How Does Evolution Produce Consciousness/Reason?

[Fist and Faith]

[[I maintain my objections to the "can't be reduced to physics" issue, for reasons stated elsewhere, and others not. But I'll let that horse stay dead and unbeaten for now]].

I haven't seen your objections. But I'm not convinced there is any cbrtp. I'm willing to call it that, because it's not properties we have any understanding of. Not even a hint. But maybe it really is cbrtp. If we can figure out what the least bit of it is, maybe we can figure out how it happens. There's no chance of figuring it out by studying our own brains. "If the human brain were so simple that we could understand it, we would be so simple that we couldn't." But if we study a brain that's simple enough that we can understand it, and it has the least bit of cbrtp, maybe we can figure out what's going on. Does a worm have it? If it does, maybe it's simple enough to figure out. Problem is, we can't figure out if a worm has it.

[Vraith]

"If the human brain were so simple that we could understand it, we would be so simple that we couldn't."

Hee...so...
"If the human brain were so complex we couldn't understand it, we'd be so complex we could."

Obviously it's a hard problem. It's actually CALLED that in certain circles.

But I think we have big hints/clues...and much of it centers around the shift/distinction between stimulus/response/instinct and abstraction/analogy/thought as "sets." [[overlapping with a test/set/field of presentation/"experience"---representation/"memory"---creation/"comprehension"...kinda/sorta. I want to make that more concrete, but words are mistaken when definite, and slippery when not]].

[Fist and Faith]

So, again, I wonder if there can be any amount of cbrtp without any consciousness. Can it be that a primitive brain can gain such a thing, react to it out of nothing but reflex, and increase its chances of survival and procreation?

Or is cbrtp useless (assuming it's possible) without an awareness of it? The reaction would be to only the brain state, and not to the mental state, since there is no consciousness to react to the mental states. So the cbrtp would be of no value.

[Fist and Faith]

Alrighty then! I'll carry on. And I apologise for any parts that sound like gibberish. I know what I mean, but might not be expressing it very well. Also apologies for what is surely repeating things that have been said many many times over the centuries. But it's all new to me!

Obviously, there is interaction between brain and mind. The mind (presumably) arises from, would not exist without, and partially controls, the brain.

But the brain is *ahem* unaware of the connection, or even of the mind's existence. It is unaware. I would not think the option of some form of cbrtp arising before consciousness, and still being able to somehow increase the odds of survival and procreation, is possible. The brain, which is reducible to physics, does not perceive that which cbrtp.

So consciousness, cbrtp awareness, cannot come second. BUT, it can't come first, either. Because we are not conscious of the interactions of particles. We are not conscious of brain states. We are conscious of mind states. We do not have awareness of photons hitting retina; causing an ion of blah blah blah; etc etc. We are aware of vision. I don't see how there can be consciousness without something to be conscious of. And, if the things to be conscious of did not come first, then they either came at the same time, or they are the same thing.

Are we conscious of vision; or is vision part of our consciousness? Are we aware of flavor; or is flavor part of our consciousness?

[Vraith]

Heh...Two different topigraphs.
First [the tangential one]...why is NOT being reduced to physics so important?
As things stand, there is no evidence that consciousness is disconnected from physics.
At best there is only a lack of knowledge of the connection/rules/process.
There is evidence...though we only have the parochial example of Earth life...that consciousness is connected to the physical---brain, or brain-like structures.

I mean---why can't and why reduced? Why not must and expanded/encompassed?

Imagine..."You" are "there"...in a place where on instant there is no universe, the next there is.
It seems to me, that that precisely means there is no physics,[or at least no physics like our physics] then there is. Everything exists BECAUSE our particular physics is instantiated. If anything, it's more true that physics can't be reduced to our universe.

Second, on what I think is the thing you really want to talk about in that last...
We're at emergent properties, I think. Consciousness MUST come second.
In that first instant, there are no stars---because there is no hydrogen, because there are no protons, neutrons, or electrons, because it's too damn hot and all the forces act exactly alike. But stars are IMPLICIT, though non-existent. Things have to cool, space has to grow, the forces have to break apart, stars have to collapse and explode to create and spread heavy elements, chemistry happens, life happens, brains happen, consciousness happens. Each emerges, different from, but dependent upon the previous.

Heh, circling back to the tangent...Because of Vraith's Law: Everything is expanded from physics.
We may not understand it yet---or, if the strict determinist-related schools are right we DO understand a lot of it, in "rough draft" form, we just don't like the answer---but barring catastrophe, we'll get there or at least always converge towards it.

To me, saying "Can't be reduced to physics" is a synonym for "Must be reduced to magic."
And I can't abide that.
If the root, the source, the foundation is magic, then everything is magic. But magic is, by definition, incomprehensible. So everything---every single thing, no matter how small, no matter how true or factual in appearance---is incomprehensible.
Mystery...reach exceeding grasp...is one thing. A marvelous thing.
Magic just means we think we're humans in a garden, but we're really just flies eating crap.

[Zarathustra]

To me, saying "Can't be reduced to physics" is a synonym for "Must be reduced to magic."

