Home | Community | Message Board


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | Next >  [ show all ]
InvisibleDividedQuantumM
Outer Head
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,825
"Consciousness Cannot Have Evolved " * 3
    #26476792 - 02/09/20 10:59 AM (4 years, 7 days ago)

Quote:

Consciousness Cannot Have Evolved

The sooner we acknowledge it, the sooner we’ll solve the hard problem of consciousness

Bernardo Kastrup
5th February 2020
https://iai.tv/articles/consciousness-cannot-have-evolved-auid-1302


The overwhelmingly validated theory of evolution tells us that the functions performed by our organs arose from associated increases in survival fitness. For instance, the bile produced by our liver and the insulin produced by our pancreas help us absorb nutrients and thus survive. Insofar as it is produced by the brain, our phenomenal consciousness—i.e. our ability to subjectively experience the world and ourselves—is no exception: it, too, must give us some survival advantage, otherwise natural selection wouldn’t have fixed it in our genome. In other words, our sentience—to the extent that it is produced by the brain—must perform a beneficial function, otherwise we would be unconscious zombies.

One problem with this is that, under the premises of materialism, phenomenal consciousness cannot—by definition—have a function. According to materialism, all entities are defined and exhaustively characterised in purely quantitative terms. For instance, elementary subatomic particles are exhaustively characterised in terms of e.g. mass, charge and spin values. Similarly, the behaviour of abstract fields is fully defined in terms of quantities, such as frequencies and amplitudes of oscillation. Particles and fields, in and of themselves, have quantitative properties but no intrinsic qualities, such as colour or flavour. Only our perceptions of them—or so the materialist argument goes—are accompanied by qualities somehow generated by our brain.

Materialism posits that the quantities that characterise physical entities are what allow them to be causally efficacious; that is, to produce effects. For instance, it is the charge values of protons and electrons that produce the effect of their mutual attraction. In nuclear fission reactors, it is the mass value of neutrons that produces the effect of splitting atoms. And so on. All chains of cause and effect in nature must be describable purely in terms of quantities. Whatever isn’t a quantity cannot be part of our physical models and therefore—insofar as such models are presumed to be causally-closed—cannot produce effects. According to materialism, all functions rest on quantities.

However, our phenomenal consciousness is eminently qualitative, not quantitative. There is something it feels like to see the colour red, which is not captured by merely noting the frequency of red light. If we were to tell Helen Keller that red is an oscillation of approximately 4.3*1014 cycles per second, she would still not know what it feels like to see red. Analogously, what it feels like to listen to a Vivaldi sonata cannot be conveyed to a person born deaf, even if we show to the person the sonata’s complete power spectrum. Experiences are felt qualities—which philosophers and neuroscientists call ‘qualia’—not fully describable by abstract quantities.

But as discussed above, qualities have no function under materialism, for quantitatively-defined physical models are supposed to be causally-closed; that is, sufficient to explain every natural phenomenon. As such, it must make no difference to the survival fitness of an organism whether the data processing taking place in its brain is accompanied by experience or not: whatever the case, the processing will produce the same effects; the organism will behave in exactly the same way and stand exactly the same chance to survive and reproduce. Qualia are, at best, superfluous extras.

Therefore, under materialist premises, phenomenal consciousness cannot have been favoured by natural selection. Indeed, it shouldn’t exist at all; we should all be unconscious zombies, going about our business in exactly the same way we actually do, but without an accompanying inner life. If evolution is true—which we have every reason to believe is the case—our very sentience contradicts materialism.

This conclusion is often overlooked by materialists, who regularly try to attribute functions to phenomenal consciousness. Here are three illustrative examples:

(1) consciousness enables attention.

(2) consciousness discriminates episodic memory (past) from live perceptions (present) by making them feel different.

(3) consciousness motivates behaviour conducive to survival.

Computer scientists know that none of this requires experience, for we routinely implement all three functions in presumably unconscious silicon computers.

Regarding point 1, under materialism attention is simply a mechanism for focusing an organism’s limited cognitive resources on priority tasks. Computer operating systems do this all the time—using techniques such as interrupts, queuing, task scheduling, etc.—in a purely algorithmic, quantitatively-defined manner.

