In a short essay, Bernardo Kastrup argues that consciousness cannot be the product of evolution:
Consciousness Cannot Have Evolved
I disagree, but I’ll leave my objections for the comment thread.
677 thoughts on “Consciousness Cannot Have Evolved”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Well, I don’t find those terms particularly useful in this context, but I think this argument over the zombie having access to the same information as the real keiths is still not going to overcome the fundamental difference between the two entities.
For we are asked to assume that the zombie keiths would always give the same answer as the real keith. Why should that be so? This assumes the hardcore materialist stance that the real keiths is not capable of making a decision-but rather that whatever the conditions, he can only make one outcome. If its cold, or if he is tired, or whatever, he can only make one choice.
So we then need the zombie keith to also know what cold is, to know what tired is, and then he can only make one outcome based on temperature, wind conditions, light angles, and amount of calories consumed. So you have removed choice, and then you have made all choices just illusions. I don’t buy that. The very existence of zombie keiths nullifies the concept of choice.
Take vision as an example of perception in general. I am talking about during the actual process of viewing. Frankish uses a banana as an example. When asked where the yellowness is he replies that it’s not out there on the banana, but neither is it in our heads, it is nowhere to be found. In the past it was thought that if the yellowness does not belong “out there” then it must be “in our heads”. Frankish says that its not even there, it is an illusion and so is nowhere to be found. But he says that we do still have a representation of the banana. I’m not sure what he thinks this representation consists of.
I am saying that our perceptions do give us one part of reality. Phenomena are really out there. I would say that the subsequent mental picture of what we have perceived can be thought of as a representation, but for the actual process of seeing the banana it is the object out there which can be thought of as the representation. It is an abstraction which only receives the status of reality when it is seen in the context of the living processes of which it is a part. And it is only through our thinking minds that we can see it in this reality. Thinking is the process in which sense perceptions are reunited into the reality where they belong. There is no “thing in itself” behind the phenomenon which is more “real”. The reality comes with context. It is in the linking processes.
Thanks for the link to Koch, Keiths. I see Koch collaborated with Francis Crick on a concept they call neural correlates of consciousness. If Wikipedia is to be believed Crick’s hypothesis is “”a person’s mental activities are entirely due to the behavior of nerve cells, glial cells, and the atoms, ions, and molecules that make them up and influence them.”
Which seems spot on to me. Will save further comment for my OP in prep when I find time to finish it.
None of which conflicts with the concept of qualia or the importance of the hard problem.
Koch even describes the hard problem as his “lodestar”.
phoodoo:
It doesn’t, but we’ve had this conversation before. No point in rehashing it.
Why?
Why would it evolve?
J-Mac,
See this argument.
Unless someone explains, and experimentally proves, by what mechanism the brain is able to compensate consciousness when large parts of it are surgically removed (up 90% apparently), the speculations that consciousness could have evolved remain in the realm of science fiction, rather than evolutionary science…
IF someone says that ID is not science, and yet accepts the evolution of consciousness, he is a biased hypocrite…
People can be wrong about evidence. What you find as inexcusable might be more a result from your personal bias or needs or knowledge rather than the strength of evidence itself. It is common enough to have a term for it, confirmation bias .
Or the Parting of the Sea was less persuasive to those who actually experienced it than to those who only experienced the narrative of the story. You are convinced by just a story about it, not the experience of the actual event. And that is where the bias of faith comes in. You are predisposed to believe because you have faith the story is the Word of God.
Nope they don’t, but three different versions of the God, two do not recognize the divinity of Jesus which for Christians is the nexus of their belief. Lots of Hindus in the world which do not relate to God of Abraham.
And for the devout of those religions , your belief that their religion misrepresents the True God and is a rebellion against the True God , like those Israelites, and inexcusable enough to be punished by God, by virtue of faith interpreted evidence.
Not saying you are wrong but the argument cuts both ways.
Evidence as demonstrated.
What information?
How does the information continue to be processed without interruptions in consciousness when 90% of the brain is removed?
Then ID should be able to answer how was consciousness designed, how does it work, why do drugs alter the experience of consciousness and how do you know?
Else glass houses and stones.