Why do things have to be reduced to anything? What if properties emerge at "higher" levels that disappear on a purely physical analysis?

[Vraith]

To me, saying "Can't be reduced to physics" is a synonym for "Must be reduced to magic."

Why do things have to be reduced to anything? What if properties emerge at "higher" levels that disappear on a purely physical analysis?

Heh...that's a line from my song. Exactly my point. Reduction is a necessary step very often to learn/critique/root out. But is not enough---stealing a thought from Motorcycle Maintenance---reduction can go deep, but it is a narrow channel. Breadth also exists.
Analogically that disappearance resembles much of what we see between the quantum and the macro.

Although I'd assume that we will discover/build the rules/mechanisms to reveal that invisibility. That's basically what things like the LHC, for example, do.

[Fist and Faith]

Heh...Two different topigraphs.
First [the tangential one]...why is NOT being reduced to physics so important?
As things stand, there is no evidence that consciousness is disconnected from physics.
At best there is only a lack of knowledge of the connection/rules/process.
There is evidence...though we only have the parochial example of Earth life...that consciousness is connected to the physical---brain, or brain-like structures.

As I've said, I'm not actually convinced it cbrtp. I'm thinking that, if we could figure out what the least amount of consciousness is, and study the critter that has it, we would have a better chance of finding the mechanism than we have studying our more complex consciousness.

But maybe not. Maybe consciousness truly cbrtp. We know an awful lot about things, and can detect things we don't really know anything about. Yet we can't catch even the faintest glimpse of a mechanism or particle, and can't come up with a decent theory about it. How freakin' incredible would it be if something in this universe isn't made of its substance, and doesn't follow its routes?!

[Zarathustra]

I think that the phenomenon of consciousness may one day be reduced to physics, at least a kind of physics that we currently don't have. However I do not believe that the content of consciousness will ever be reduced to physics. Using an example I have mentioned before, I believe it is like the content of a television broadcast. The content comes from the creative minds of people who develop that content, whereas it is carried by a signal that is easily reduceable to physics. Thus, we have a common example where the content and the carrier signal are two separate orders of reality. It is easy to think that the content is entirely contained in the shape and nature of the broadcast signal, however, if we were to reduce it to nothing else but this, we would be missing the human, creative nature of that content

[Fist and Faith]

Well, either a branch of physics that we can't currently conceive of, or, as you've said, an entirely different aspect of reality that we can't currently conceive of. I was actually waiting for someone to smack me for saying it could be of something other than the substance and rules ("rules", not "routes") of the universe. If it's part of the universe...

[Skyweir]

Perhaps consciousness is no mystery at all. How about consciousness as an intrinsic part of any life. It's mind - look at a dog, a horse or a cat .. they possess consciousness as part of being sentient. After all mental prowess is vital to survival in all beings. Without sentience how can any life form navigate through the challenges of life, their environments etc.

Humans always seek a higher purpose for their capabilities. As a species we possess consciousness and opposable thumbs. These two attributes alone have enabled humans to dominate the natural world.

Create fire , seek shelter from inclement conditions (like many other species do), develop tools, raise food & crops, build shelters, invent new and more efficient means of living and surviving.

[Zarathustra]

Skyweir, I see what you're saying. Good points. However, I think that there's still plenty of mystery to it. Consciousness isn't required to do so many things. You can drive down the interstate, have a conversation with a friend, and realize miles later that you have no memory of the road. We operate on habit, "autopilot," and instinct. I think animal operate on it even more. And of course there are things like sleepwalking where people do complex tasks without being fully conscious. So nature does supply organisms with complex behavior without the need for consciousness.

[Vraith]

Ran across this. The authors seem to have legit credentials/positions.

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10 ... 01924/full

[Zarathustra]

Interesting, V.

Though it is an end-product created by non-conscious executive systems, the personal narrative serves the powerful evolutionary function of enabling individuals to communicate (externally broadcast) the contents of internal broadcasting. This in turn allows recipients to generate potentially adaptive strategies, such as predicting the behavior of others and underlies the development of social and cultural structures, that promote species survival. Consequently, it is the capacity to communicate to others the contents of the personal narrative that confers an evolutionary advantage-not the experience of consciousness (personal awareness) itself.

I like the idea of consciousness arising as a survival strategy for communication with other minds. I think we do play a role in awakening each other. The "audience of other minds" is another way to know yourself, not only as a subject of self-reflection, but also an object in the perception of others. But an 'illusion' of consciousness would not be necessary for communication. So all this does is sweep consciousness under the rug, not explain it.

Also, I don't see how the author can explain the difference between non-conscious actions such as breathing and the conscious control of those actions (e.g. breathing exercises, meditation, holding one's breath, etc). If there is never any conscious control, then how do we characterize the difference? I know what it's like to breathe without noticing the effort. I also know what it's like to become mindful and control this effort. There is not merely a qualitative difference, but a real effective difference (i.e. I can affect change on the rhythm, duration, etc.). But even the qualitative difference is inexplicable on this account. Clearly our body can handle breathing without the input of an extra feature that is allegedly an illusion. That's how we breathe most of the time. So why do we also have another ability to alter that function, which only occurs with the apparent input of this alleged illusion? How in the world would that confer a survival advantage of communication to another person? Other people don't give a damn about your breath (unless you need a Tic Tac).