Regarding point 2, there are countless ways to discriminate data streams without need for accompanying experience. Does your home computer have trouble separating the photos of last year’s holidays from the live feed of your webcam? Data streams from memory and real-time processes can simply be tagged or routed in different ways, without qualia.

Finally regarding point 3, within the logic of materialism motivation is simply a calculation - the output of a quantitative algorithm tasked with maximising the gain while minimising the risk of an organism’s actions. Computers are ‘motivated’ to do whatever it is they do—otherwise they wouldn’t do it—without accompanying qualia.

Just as these three examples illustrate, all conceivable cognitive functions can, under materialist premises, be performed without accompanying experience. Nonetheless, we regularly see scientific publications proposing a function for consciousness. A recent Oxford University Press blog post, for instance, claims that ‘the function of consciousness is to generate possibly counterfactual representations of an event or a situation’, which ‘hint at the origins of consciousness in the course of evolution’.

If one reads it attentively, however, one realises that the article defines what is meant by ‘function of consciousness’ in a rather counterintuitive manner that contradicts the way any casual reader would interpret the words:

‘When we consider functions of consciousness, they are the functions that are enabled by stimuli that enter consciousness or the functions that can be performed only in awake humans or animals. Functions in this sense should not be confused with the question of what kind of effects conscious experiences (or qualia) exert on physical systems.’

In other words, what the author calls the ‘functions of consciousness’ aren’t the cognitive tasks performed by consciousness, but simply those visible to consciousness—i.e. reportable through conscious introspection. Why call these tasks the ‘functions of consciousness’ if they aren’t what consciousness does, but merely what it sees? According to this argument, phenomenal consciousness expressly isn’t the causative agency behind these tasks—for the article excludes the causal efficacy of qualia from the definition—but merely their audience. As such, this theory is somewhat beside the point, as far as the survival value of having qualia or the evolutionary origins of phenomenal consciousness proper.

The impossibility of attributing functional, causative efficacy to qualia constitutes a fundamental internal contradiction in the mainstream materialist worldview. There are two main reasons why this contradiction has been accepted thus far: first, there seems to be a surprising lack of understanding, even amongst materialists, of what materialism actually entails and implies. Second, deceptive word games—such as that discussed above—seem to perpetuate the illusion that we have plausible hypotheses for the ostensive survival function of consciousness.

Phenomenal consciousness cannot have evolved. It can only have been there from the beginning as an intrinsic, irreducible fact of nature. The faster we come to terms with this fact, the faster our understanding of consciousness will progress.






The article is somewhat involved, but the gist is that all biological functions must make sense in the context of evolution -- they must have some sort of survival value, or they would not have evolved. According to standard materialist thought, though, consciousness is epiphenomenal and has no causal efficacy or survival utility. If this is the case, then it could not have evolved. Then the author speculates that if it did not evolve, it must have been there the whole time, and, at least according to materialist philosophical principles, we don't really know what's going on at all. He feels this is an important realization that should be acknowledged in order to have a shot at solving the "hard problem" of consciousness. I thought all this was good food for discussion.


--------------------
Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblelaughingdog
Stranger
 User Gallery
Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 4,829
Re: "Consciousness Cannot Have Evolved " [Re: DividedQuantum] * 1
    #26476918 - 02/09/20 12:41 PM (4 years, 7 days ago)

Why does consciousness need to be explained?


From 101 Zen Stories

Happy Chinaman

"Anyone walking about Chinatowns in America will observe statues of a stout fellow carrying a linen sack. Chinese merchants call him Happy Chinaman or Laughing Buddha.

This Hotei lived in the T'ang dynasty. He had no desire to call himself a Zen master or to gather many disciples around him. Instead he walked the streets with a big sack into which he would put gifts of candy, fruit, or doughnuts. These he would give to children who gathered around him in play. He established a kindergarten of the streets.

Whenever he met a Zen devotee he would extend his hand and say: "Give me one penny."

Once as he was about to play-work another Zen master happened along and inquired: "What is the significance of Zen?"

