist cosmology that
1) doesn't exist anywhere in physics and
2) has known problems and faults that physicists attempt to resolve only to be castigated and classified as "atheists" who prefer models that they do not (static models? really? what happened to the past several decades of research).

Still, philosophical speculation aside, the only verifiable empirical evidence points to a very specific singular creation event.

Actually no empirical evidence points to that, because even in the standard model all physics breaks down before the "bang" and no evidence nor model can tell us of much other than that a number of physical impossibilities can be inferred given different assumptions and different mathematical solutions.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

The great thing about algorithms is that something utterly mindless can process them. There is no concept in the implementation of any swarm intelligence algorithm, or it would fail.

The algorithm relevant to consciousness has at base a rule of choosing, it makes one of alternative futures the present, or it makes a possible future the present or not.

Aside from that consciousness requires a complete self-contained system, like mathematics itself is a self-contained system based on 0. A world in it's own right, like a 3D computergame, but which can copy form the world outside.

If one would copy a table to the mind-object table, forced by the evidence of the table. Then connect a simple 0 or 1 arbitrary parameter to every bit of information the mind-object consists of. The mind-object can then be decided over with this parameter. It would be inconsequential which way the decision turns out, the choosing would still establish consciousness that a table is there.

That is the difference between a machine recording a table being there, and a human being is conscious of a table being there, that the human being chooses over the object.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

You are saying a man with no brain can drive a car??

I do see a lot of that.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

That would have been a very very long time ago and would have been over a much longer period of time.

Yes, an awful lot can happen in a couple of billion years.

 

[Ouroboros]

One thing has to be pointed out, unless it's been done already, natural selection doesn't really mean "selecting for" but rather "selecting against." If a trait occurs in nature, it hangs around through generations as long as it's not killed off. It's the "death of the unfit" rather than "survival of the fittest." It's not like the A+ top student is the only one getting out of class, but everyone is getting out, and the ones doing worst are the ones worst off. Consciousness might be one of those things that just happened and then hangs around because it's not detrimental for survival. In nature, if it doesn't kill you, it'll hang around.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

The algorithm relevant to consciousness has at base a rule of choosing, it makes one of alternative futures the present, or it makes a possible future the present or not.

I don't think that consciousness or the "mind" rely on or use algorithms. I consider that an outdated view that originated with the advent of computability theory, classical cognitive science, generative linguistics, and the death of behaviorism. So far, all attempts to reproduce the capabilities of brains capable of conceptual processing using anything which relies on algorithms has failed rather spectacularly, particularly when we have tried to use this approach to model particular cognitive processes like language comprehension. For decades, computational linguistics and generative linguistics were often the same, as generative linguists sought to identify the algorithms with which one could "generate" grammatically correct statements (and parse such sentences, breaking them down and "understanding" them based upon such algorithms). Modern methods natural language processing and related fields that are behind Google Translate, search engines, auto-compete in smartphones and search bars, etc., use classification & clustering algorithms like those in pattern recognition or machine learning rather than algorithms that seek to parse linguistic input using grammatical rules.

Aside from that consciousness requires a complete self-contained system, like mathematics itself is a self-contained system based on 0.

I don't understand either the first claim (how you are describing consciousness), or the analogy. How is mathematics either self-contained or "based on 0"?

If one would copy a table to the mind-object table, forced by the evidence of the table. Then connect a simple 0 or 1 arbitrary parameter to every bit of information the mind-object consists of.

The problem is that the "mind-object" or more simply the concept "table" that allows us to identify tables even if we've never seen a particular table and even if the table has features we've never seen seen tables have doesn't consist of "bits" of information, but a constantly changing representation that consists of shifting patterns in the dynamics within and between various neuronal networks that are not unique to the representation of the concept "table' but also overlap with representations of concepts like "chair", "dinner", "eat", "sit", etc.

 

[ahamtatsat]

To the mystically inclined, experienced, or whatever term one chooses, the consciousness IS the self, the body the tool used for exploration of consciousness. Somewhat like hopping in a car and making a trip for various reasons; different types of vehicles, differing capabilities, different trips for many types of purpose. Get something or drop it off. Go and experience something, maybe a symphony, ballet, or rock concert - or go to school, pay a fine, whatever.

The physical is not the dominant factor when we remember to live in the SELF. When we live from the bodily concept of life, the little self is there as ego and man, that sucks, lol.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

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?

Consciousness was naturally selected by animals in order to control their mobility and other higher functions; so it's more than a bi-product. Plants have no need of it, the movie Avatar notwithstanding.

The religious/philosophical question raised by consciousness, including possible AI, is self-awareness, full self-awareness, and the moral free will which could be considered its by-product. My theory is that if God exists and created the universe, It did so specifically for the purpose of spawning creatures with free will. An omnipotent God capable of creating such a universe, could have done anything else instantly. If God does exists, It went to a lot of trouble to keep It's existence (or non-existence) hidden.

 

[Gambit]

Consciousness was naturally selected by animals in order to control their mobility and other higher functions; so it's more than a bi-product. Plants have no need of it, the movie Avatar notwithstanding.

The religious/philosophical question raised by consciousness, including possible AI, is self-awareness, full self-awareness, and the moral free will which could be considered its by-product. My theory is that if God exists and created the universe, It did so specifically for the purpose of spawning creatures with free will. An omnipotent God capable of creating such a universe, could have done anything else instantly. If God does exists, It went to a lot of trouble to keep It's existence (or non-existence) hidden.

By invoking free will, you're making a dualistic argument, not a materialistic one.

 

[idea]

Yes, an awful lot can happen in a couple of billion years.

Yes, given enough time and space, everything ends up existing - unicorns, spaghetti monsters, even God.

 

[idea]

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 don't think conscience is inert.... gas can be almost inert...

 

[Sapiens]

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.

The superficial answer support Willamena, and is obvious: consciousness resulted in your offspring being more successful in producing offspring.

 

[Bunyip]

I would have thought consciousness would be selected for simply because an awareness of the environment has clear advantages. Being able to respond to light, temperature, pressure and so on.

 

[shawn001]

Yes, given enough time and space, everything ends up existing - unicorns, spaghetti monsters, even God.

Through evolution?

Your post and QM and the possibility of multiverses perhaps is why I no longer think as much about Pantheism.