677 thoughts on “Consciousness Cannot Have Evolved”

  1. Alan,

    A few comments ago you were questioning whether consciousness even exists. Now you’re saying in effect “of course it evolved”.

    Seems inconsistent to me.

  2. Alan Fox:
    J-Mac,

    Thanks for the link:

    Trying to understand ourselves! A better analogy than the donkey chasing a carrot on a stick.

    That struck me too 🙂

    ETA:
    If true, this is revolutionary to me:

    “The brain, they write, takes in discrete “scenes” in two steps. In the first unconscious stage, our brains passively take in specific features from the world we perceive at a rapid pace. In the second stage, processing is complete, and the brain simultaneously presents all of those details we just took into our consciousness, thereby producing the final “scene.” This two-step process — it’s the first time anyone in the field of consciousness has ever suggested it — takes about 400 milliseconds. And that process continues to produce scenes, frame by frame, as long as you’re conscious. This suggests we experience life as a series of finite events.”

  3. keiths: few comments ago you were questioning whether consciousness even exists. Now you’re saying in effect “of course it evolved”.

    Seems inconsistent to me.

    I don’t think consciousness is a coherent category, no but it’s not an issue. And I don’t think I said “consciousness” evolved in this thread or anywhere else.

  5. Mung: Was that a conscious decision? If your consciousness is evolving, could you vote yes next week?

    Just to be annoying, let me point out evolution happens over generations in populations. Individual’s genomes are fixed.

  8. CharlieM: And they still do. Endoscopes transmit light reflected off the area under study up the cable to a device with a display or to an eye. In what way does this depend on Newton’s colour theory as opposed to Goethe’s?

    It doesn’t , it shows light can be channeled . Newton experiments demonstrated white light was composed different colors which he theorized as analogous the musical scale. In that he was incorrect. Later scientists took what was correct about his theory and discovered colors were related to wavelength and visible light was only a slice of the spectrum. So Newton was one step toward the ability to transmit information great distances with light.

  9. CharlieM: In what way do colours result from wavelengths? Both colour and wavelength are effects of the interplay of light and matter.

    Because of the nature of the receptors in our eyes and this is where probably where Goethe comes in. Yes ,I agree colors are a combination of the interaction of nature of light and the nature of matter.

  11. Colour is an illusion. We have three sorts of colour recepteurs on our retinas and what we think we see are illusions created in our brain from the nerve impulses.

  12. Alan:

    And I don’t think I said “consciousness” evolved in this thread or anywhere else.

    Come on, Alan. You wrote this:

    I’m utterly with Joe F on evolution so questioning whether consciousness (whatever that is) evolved is a bit daft.

  13. Alan Fox:
    J-Mac,

    Fascinating. We are looking through our eyes as if we were wearing VR goggles.

    ETA clarity

    That’s great analogy!
    It is fascinating… I love consciousness subject… 😉

  14. keiths: Come on, Alan. You wrote this:

    I’m utterly with Joe F on evolution so questioning whether consciousness (whatever that is) evolved is a bit daft.

    I did.

  15. Alan Fox: I did

    I guess you like the pink dress, bits of it, at least subconsciously…😉
    Is that like the end of the world? An unforgivable sin? 😊

  16. keiths:

    Could you elaborate on what you meant when you wrote:
    [quote from Neil]

    I did not understand Neil’s comment and was suggesting an interpretation for him to reply to as part of expanding on his comment.
    The interpretation that I gave was based on the paper’s idea that consciousness was an accidental by product of some other adaptive change. But thinking more on it, I don’t think the rest of what I said works to explain Neil’s words.

    Your “harder to reach” in feature space might, but I am also not sure what you mean..

    If you mean presumably unconsciousness species like insects are more numerous because the many changes that underlie consciousness are less probable in some biological evolution sense, then that is fine with me.

    But maybe you mean something with human-like capabilities could occur while not being conscious, but did not because some specific genetic change was less likely to have been the result of a mutation at some branching point in the past. I would not agree with that view, based on a Dennett’s ideas on the adaptiveness of consciousness in the paper I linked above and also the Frankish material linked at the top of the thread.

  17. J-Mac:
    How about this take on consciousness?
    NEW HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS THEORY RESOLVES ZENO’S PARADOX, POSITS LIFE IS A FILM

    Thanks for my morning laugh.

    As the article states but misunderstands, Zeno’s paradoxes are about the reality of motion, not its perception.