Hotei immediately plopped his sack down on the ground in silent answer.

"Then," asked the other, "what is the actualization of Zen?"

At once the Happy Chinaman swung the sack over his shoulder and continued on his way. "

or as Ajhan Sumedho says:
"thinking about awareness, is not awareness
awareness of thinking is awareness."

Asking (someone or the world) what consciousness is,
is like asking: Why am I talking?
(And then rambling on, with verbiage, till others simply finally leave.)

----------
It maybe another matter if one is a scientist, and paid, to do actual experiments.
But on a personal level, intellectualizing about consciousness, will never have the same effect, or a better effect, than tripping, or meditation. IMO*

* (Or, of course, the odd life changing experience such as being saved from a suicide,  attempt, etc.)

-----

But don't mind my odd style DQ, I'm sure many others, will find the topic a good one for discussion.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDividedQuantumM
Outer Head
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,825
Re: "Consciousness Cannot Have Evolved " [Re: laughingdog]
    #26476933 - 02/09/20 12:53 PM (4 years, 7 days ago)

I agree with you. I don't think consciousness requires an explanation, or can be analyzed. I just thought it was an interesting topic for discussion, and I do feel the whole concept of epiphenomenalism and causal efficacy is one that should be addressed. As for myself, I consider consciousness a given, and I agree with the researcher that it has been there since the very beginning.


--------------------
Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblelaughingdog
Stranger
 User Gallery
Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 4,829
Re: "Consciousness Cannot Have Evolved " [Re: DividedQuantum]
    #26476958 - 02/09/20 01:21 PM (4 years, 7 days ago)

.  I imagine on a personal level there is a spectrum of awareness. At one end of the spectrum is self deception, very active defense mechanisms, unresolved emotions, and a personality characterized by stress, and at the other end, more selfless behavior, lucid dreaming, and frequent experiences of peace and so on.
Presumably most of us move within a certain range most of the time.

.    So the question arises if consciousness is independent of time & is independent of being caused by individuals, why does the experiencing of it vary so much?

.  If instead of consciousness, we ask about personal responsibility (aka free will or perhaps even what defines a self) - (pardon how I jump) - the answer is: "The buck stops here!"
.  "The buck stops here!" is the attitude that defines both responsibility & free will.
And it is an attitude that assumes the individual is creative, or has choice, and is in this sense self creative. If this is the case are we co-creative of consciousness?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDividedQuantumM
Outer Head
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,825
Re: "Consciousness Cannot Have Evolved " [Re: laughingdog]
    #26476998 - 02/09/20 01:56 PM (4 years, 7 days ago)

Interesting points. I think mainly, consciousness creates us, and everything we are and do. Notions of free will are murky, and how it even ties in with decision making (or is exhibited in other actions) is a question. But I think everything flows out of awareness, and I definitely agree that it lies on a spectrum. On one end is pure automatism; on the other is creativity and some sort of volition. I imagine consciousness as a process is independent of time, but on the other hand, as I argued in the other thread, I think it is very hard for humans to dismiss time, enlightened states notwithstanding. In the end, I think everything flows out of and returns to consciousness, and that we are not deterministic bio-robots. (At least not all the time).


--------------------
Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleredgreenvines
irregular verb
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,703
Re: "Consciousness Cannot Have Evolved " [Re: DividedQuantum]
    #26477692 - 02/09/20 09:54 PM (4 years, 7 days ago)

the OP quotation is a bother to me, the logical position is unconvincing.
of course consciousness is a side effect of our working brains, and of course they evolved and we see evidence of consciousness in animals of all kinds, and the materialist in me considers that a strict brain type organ is most likely required but some invertebrates seem to show consciousness without much brain at all.

learning and conditioned behavior enables adaptation without specialized organs, so it has filled in well for animals that are not ever 100% perfectly adapted to what is always a slightly changing environment.

the essence of consciousness involves experiencing and conditioning behavior, i.e. mind --- it has evolved and continues to evolve, incorporating the world into it, creating museums and libraries, and now the web.

the more new things we ca learn the more it is of value adaptively.