This close, causal, effective role between consciousness and body is far from explained by such accounts.

However, I've only read the intro. I'll read the rest later.

[Vraith]

This close, causal, effective role between consciousness and body is far from explained by such accounts.

However, I've only read the intro. I'll read the rest later.

I think, for the moment, I agree with what you said.
A thought that I had...and connects with yours, I believe...is that this conception leads to a very strange thing:

Ones OWN consciounsess/awareness has no causal effect in/on yourself...but the communication of your state/awareness DOES have causal effects on others?!?!?
That goes some weird and fun places...but doesn't seem like a good explanation.

[Zarathustra]

This close, causal, effective role between consciousness and body is far from explained by such accounts.

However, I've only read the intro. I'll read the rest later.

I think, for the moment, I agree with what you said.
A thought that I had...and connects with yours, I believe...is that this conception leads to a very strange thing:

Ones OWN consciounsess/awareness has no causal effect in/on yourself...but the communication of your state/awareness DOES have causal effects on others?!?!?
That goes some weird and fun places...but doesn't seem like a good explanation.

Actually, I was going to start off with that same point. I was going to say, "Our consciousness doesn't have a top-down effect on ourselves, but it does on others??" But then I thought the author could counter by saying that it's not a top-down effect on others, since they process it through their senses, which in turn is processed through a series of lower level brain functions, which then construct meaning through various subsets of brain activity, yadda yadda. So I deleted it. But I still find it ironic, as do you.

We think very much alike, that's for sure. How's the book going?

[Vraith]

We think very much alike, that's for sure.

How's the book going?

I'm not sure that counter would be a deadly counter, though---IF consciousness is a necessary step in any part of the causal chain, then it is a causal agent, has effect, even if it isn't the HMFIC. [heh...the military invented and mastered the acronymic world long before nets and twits. I mean tweets.

Heh #2...don't say that! Some of our conspiracy whack-os will start saying one of us is just an alt, and our political disagreements are part of some game/show/plot/intention to dupe, like they did for Ussi and me back in the day! [[someone said they STILL don't know U and I aren't one cuz we didn't take pics of us meeting. But Lorin is a witness. Hey...they stopped off and met you, too, didn't they? That just proves it. We're Evil Alt Twins. Not sure WHY it proves it, what the logic is, but random factoid=PROOF. That's just a fact.

I have two completely different things...genre and style-wise...that I'm probably going to be getting beta-readers for late Jan/early Feb if I can keep the pace I've had lately.

[Fist and Faith]

Yeah, that is an amusing idea. But it's the content my consciousness shares with you that plays a role in your non-conscious systems, not my consciousness itself. And, I suppose, the fact that I shared those things, and the specific things I shared, are fed into my non-conscious systems, as well.

Anyway, so far, this seems an awful lot like saying we have no free-will, and our "decisions" are the end product of input into algorithms.

[Vraith]

Anyway, so far, this seems an awful lot like saying we have no free-will, and our "decisions" are the end product of input into algorithms.

Well...I don't know about algorithmic, necessarily---but yea, that and all similar conceptions of consciousness mean free will is right out.

[Zarathustra]

Reading on ...

Consequently, the focus of this paper is less concerned with explaining personal awareness, which we take as a given, but more with explaining the properties, functions, and adaptive significance of the non-consciously generated, self-referential psychological content of the personal narrative.

In other words, my suspicion was correct. They are merely dismissing consciousness, not explaining it.

There is no doubt that much of what happens in the brain--even creative processes--happen at a "subconscious" level. I don't see anything new here. Just because there is much that happens subconsciously to produce the content of consciousness doesn't prove that consciousness plays *no* role in that production of content. This is especially true in willful, mindful, attentive content production ... such as actively striving to figure out the answer to a problem, or intentionally producing an end result from a dimly glimpsed outline or nebulous concept.

When a writer is producing a work of fiction, for instance, there are vague intuitions and feelings that one is trying to express, even when working from the most detailed outline. So much of this process feels like the book is "writing itself," as ideas come to you from somewhere you know not. It feels magical, effortless, opaque. However, in the process of revision, one is very conscious of the effect being produced by the first draft--in fact, this effect is nothing other than an impression in consciousness--and that effect is measured against the original intuition or feeling to see if it achieves the nebulous intention or needs further work. That process cannot happen in an unconscious manner. Consciousness is not simply along for the ride. The ride is a trip through conscious content! We don't subconsciously read books, much less subconsciously revise them.

It's odd that the author here tries to separate consciousness from the contents of consciousness. There are some types of content that can only be content of consciousness ... such as the contemplation of consciousness itself, and of course qualia. I'm not sure that non-conscious qualia content is even meaningful, much less explicable. The same can be said for the contemplation of consciousness. Non-conscious content about the nature of consciousness? How does one avoid consciousness when it's the subject of the content? How would non-conscious processes produce that content when it is only known as (and through) consciousness? As such, *only* consciousness can be the source for that content.