    The basic idea of perception being behind reality is also well known because (duh) biochemistry and neural processing take time. ETA: But, IIRC there is a backdating also involved in perception to counter for this reality (I have not checked my recollection on this effect, though)
    .

    Aspects of Zeno’s paradoxes are still unresolved in the sense that they point to the issue of whether spacetime reality is continuous or discrete.

    That one remains unresolved, likely because we do not have …

    .
    .
    .(wait for it)
    .

    a theory of quantum gravity.

  18. Alan Fox: Colour is an illusion. We have three sorts of colour recepteurs on our retinas and what we think we see are illusions created in our brain from the nerve impulses.

    That’s just your regular user interface. If you believe that to be an illusion, then all sensory perception is, and you should probably start watching movies by reading digital bits straight from DVD.

  19. Corneel: CharlieM: Me: Looks to me like you use your insistence on epistemological bedrock mainly to dismiss alternative “reductionist” explanations..

    Charlie: I’d need you to be more specific to respond to this. If you are just making an observation I’ll leave it at that.

    It happens often, but here is one example:

    I believe that the atomistic reductionist approach is a one-sided view of reality. Holistic and reductionistic approaches are not opposite because holism encompasses both the reductionist multiplicity and the overarching unity. Holistic thinking sees the polarity inherent in reality.

    This is not working up from a “sure starting point”, “being careful about premature assumptions” or avoiding “jumping to conclusions”. This is you flat out dismissing a sizeable chunk of modern day research, because it is supposedly “reductionist”.

    I am certainly not dismissing the reductionist approach. I am including it.

    As I have quoted previously:

    Goethe: To gain knowledge of the world we must first dismantle it, but then we must reassemble it to return it to its true context.

    There is no harm in adopting a reductionist approach, indeed there is much we have and can benefit from it. But we must not forget that nothing exists in isolation and context is everything if we wish to understand the world around us and our place in it.

    What assumptions have I made? What conclusions have I come to prematurely?

  20. Bruce, to J-Mac:

    Thanks for my morning laugh.

    The article’s bad, but don’t let that turn you off. The paper is much better, and it doesn’t try to resolve any of Zeno’s paradoxes.

  21. BruceS: Thanks for my morning laugh.

    You’re welcome! Isn’t what this blog is all about, or at least should be?

    BruceS: As the article states but misunderstands, Zeno’s paradoxes are about the reality of motion, not its perception.

    Really?

    BruceS: The basic idea of perception being behind reality is also well known because (duh) biochemistry and neural processing take time. ETA: But, IIRC there is a backdating also involved in perception to counter for this reality (I have not checked my recollection on this effect, though)
    .

    Aspects of Zeno’s paradoxes are still unresolved in the sense that they point to the issue of whether spacetime reality is continuous or discrete.

    I think you are on to something…

    BruceS: The basic idea of perception being behind reality is also well known because (duh) biochemistry and neural processing take time.

    Continue…

    BruceS: ETA: But, IIRC there is a backdating also involved in perception to counter for this reality (I have not checked my recollection on this effect, though)

    You lost me…

    BruceS: Aspects of Zeno’s paradoxes are still unresolved in the sense that they point to the issue of whether spacetime reality is continuous or discrete.

    Isn’t this a contradiction with your first sentence?

    BruceS: That one remains unresolved, likely because we do not have …

    .
    .
    .(wait for it)
    .

    a theory of quantum gravity.

    And there we go…
    So, unless there is a unifying theory of quantum gravity, nothing makes sense…
    What if there isn’t? What if gravity and QM can’t be unified?
    What if something accepted as proven beyond any doubt is standing in the way?
    What could that be?

    .
    .
    .(wait for it)
    ? 😉

  22. J-Mac:

    Isn’t this a contradiction with your first sentence?

    .

    No, because appearances are not reality. Zeno is about reality, not how we perceive it. I am not an idealist so I think these are two separate things.

    ETA: Further to this, if you’ve never watch the basketball passing test video, you may enjoy it:

    As per Keith’s new thread, I don’t have issues with paper your link refers to. I don’t know if it is right, but the ideas seem possible.

    You are correct that we may never have a theory unifying GR and QM into quantum gravity. That means we will not know from science whether spacetime is analog or digital. GR is continuous; for QM see point 2 here (this is not a link to your friend Sean Carroll, BTW!)
    http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2016/04/10-essentials-of-quantum-mechanics.html

    For lots more on analog versus digital spacetime, see the set of FQXi essays:
    https://fqxi.org/community/forum/category/31417

  23. Corneel: CharlieM: Me: I agree that exploratory and descriptive experiments have a place in research, but fail to see why you claim that as a success of “not prematurely assuming a separation between subject and object”.