--------------------
:confused: _ :brainfart:🧠  _ :finger:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,947
Re: "Consciousness Cannot Have Evolved " [Re: DividedQuantum]
    #26477825 - 02/10/20 12:09 AM (4 years, 7 days ago)

Quote:

"I claim that reality is exactly what it seems to be, that it has colours, that it has flavours, that it has melody, and that it has qualities and that these flavours, melodies, and qualities are really outside your head, they really exist in the world.

You might say, well why is this heretic right, it is heretic because the mainstream view in our culture today is that it is the brain that generates all of your subjective experiences, all colours, all melodies, all textures, flavours, they all unfold, are generated and exist within your skull, your real skull, supposedly, somewhere beyond this room, enveloping this room from all sides, that is the mainstream materialist, or physicalist view of our culture". - Bernardo Kastrup




If you can unravel this last paragraph from Bernardo it might make it easier to understand where he may be coming from.

Or in other words, do you agree with him?


--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleredgreenvines
irregular verb
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,703
Re: "Consciousness Cannot Have Evolved " [Re: sudly]
    #26478047 - 02/10/20 07:14 AM (4 years, 6 days ago)

it is deficient because it casts the experience as "in the skull" which is not the experience at all...

Usually no part of experiencing includes in the skull perception unless the person is trying to model consciousness which is very rare.

The contents and functioning of the mind in the brain is a conditioned reflection of what is not particularly in the skull - but rather reflections of all the sensible world.


--------------------
:confused: _ :brainfart:🧠  _ :finger:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDividedQuantumM
Outer Head
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,825
Re: "Consciousness Cannot Have Evolved " [Re: redgreenvines] * 2
    #26478192 - 02/10/20 09:27 AM (4 years, 6 days ago)

Quote:

redgreenvines said:
the OP quotation is a bother to me, the logical position is unconvincing.
of course consciousness is a side effect of our working brains, and of course they evolved and we see evidence of consciousness in animals of all kinds, and the materialist in me considers that a strict brain type organ is most likely required but some invertebrates seem to show consciousness without much brain at all.

learning and conditioned behavior enables adaptation without specialized organs, so it has filled in well for animals that are not ever 100% perfectly adapted to what is always a slightly changing environment.

the essence of consciousness involves experiencing and conditioning behavior, i.e. mind --- it has evolved and continues to evolve, incorporating the world into it, creating museums and libraries, and now the web.

the more new things we ca learn the more it is of value adaptively.





I don't disagree with you on the weakness of the logic, but I thought it was interesting enough to share. For example, I strongly disagree that consciousness is a side effect of the brain, which is generally assumed, but for which there is zero evidence. My views are quite different, but suffice it to say that I feel that consciousness is much more fundamental, and I wouldn't say I support idealism, but something somewhat similar. I agree fully that learning and conditioning are much more general processes than supposed.

I also agree that there is an evolution of mind, but I think not of consciousness. Consciousness is a fundamental property of existence, and it is what underlies the essence of mind, but mind also is, in a complementary way, a function of the matter, energy and chemistry of the brain and nervous system, and clearly that evolves. Consciousness, mind and brain are subtle shades of the same process, but it's useful to make distinctions, and I think consciousness or awareness is the fundamental property -- not the other way around.


--------------------
Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDividedQuantumM
Outer Head
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,825
Re: "Consciousness Cannot Have Evolved " [Re: sudly]
    #26478206 - 02/10/20 09:31 AM (4 years, 6 days ago)

Quote:

sudly said:
Quote:

"I claim that reality is exactly what it seems to be, that it has colours, that it has flavours, that it has melody, and that it has qualities and that these flavours, melodies, and qualities are really outside your head, they really exist in the world.

You might say, well why is this heretic right, it is heretic because the mainstream view in our culture today is that it is the brain that generates all of your subjective experiences, all colours, all melodies, all textures, flavours, they all unfold, are generated and exist within your skull, your real skull, supposedly, somewhere beyond this room, enveloping this room from all sides, that is the mainstream materialist, or physicalist view of our culture". - Bernardo Kastrup




If you can unravel this last paragraph from Bernardo it might make it easier to understand where he may be coming from.

Or in other words, do you agree with him?





