Is Consciousness a Result of Evolution

[Etritonakin]

How did matter through material processes, create imagination ?

As an evolutionary tool like knowing whether what is in the bushes, food or prey.

Imagination is essentially internal consideration of an image of something and its properties, as if it actually existed externally -which allows for experimentally altering the image in preparation for the general purpose of altering external reality. It allows options to be considered and decided upon before being applied to reality.

I don't know how it relates, but I was just thinking that DNA-based evolution is essentially self-replication/mirror imaging with minor changes to the self-replication which do not happen as a result of the conscious decision of the DNA or resulting individual life forms themselves -but which allow for increased likelihood of survival and many other things.

Those changes to the replicated and altered "self" continued and became arranged to allow for life forms to replicate/model the external internally -modify the replication based on need or desire -and then apply it to gain what was needed or desired (how do "I" [which requires some level of understanding and imagining the self in relation to the environment] change this or act upon it to get what I need or desire?)

So -it is a similar process in a different position or on a different level.

Interestingly... Though the most basic nature of a life form is not decided by itself, life increases in its mastery of that nature -and of itself.

I do believe a complex, conscious, aware, self-aware intelligence developed/existed before the formation of our universe, atoms, etc. -and was necessary for the arrangement of pre-universe "material" to become arranged into the universe, atoms, etc. -just as certain arrangements of pre-existing arrangements of material are not possible without man's complex, conscious, aware, self-aware intelligence. In other words, what we now do to form things from atoms, etc., is similar to that which initially was done to the most basic pre-universe material to form the atoms.

 

[YmirGF]

Is consciousness a result of evolution or did it exist before life on earth began?

If consciousness already existed prior to life on earth existing what is so special about human consciousness?

I'd say it is, certainly consciousness, as we know it. How one would go about proving the idea is a bit of a wild goose chase down several rabbit holes however.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

How did matter through material processes, create imagination ?

We don't know. We don't know that matter did create consciousness or mind. That's that's the materialist formulation, in which mind is an epiphenomenon of matter. It competes with an idealist monism wherein matter derives from mind, a neutral monism wherein they both derive from a more fundamental substance, and Cartesian dualism, in which the two are considered separate and unrelated subtances

Nobody is in a position to pick one of these without demonstrating its correctness or demonstrating the incorrectness of three of them.

I have a preference, neutral monism, but I can't defend it, and so just consider it an opinion or intuition.

I do believe a complex, conscious, aware, self-aware intelligence developed/existed before the formation of our universe, atoms, etc. -and was necessary for the arrangement of pre-universe "material" to become arranged into the universe, atoms, etc. -just as certain arrangements of pre-existing arrangements of material are not possible without man's complex, conscious, aware, self-aware intelligence. In other words, what we now do to form things from atoms, etc., is similar to that which initially was done to the most basic pre-universe material to form the atoms.

I see that you have intuitions as well, but you probably agree that your foundation here isn't really any stronger than mine.

Incidentally, you seem to be reprising Paley's watchmaker argument (teleological argument, or argument from design). Would you agree with that?

If so, would you also agree that it is a logically fallacious argument (argument from incredulity) to state any variation of "I just don't see how it could happen without an intelligent designer"?

 

[idav]

How one would go about proving the idea is a bit of a wild goose chase down several rabbit holes however.

We can point to the evolutionary ladder and basically see what has more consciousness,. what has no consciousness. There should be some point where itis hard to tell, like when deciding if viruses are alive or dead.

 

[Etritonakin]

We don't know. We don't know that matter did create consciousness or mind. That's that's the materialist formulation, in which mind is an epiphenomenon of matter. It competes with an idealist monism wherein matter derives from mind, a neutral monism wherein they both derive from a more fundamental substance, and Cartesian dualism, in which the two are considered separate and unrelated subtances

Nobody is in a position to pick one of these without demonstrating its correctness or demonstrating the incorrectness of three of them.

I have a preference, neutral monism, but I can't defend it, and so just consider it an opinion or intuition.



I see that you have intuitions as well, but you probably agree that your foundation here isn't really any stronger than mine.

Incidentally, you seem to be reprising Paley's watchmaker argument (teleological argument, or argument from design). Would you agree with that?

If so, would you also agree that it is a logically fallacious argument (argument from incredulity) to state any variation of "I just don't see how it could happen without an intelligent designer"?

I don't know enough about those references.

I think it is safe to say our minds are made of matter -and that anything which actually exists is somewhat "material" -including that of which thoughts are composed.

I am not stating a variation of that quote -and if one sees accurately that certain things cannot happen before the existence of an intelligent designer, it is not fallacy -though they may not yet know exactly which things. The things which now exist are the same which existed before the Big Bang -but in a different arrangement. Certain things cannot happen now in the absence of an intelligent designer -so why would that not be true before the Big Bang?