    Charlie: That is not what I am claiming. I gave that as an example of observation without prejudgement.

    I see. Then, despite the long and winding path we have travelled so far, you have not answered my most burning questions yet: What do we gain by not prematurely assuming to know where the distinction between object and subject lies?

    Are you seriously saying that you don’t know why it would be a good idea to ensure that any assumptions you make are justified? Consider the double split experiment. It was assumed, wrongly, that the person conducting the experiment would have no influence on the outcome. I mean it is standard practice to set up experiments in an objective way so that the experimenter can stand outside and observe without influencing the outcome. In this case it was assumed that the experimenter as subject would be totally separate and distinct from the outcome.

    And why should I not consider facts that came to me by “thinking about what I perceive”?

    Thinking about what you perceive is exactly what you should be doing. Only the concepts you arrive at by thinking should place your perceptions into a non-contradictory, meaningful whole.

    If you are walking along and an indistinct animal flies round your head a few times and your thinking brings up the concept “bird” but it turns out to be a bat, then you have made the wrong assumption. It would have been better if you had kept your options open as to what it was until more evidence was available.

    I think we are all guilty of making premature judgements so it is something we should be watching out for.

  24. Corneel:

    Charlie: By observing consciousness in ourselves and in the world around us without jumping to conclusions about cause and effect, I’m sure we can come to some agreements about its attributes.

    Right. So we observe that other minds are always associated with the physical structures called brains. What can we reasonably say about this without “jumping to conclusions”?

    That there is a correlation between consciousness and brain activity.

    To be conscious of ourselves we need the mirror of the perceived world. We cannot hold the concept “self” without the accompanying concept “other” or “not-self”.

    Sense perceptions are distinct and various and so we need an organ to focus them, and this organ is the central nervous system. The central nervous system provides the path to consciousness, We gain experience by making connections in the brain. We become active through the power of the will.

  25. BruceS: If you mean presumably unconsciousness species like insects are more numerous because the many changes that underlie consciousness are less probable in some biological evolution sense, then that is fine with me.

    I’m not so willing to assume that insects are unconscious.

    At least in terms of recent talk, the question “Are insects conscious?” becomes equivalent to “Do insects have qualia?” And there’s no way to tell. That’s a downside of defining consciousness in terms of qualia.

  26. Corneel: That’s just your regular user interface

    Where is that?

    If you believe that to be an illusion, then all sensory perception is…

    In the sense that we remodel raw sense data into our perceived reality, I guess so.

    …and you should probably start watching movies by reading digital bits straight from DVD.

    How would that work?

  29. Neil Rickert: That’s a downside of defining consciousness in terms of qualia.

    So what did you mean by zombiehood in the following

    Or maybe zombiehood would need to contribute to fitness if it were to be selected for. Maybe zombiehood is harder to implement than consciousness.

    I’m not asking if there are any zombies, only what the term means to you.

    ETA:
    If your answer is “zombies are not conscious” then the question is what you mean by “conscious’

  30. CharlieM: What assumptions have I made? What conclusions have I come to prematurely?

    I remember stuff about evolution unfolding like development, species archetypes, pure light and material and ethereal poles. I do not remember you carefully deriving any of those concepts from your sure starting point. instead, you appear to be relying mainly on metaphors to argue your case.

    CharlieM: In this case it was assumed that the experimenter as subject would be totally separate and distinct from the outcome.

    I have performed the double-slit experiment in high school, and could replicate the interference pattern. Did you get a different result? Perhaps you came up with a totally new insight by not prematurely assuming there is a distinction between subjectivity and objectivity?

    CharlieM: If you are walking along and an indistinct animal flies round your head a few times and your thinking brings up the concept “bird” but it turns out to be a bat, then you have made the wrong assumption. It would have been better if you had kept your options open as to what it was until more evidence was available.

    But it was OK for me to decide it was a bat eventually? Even though I had to assume there was a distinction between the objective external world and me to get there? How did you decide that assumption was warranted?

    I am sure you are doing your best, but you are not making any headway into convincing me that putting “thinking” at the basis of our epistemology will be giving us any insights that we are currently missing out on. I simply fail to see the steps between “thinking is the only sure thing to start with” and e.g. “we cannot see pure light”.