I think all he is saying there is that objective reality exists. That reality is not purely a subjective projection of our minds. This of course is somewhat against the mainstream at this point.

In general, I do not agree with the author to a significant degree. I disagree with virtually all of the assumptions he makes, like supposing that epiphenomenalism is a given. But I do agree that consciousness did not evolve, because I feel it is a property of nature that has existed since the beginning.


--------------------
Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleredgreenvines
irregular verb
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,703
Re: "Consciousness Cannot Have Evolved " [Re: DividedQuantum]
    #26478334 - 02/10/20 10:38 AM (4 years, 6 days ago)

compare then the consciousness of an eagle with that of a worm (imagination is required), or that of a fish with that of a monkey. Compare any of them to that of a human pilot, surgeon, warrior, housewife etc.

the character of consciousness for each is shaped by the bodies and the sensoria, as well as by the comparative wealth or dearth of social conditioning (i.e. learning/memory)- for example a nurse will have conversations and technical processes and careful human touch activities as well as his or her posture and body feelings circulating as mental forms in his or her consciousness, while a fish will be all about swimming, eating, and escaping predation except when mating or caring for young. Some fish like Groupers and morays are involved with curiosity, and inter species collaboration which is much more complex but not as busy as that of a nurse.

what I am saying is that it is really all about body and its environs, and the kinds of memory and communications/culture: i.e. consciousness is not of one type only, and the complexity of it depends on the hosting body/brain and it's social environment.

how can such dependency pre-exist? certainly the essence of a worm's consciousness pre-exists our own, and you could say that we share the consciousness of worms, but I don't think it makes a lot of sense to say that my personal consciousness pre-exists my body's birth, unless it is some mystical thing like a worm or an arm of the spaghetti monster which oddly could be a good theory.


--------------------
:confused: _ :brainfart:🧠  _ :finger:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleOrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group
Male User Gallery


Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,414
Loc: Under the C
Re: "Consciousness Cannot Have Evolved " [Re: DividedQuantum]
    #26478335 - 02/10/20 10:38 AM (4 years, 6 days ago)

The whole premise is just an argument from ignorance disguised in fancy language, assumption and faulty premises.


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDividedQuantumM
Outer Head
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,825
Re: "Consciousness Cannot Have Evolved " [Re: redgreenvines]
    #26478381 - 02/10/20 11:12 AM (4 years, 6 days ago)

Quote:

redgreenvines said:
compare then the consciousness of an eagle with that of a worm (imagination is required), or that of a fish with that of a monkey. Compare any of them to that of a human pilot, surgeon, warrior, housewife etc.

the character of consciousness for each is shaped by the bodies and the sensoria, as well as by the comparative wealth or dearth of social conditioning (i.e. learning/memory)- for example a nurse will have conversations and technical processes and careful human touch activities as well as his or her posture and body feelings circulating as mental forms in his or her consciousness, while a fish will be all about swimming, eating, and escaping predation except when mating or caring for young. Some fish like Groupers and morays are involved with curiosity, and inter species collaboration which is much more complex but not as busy as that of a nurse.

what I am saying is that it is really all about body and its environs, and the kinds of memory and communications/culture: i.e. consciousness is not of one type only, and the complexity of it depends on the hosting body/brain and it's social environment.




Yeah I agree.

Quote:

how can such dependency pre-exist? certainly the essence of a worm's consciousness pre-exists our own, and you could say that we share the consciousness of worms, but I don't think it makes a lot of sense to say that my personal consciousness pre-exists my body's birth, unless it is some mystical thing like a worm or an arm of the spaghetti monster which oddly could be a good theory.




One's personal consciousness need not exist before one is born. One could think of it as consciousness being a field of being inherent in mass and energy, and it can take on infinite forms. So yes, all the characteristics cited above are fundamentally important. I'm not saying exactly that we share the consciousness of worms, but that both humans and worms are conscious, and that consciousness stems from the same source.