 

[1137]

Is consciousness a result of evolution or did it exist before life on earth began?

If consciousness already existed prior to life on earth existing what is so special about human consciousness?

Why could consciousness not have evolved and ALSO predate life on earth?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I don't know enough about those references.

I think it is safe to say our minds are made of matter -and that anything which actually exists is somewhat "material" -including that of which thoughts are composed.

I am not stating a variation of that quote -and if one sees accurately that certain things cannot happen before the existence of an intelligent designer, it is not fallacy -though they may not yet know exactly which things. The things which now exist are the same which existed before the Big Bang -but in a different arrangement. Certain things cannot happen now in the absence of an intelligent designer -so why would that not be true before the Big Bang?

How can you say that the substance of thought is necessarily material? Sounds like a hypothesis or speculation.

I don't see how positing an intelligent designer helps or is necessary. We have simpler hypotheses that don't require an intelligent agent. The intelligent designer can join them on the list of candidate hypotheses, but it's the least parsimonious of them. It requires an intelligent designer, whereas the others don't. The multiverse hypothesis can account for our universe and its apparent fine tuning without invoking a god or purpose. That has to rank higher because it's simpler.

 

[Etritonakin]

How can you say that the substance of thought is necessarily material? Sounds like a hypothesis or speculation.

I don't see how positing an intelligent designer helps or is necessary. We have simpler hypotheses that don't require an intelligent agent. The intelligent designer can join them on the list of candidate hypotheses, but it's the least parsimonious of them. It requires an intelligent designer, whereas the others don't. The multiverse hypothesis can account for our universe and its apparent fine tuning without invoking a god or purpose. That has to rank higher because it's simpler.

Substance... "Material" ... Existent. -not necessarily "composed of atoms", etc. -even if emergent patterns of other things.

I don't think I am positing an intelligent designer of the description you may be suggesting.

I definitely don't think multiple universes as complex as ours (if that is what that means -the arrangement of which would still require explanation) is more simple than an initial designer -composed of that which can be designed -developing to the point of being able to initiate the universe.

 

[shmogie]

As an evolutionary tool like knowing whether what is in the bushes, food or prey.

Why did evolution create art ?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

How can you say that the substance of thought is necessarily material? Sounds like a hypothesis or speculation.

I don't see how positing an intelligent designer helps or is necessary. We have simpler hypotheses that don't require an intelligent agent. The intelligent designer can join them on the list of candidate hypotheses, but it's the least parsimonious of them. It requires an intelligent designer, whereas the others don't. The multiverse hypothesis can account for our universe and its apparent fine tuning without invoking a god or purpose. That has to rank higher because it's simpler.

Substance... "Material" ... Existent. -not necessarily "composed of atoms", etc. -even if emergent patterns of other things.

OK. I generally reserve the word "material" to mean made of matter to avoid that ambiguity, although I understand that the word "materialism" refers the things associated with matter such as energy, force, form, space, and time.

When I discuss what the multiverse or a god might be made of, or when I referred to neutral monism, the idea that consciousness and matter may be both derivative from a prior source, I use the word "substance."

I don't think I am positing an intelligent designer of the description you may be suggesting.

I don't think that I described the intelligent designer except to call it an intelligent agent and imply that it designed and created our universe. The term as used in this context requires that much, and I added nothing more. I didn't call it omnisicient, immaterial, moral, omnipotent, extratemporal, immortal, or assign it any other quality. Do you disagree?

I definitely don't think multiple universes as complex as ours (if that is what that means -the arrangement of which would still require explanation) is more simple than an initial designer -composed of that which can be designed -developing to the point of being able to initiate the universe.

The multiverse hypothesis posits uncountable numbers of universes of every possible configuration emerging like bubbles in a potentially amorphous substance, some immediately collapsing because its version of gravity was too strong, some failing to generate matter - whatever sterile or aborted configuration possible - but some like our universe having the right combination of fundamental constants after a fertile symmetry breaking phase in the initial instant generating life, mind, and intelligence. It's only natural that if we are having this discussion, that we would be in such a universe.

If there is just this universe, whether it has always existed or popped into existence uncaused from nothing, it is surprising that it should be just right for stable matter, life, and mind to emerge as it expands for billions of years.

Only a god hypothesis and a multiverse hypothesis account for the unlikelihood of this universe - the so-called fine tuning argument. They both serve as sources for our universe capable of generating finely tuned universes.

What is the least likely thing that you can conceive of existing undesigned and uncreated? Here are some choices, but you can suggest something else if you like: The initial singularity, the first living cell, the multiverse, and a god.

What problem is solved by positing a god that isn't made even more intractable now that a god needs to be explained?