  31. BruceS: No, because appearances are not reality.

    What?!

    BruceS: Zeno is about reality, not how we perceive it. I am not an idealist so I think these are two separate things.

    Really?!
    Maybe you know something nobody else does…
    Or, more so, how to get out of the contradicting views…

  32. CharlieM: Sense perceptions are distinct and various and so we need an organ to focus them, and this organ is the central nervous system. The central nervous system provides the path to consciousness, We gain experience by making connections in the brain. We become active through the power of the will.

    That sounds reasonable to me. So why did you previously state:

    Four decades on and still they search for an understanding of how consciousness arises out of the physical brain.

    Even if you do not believe that consciousness is caused by physical interactions in the brain, it seems a very sensible place to start investigation, no?

  33. Alan Fox: In the sense that we remodel raw sense data into our perceived reality, I guess so.

    We do not “remodel” data. It has to be expressed in some sort of sensory experience. There is simply no alternative way to become consciously aware of our external environment. I always think it is kinda weird when somebody calls this an illusion.

    Alan Fox: How would that work?

    Just my little joke, idly hoping that it would emphasize the point I was trying to make.

  34. BruceS: So what did you mean by zombiehood in the following

    I was just expressing skepticism about the whole idea of philosophical zombies.

    We would do better to tie “conscious” to the ability to think.

  35. Neil Rickert: I was just expressing skepticism about the whole idea of philosophical zombies.

    We would do better to tie “conscious” to the ability to think.

    OK, thanks.

  37. BruceS: state versus creature consciousness

    There you go. When folks blithely toss words out without qualification, confusion ensues!

  38. Corneel: We do not “remodel” data.

    I think (heh) we have a free choice at the moment.* I have the distinct impression of looking out through my eyes at reality, reinforced by moving around, hearing sounds, sensing smells, temperature, air currents and planing and interacting with that reality accordingly. But there’s no little me there. Where is “me”?

    *ETA I mean regarding how we explain our own awareness and self-awareness in physical terms. Top-down and bottom-up – there’s a huge gap in the middle.

  40. Alan Fox: I have the distinct impression of looking out through my eyes at reality, reinforced by moving around, hearing sounds, sensing smells, temperature, air currents and planing and interacting with that reality accordingly. But there’s no little me there. Where is “me”?

    Sounds like you’re trapped.

  41. Corneel: Sounds like you’re trapped.

    *chuckles* Obviously not. My point is introspection doesn’t get me anywhere in working out what’s going on.

  42. Alan,

    My point is introspection doesn’t get me anywhere in working out what’s going on.

    Introspection is extremely useful in “working out what’s going on” in consciousness. You just have to remember that introspection isn’t always accurate and take first-person reports with a grain of salt.

    See heterophenomenology.

  43. Alan Fox: Defining what we mean when we use a word is useful.

    Especially if you just define any problems away.
    Of course, others actually working in the field may not find that approach particularly helpful.

  44. BruceS: Especially if you just define any problems away.

    Could there be any better example of this than survival of the fittest?

  45. phoodoo: Could there be any better example of this than survival of the fittest?

    I don’t think modern biologists use that phrase, but when it comes to the biological concept of fitness, you and I have been there and done that.

    I gave the same answer then that I gave to Alan at the top of the thread with respect to a quest for a strict, dictionary definition for consciousness (as the concept is used in science and philosophy).

  46. Here are the primates that are not self-aware, according to the mirror test:

    Gibbon (g. Hylobates, Symphalangus and Nomascus0
    Stump-tailed macaque (Macaca arctoides)
    Crab-eating macaque (Macaca fascicularis)
    Rhesus macaque (Macaca mulatta):
    Black-and-white colobus (Colobus guereza)
    Capuchin monkey (Cebus apella)
    Hamadryas baboon (Papio hamadryas)
    Cotton-top tamarin (Saguinus oedipus)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_test

    I guess natural selection selectively decided not to see the gene (s) for consciousness… 😉

  48. J-Mac,

    I think consciousness can be simply defined as knowing what you are, that you are alive, and that one day you will die.

    Only one animal on the planet has this. That is consciousness. Even Alan can get it.

  49. J-Mac: I guess natural selection selectively decided not to see the gene (s) for consciousness

    Don’t forget some human children, nothing to be ashamed of.

  50. phoodoo: I think consciousness can be simply defined as knowing what you are, that you are alive, and that one day you will die.

    Sounds more like the result of consciousness, than consciousness itself.

Leave a Reply