--------------------
Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleredgreenvines
irregular verb
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,703
Re: "Consciousness Cannot Have Evolved " [Re: DividedQuantum]
    #26478503 - 02/10/20 12:21 PM (4 years, 6 days ago)

we are down to earth (and worms) or spaghetti and space


--------------------
:confused: _ :brainfart:🧠  _ :finger:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineGrapefruit
Freak in the forest
 User Gallery

Registered: 05/09/08
Posts: 5,744
Last seen: 3 years, 1 month
Re: "Consciousness Cannot Have Evolved " [Re: DividedQuantum]
    #26478896 - 02/10/20 04:43 PM (4 years, 6 days ago)

I mean it had to come from some kind of process right? Can you summarise his argument for the mentally challenged and lazy among us?


--------------------
Little left in the way of energy; or the way of love, yet happy to entertain myself playing mental games with the rest of you freaks until the rivers run backwards. 

"Chat your fraff
Chat your fraff
Just chat your fraff
Chat your fraff"


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDividedQuantumM
Outer Head
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,825
Re: "Consciousness Cannot Have Evolved " [Re: Grapefruit] * 1
    #26478910 - 02/10/20 04:51 PM (4 years, 6 days ago)

Quote:

Grapefruit said:
I mean it had to come from some kind of process right? Can you summarise his argument for the mentally challenged and lazy among us?





His premise begins with the notion that in modern theories of biology, psychology and neuroscience, consciousness is seen to be epiphenomenal -- that is, it is a by-product of neural function and does not serve any causative purpose. He continues by saying that, if consciousness has no purpose, and therefore has nothing to do with the organism's survival, then how could it have evolved? Evolution deals with developed characteristics (through changes to the genome) that confer survival advantages in certain environments. If some trait evolves, it must have an evolutionary purpose -- at least, this is the author's conclusion. And if consciousness does not have an evolutionary purpose, it could then not be the result of biological evolution.

If it is not the product of biological evolution, it either magically appeared in organisms at some undefinable point, or it has existed in organisms since the beginning of life. That is the author's argument -- that consciousness, according to the dominant understanding of it, could not have been a product of evolution.


--------------------
Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblelaughingdog
Stranger
 User Gallery
Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 4,829
Re: "Consciousness Cannot Have Evolved " [Re: DividedQuantum]
    #26479349 - 02/10/20 10:01 PM (4 years, 6 days ago)

.  Consciousness like 'god' is a murky term, that means different thing to different people, and is tangled up with other concepts such as 'self', & 'mind', etc.
This is why professional philosophers and scientists take care to define their terms.

.  The idea of consciousness preexisting before the (human) evolved brain, implies it is possible without a self.
While some may feel they experience awareness of awareness, with out at the same time any particular perceptions. This could only occur during meditation, as waking activity requires, awareness of incoming sense perceptions.
.  There fore as any possible experiencing of awareness of awareness, without at the same time any particular perceptions, can only occur during meditation, it must be an unverifiable subjective experience, if indeed such a state occurs.
.    So one aspect of awareness as distinct from specific perceptions, is its subjective nature, which would seem to imply a self.

.  As RGV has pointed out mind does serve an evolutionary purpose. All consciousness does is add to the power of the mind. Animals have minds, but not much language, or conceptual power. They solve mazes and in the case of dogs especially are very trainable.
.    But animals have little in the way of culture compared to humans. And culture or the ability to pass on information to successive generations ( as opposed to strength, powerful teeth and long sharp claws) are what have enabled humans to dominate, all other animals and environments--so consciousness clearly does have evolutionary advantage.
.  And 'the self' is the focal point of the subjective consciousness, (whether or not 'self'  is a provisional simulation or not). Thus in conveying information to others, humans can say things like: "Yesterday, when it was hot, I saw antelope by the water hole, and a big rock we could hide behind, so it makes sense for the two of us, to go hunting there tomorrow, and bring meat back to the tribe; and if it works out we can tell the others, and we may all benefit for generations."

.    So it seems there is a good argument for "consciousness"  just being an aspect of both mind & self. And that consciousness is not preexisting and disembodied, but is rather just one among many states, that the brain goes "in and out" of such as deep sleep, dreaming, drowsiness, waking, and very alert or aware, all characterized by different brain waves.