That doesn't make gods impossible, just less likely than a multiverse, which doesn't have the requirements a god has. A god need tremendous structure to possess and store knowledge, to be conscious, and to have volition and purpose. The multiverse doesn't have to do any of that.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Is consciousness a result of evolution or did it exist before life on earth began?

If consciousness already existed prior to life on earth existing what is so special about human consciousness?

All attributes of life are the result of evolution. It's the process by which new traits emerge and change.

 

[Etritonakin]

OK. I generally reserve the word "material" to mean made of matter to avoid that ambiguity, although I understand that the word "materialism" refers the things associated with matter such as energy, force, form, space, and time.

When I discuss what the multiverse or a god might be made of, or when I referred to neutral monism, the idea that consciousness and matter may be both derivative from a prior source, I use the word "substance."



I don't think that I described the intelligent designer except to call it an intelligent agent and imply that it designed and created our universe. The term as used in this context requires that much, and I added nothing more. I didn't call it omnisicient, immaterial, moral, omnipotent, extratemporal, immortal, or assign it any other quality. Do you disagree?



The multiverse hypothesis posits uncountable numbers of universes of every possible configuration emerging like bubbles in a potentially amorphous substance, some immediately collapsing because its version of gravity was too strong, some failing to generate matter - whatever sterile or aborted configuration possible - but some like our universe having the right combination of fundamental constants after a fertile symmetry breaking phase in the initial instant generating life, mind, and intelligence. It's only natural that if we are having this discussion, that we would be in such a universe.

If there is just this universe, whether it has always existed or popped into existence uncaused from nothing, it is surprising that it should be just right for stable matter, life, and mind to emerge as it expands for billions of years.

Only a god hypothesis and a multiverse hypothesis account for the unlikelihood of this universe - the so-called fine tuning argument. They both serve as sources for our universe capable of generating finely tuned universes.

What is the least likely thing that you can conceive of existing undesigned and uncreated? Here are some choices, but you can suggest something else if you like: The initial singularity, the first living cell, the multiverse, and a god.

What problem is solved by positing a god that isn't made even more intractable now that a god needs to be explained?

That doesn't make gods impossible, just less likely than a multiverse, which doesn't have the requirements a god has. A god need tremendous structure to possess and store knowledge, to be conscious, and to have volition and purpose. The multiverse doesn't have to do any of that.

Actually -I lost track of what was going on.

 

[idav]

Why did evolution create art ?

Evolution works in a way that attributes become evolutionary advantage, not that art itself is an advantage, may or not be, but it's the various skills art requires that are human evolutionary advantages.

 

[Etritonakin]

Evolution works in a way that attributes become evolutionary advantage, not that art itself is an advantage, may or not be, but it's the various skills art requires that are human evolutionary advantages.

Evolution (all change leading to the development of life and consciousness) is a building block or foundation -an early stage of development which allows for greater and more wonderful things -similar to the idea behind this quote relating to art......

"The science of government it is my duty to study, more than all other
sciences; the arts of legislation and administration and negotiation
ought to take the place of, indeed exclude, in a manner, all other arts.
I must study politics and war, that our sons may have liberty to study
mathematics and philosophy. Our sons ought to study mathematics and
philosophy, geography, natural history and naval architecture,
navigation, commerce and agriculture in order to give their children
a right to study painting, poetry, music, architecture, statuary,
tapestry and porcelain."

 

[sealchan]

God is conscious from eternity and so consciousness precedes creation

Unless, of course, saying that God is consciousness is more a "conceit" of humanity projecting back onto the mystery of what is beyond the Universe what is most mysterious and powerful in humanities' own mind.

 

[sealchan]

My own thoughts on consciousness is that it is not just the brain but the collective of brains, the order of culture (language, ritual, technology, etc.) which is the physical correlate of consciousness and that consciousness is matter in a level of organization that Teilhard del Chardin calls the noosphere. Who we are, our subjective awareness is embodied in our social order which runs like a software on the human brain. Consciousness is a "story" we tell ourselves that effectively helps us as individuals and cultures to adapt to life in the Universe and has itself undergone evolution on the "noospheric" level of human culture as an emergent, adaptive layer of physical systems.

Consciousness isn't stuff, it is a layer of physical activity which has emerged from the merely biological/ecological layer of evolution and imposed a super-layer of activity capable of re-presenting the lower physical layer and thereby influencing the agency of each biological individual as part of this biological and noological system.

 

[Etritonakin]

OK. I generally reserve the word "material" to mean made of matter to avoid that ambiguity, although I understand that the word "materialism" refers the things associated with matter such as energy, force, form, space, and time.

When I discuss what the multiverse or a god might be made of, or when I referred to neutral monism, the idea that consciousness and matter may be both derivative from a prior source, I use the word "substance."



I don't think that I described the intelligent designer except to call it an intelligent agent and imply that it designed and created our universe. The term as used in this context requires that much, and I added nothing more. I didn't call it omnisicient, immaterial, moral, omnipotent, extratemporal, immortal, or assign it any other quality. Do you disagree?



The multiverse hypothesis posits uncountable numbers of universes of every possible configuration emerging like bubbles in a potentially amorphous substance, some immediately collapsing because its version of gravity was too strong, some failing to generate matter - whatever sterile or aborted configuration possible - but some like our universe having the right combination of fundamental constants after a fertile symmetry breaking phase in the initial instant generating life, mind, and intelligence. It's only natural that if we are having this discussion, that we would be in such a universe.

If there is just this universe, whether it has always existed or popped into existence uncaused from nothing, it is surprising that it should be just right for stable matter, life, and mind to emerge as it expands for billions of years.

Only a god hypothesis and a multiverse hypothesis account for the unlikelihood of this universe - the so-called fine tuning argument. They both serve as sources for our universe capable of generating finely tuned universes.

What is the least likely thing that you can conceive of existing undesigned and uncreated? Here are some choices, but you can suggest something else if you like: The initial singularity, the first living cell, the multiverse, and a god.

What problem is solved by positing a god that isn't made even more intractable now that a god needs to be explained?

That doesn't make gods impossible, just less likely than a multiverse, which doesn't have the requirements a god has. A god need tremendous structure to possess and store knowledge, to be conscious, and to have volition and purpose. The multiverse doesn't have to do any of that.

So...... We just happen to be lucky/unlucky enough to be in this universe -while infinite other us's are in every possible better, worse (Even errant ideas about hell don't seem as horrifying) and different situation if in a universe that developed that far -and there are countless others that did not develop that far which are in every possible state if in any state.....

And that is more simple than.... God.

What about a "God" who developed in relatively similar fashion as some believe humans developed (as it is believed humans developed intelligence and creativity over time due to the nature of that which exists -and we have obvious examples of that development) -from that pre-universe material/energy -essentially becoming a "mind" and "body" in macrocosm -having power over all and knowledge of all due to being composed of all and being the sum of all development until subduing all unto itself and becoming creative -eventually deciding to self-replicate, etc...

Does that not sound much more simple -and likely -than all that other stuff?

It may not be what many believe about God -as many seem to believe God always existed as a complex creator -but it does make sense, and such people really have no reason to assume such. Scripture actually suggests otherwise.

In summary... Same thing which is believed of man -but happening before our universe -all-encompassing -and on a most basic level which allows for that being to become all-knowing and all-powerful (except when deciding otherwise) -and able to configure essentially itself into the universe, ourselves, etc.

 

[Polymath257]

What exactly is meant by the word 'consciousness'?

We generally agree that humans are conscious (at least while awake--dreams might be a special case). I would also agree that dogs and cats are conscious. But I am not clear where the boundary line is supposed to be.

Are fish conscious? How about worms? Planaria? Bacteria? Are plants conscious (they certainly react to their environment)? I've seen a claim from a philosopher that a thermostat could be considered conscious.

What is clear is that there is an increased level of information gathering and processing as we get more complicated animals. This gets to the level that many mammals seem to have a model of the environment in their brain processes. For humans, we additionally have a model of ourselves. In this sense, consciousness was a result of evolution.

 

[idav]

What exactly is meant by the word 'consciousness'?

We generally agree that humans are conscious (at least while awake--dreams might be a special case). I would also agree that dogs and cats are conscious. But I am not clear where the boundary line is supposed to be.

Are fish conscious? How about worms? Planaria? Bacteria? Are plants conscious (they certainly react to their environment)? I've seen a claim from a philosopher that a thermostat could be considered conscious.

What is clear is that there is an increased level of information gathering and processing as we get more complicated animals. This gets to the level that many mammals seem to have a model of the environment in their brain processes. For humans, we additionally have a model of ourselves. In this sense, consciousness was a result of evolution.

This makes a lot of sense to me. How would you describe something as less conscious than another being? I am curious because the idealist type view seems to make consciousness an on off switch, you either have it or don't, having some sort of non-substance as part of a human body, and whether they share that with lesser formed beings like plants depends.

 

[Polymath257]

This makes a lot of sense to me. How would you describe something as less conscious than another being? I am curious because the idealist type view seems to make consciousness an on off switch, you either have it or don't, having some sort of non-substance as part of a human body, and whether they share that with lesser formed beings like plants depends.

Well, the most obvious thing would be to look at the degree of information processing seen. The reason that the thermostat was thought to be potentially conscious is that it changes in response to the environment and registers those changes. I'm not sure I agree, the it does seem to me that information processing and the degree to which the brain models the environment are crucial to the concept of consciousness.

But then, I don't have a huge problem with regarding Searle's Chinese Room as conscious, just on a very long time line.