.    In the case of 'responsibility' we do not say it is 'a state', or wonder if it is  'preexisting and disembodied'---instead we understand that it is a self arising action, a self created intention to act in a certain way independent of circumstance, we understand that it is not an object, & that like breathing the moment it stops it no longer exists.
.  Consciousness or mindfulness operates the same way. Where does your fist go when you open your hand? It is a verb. A 'fist' is a verb disguised as a noun (object). Language turns running (a verb) into "the race" (a noun). The moment we are distracted mindfulness has disappeared, and we may not remember where we put our car keys, or stumble, etc. Adding "ness" & removing "ing" turns verbs into nouns or objects. Thus "Consciousness" implies an object, where as "experiencing" reveals the processing nature of the ongoing activity.
.    This again implies 'it' (or 'aware-ing') is not free of perceptions having a locus (or self), not free of time, not free of embodiment, but is instead a conditioned phenomenon, dependent on causes & conditions.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblepineninja
Dream Weaver
 User Gallery


Registered: 08/17/14
Posts: 12,468
Loc: South Flag
Re: "Consciousness Cannot Have Evolved " [Re: laughingdog] * 1
    #26479373 - 02/10/20 10:36 PM (4 years, 6 days ago)

It's both always been and never was.
It's indubitubly seen just because.
Not before or after an evolutionaries tear.
A deliberately paradoxical sensoural scare.

No point could be teased from when which I began.
This substance leaves no room from hence too trancend.
Consciousness is all, both always been and never was.
Constructs of separation through poetry, just because.


--------------------
Just a fool on the hill.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,947
Re: "Consciousness Cannot Have Evolved " [Re: DividedQuantum]
    #26479385 - 02/10/20 10:58 PM (4 years, 6 days ago)

You said that you feel consciousness or awareness is a property of nature that has existed since the beginning.

To me conscious means to be aware of environs.

And consciousness a developed capability in interpersonal relations, and a capability in displaying intelligent disobedience.

While humans are arguably the most advanced in such active learning techniques, chimps and other animals like dolphins, dogs, birds and seals among others are still rather capable.

Perhaps we can add this to the discussion, that being conscious is inherent to life.

Quote:

I'm not saying exactly that we share the consciousness of worms, but that both humans and worms are conscious, and that consciousness stems from the same source.




--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.



Edited by sudly (02/10/20 11:12 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,947
Re: "Consciousness Cannot Have Evolved " [Re: DividedQuantum]
    #26479397 - 02/10/20 11:05 PM (4 years, 6 days ago)

Quote:

DividedQuantum said: I think all he is saying there is that objective reality exists. That reality is not purely a subjective projection of our minds. This of course is somewhat against the mainstream at this point.




This sounds awfully like a straw man, vaguely asserting a mainstream, and then conveniently knocking it down.

I mean this guy was talking about skulls enveloping rooms.. :what:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | Next >  [ show all ]

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Following AI: Consciousness as an interpretive process for data! (aren't I fancy!)
( 1 2 3 all )
PsilocinSam 6,828 58 03/18/05 11:45 AM
by gettinjiggywithit
* Consciousness at the Planck Scale?
( 1 2 all )
DiploidM 5,620 32 10/02/04 09:30 PM
by Diploid
* (Human) Consciousness
( 1 2 3 4 all )
trendalM 6,239 64 01/03/04 05:49 PM
by Deiymiyan
* Timothy Leary's Eight Circuits of Consciousness imstoned420 4,248 8 07/10/13 11:00 AM
by redgreenvines
* how can collective consciousness exist?
( 1 2 all )
kaiowas 5,391 30 11/11/13 05:23 AM
by absols
* Consciousness, Physics, and Spirituality. Reggaejunkiejew 2,228 6 01/16/17 07:38 PM
by Middleman
* are we going to stop evolving?
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 all )
Turd 6,306 106 02/24/09 03:37 PM
by Silversoul
* Do plants have consciousness?
( 1 2 3 all )
Jellric 3,391 50 07/29/04 09:33 AM
by CJay

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
1,608 topic views. 1 members, 7 guests and 5 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.024 seconds spending 0.005 seconds on 14 queries.