The parting of the sea with the skyscraper tall waterfalls on both sides of the dry corridor you are walking on? I gotta tell ya, I don’t think how much further you can push the evidence?
The rising of the dead? Maybe…
You are wrong! Look it up!
That’s true, but nobody can really establish what they really believe… tens of thousands of god-like-figures, manlike or animals…
Not really One Divine
No. ID explains that life systems are better explained by intelligent design.
I don’t really like the term. So, I’d say life systems are better explained by superior intelligent design.
Or better yet, by the purposeful design, which can clearly be applied to consciousness, but can’t be explained why unconscious, mindless, random processes would create mind and consciousness…
That is the story and the movie version, yet those who were there and experienced it were not convinced enough to keep the faith. You just heard a story and saw a couple of movies and you are without doubt. You don’t find that odd?
Probably not, I expect.
Rising of the dead? Maybe but even one of the followers of Jesus required evidence beyond the visual.
Is z-keiths aware he lacks qualia and is dishonestly answering questions or is he mistaken about what qualia entails?
Oh, you were there??? With Harshman, perhaps? 😉
Nope, is the default it is true cause the Bible says so?
Any collaboration beyond the Biblical text?
Why would you even begin a conversation about an account with the bible as the source, if, in the end, you would question the very source?
Yes. You can part the water using strong electromagnetic fields
It was a example of purported demonstrated Act of God. No source is beyond question. Are the unquestioned sources for you?
So advanced alien culture could ,in effect, be responsible for a Act Of God. In which case being skeptical whether it was of divine origin would not be “inexcusable”.
There many sources that point to the same event, which you wil also question, so what’s the point?
I like the source itself because it tranascends science – being a reliable source of scientific evidence, though not a scientific text book – before science came to the conclusions found there: beginning and the expansion of the universe, the earth of spherical shape suspended upon nothing material etc…
It could but this doesn’t answer anything about the aliens origins. It’s just pushes the issue away leading to infinite regress…
This just shows that your skepticism is nothing more than confirmation bias…
Neither. The zombies use the word “qualia” exactly as we do, so all of their inferences are the same as ours — but they cannot be aware of anything (since awareness involves qualia).
What I don’t quite understand is why it doesn’t follow that qualia are epiphenomenal. Or does it? That seems like an odd result.
J-Mac,
Didn’t you see the update that OMagain posted?
J-Mac,
That looked exactly as if you were writing to yourself. Again proving my point. You lack self-awareness.
newton:
KN:
I would modify that ever so slightly:
keiths,
Keiths, first, I still don’t see how you can believe that one set of conditions within the brain produces one outcome, and yet still believe in choice, but further still, if you believe that, how can a zombie, which has the exact same brain conditions to answer as question as you, tell a lie, and you tell the truth, if asked “Are you a zombie?”
The zombie has the exact same condition as you, and yet he tells a lie, and you tell the truth. How can that be?
KN,
I think it does.
Yes, very odd. It means that when Qualia Keith says “I have qualia”, his statement is not caused by the fact that he has qualia. And when Zombie Keith says “I have qualia”, his statement occurs despite the fact that he doesn’t have qualia.
In other words, both statements are functions of access consciousness only, despite being about phenomenal consciousness.
phoodoo,
Short answer: Because truths and lies can be indexical.
Longer answer: QK and ZK answer every question identically. When you ask “Do you have qualia?”, both QK and ZK answer “yes”. When you ask them “Are you lying about that?”, both of them answer “No”.
In other words, by virtue of their zombiehood, their utterances are identical even if the truth values differ.
Read my comment again.
If you still can’t tell the difference between the point I’m trying to make and what OMagain updated, don’t waste my time anymore.
Don’t ask him! This is at least the second time he can’t tell the difference between surgically removing a large portion of the brain mass and the whole brain mass still remaining but being squeezed by the fluid..
That would be better, if the Egyptians had a record that could support the Biblical narrative, that is the point.
You surprise me, you relish questioning Einstein’s narrative , why not the Bible’s? Why was the Parting of the Sea necessary anyway? If you can control nature to flood the Earth, bunch of guys with swords should be no issue. No army, no rush. Sorry.
I get that, it is aspirational and purposeful.BTW I also think you are right to be wary of organized religion, sometimes the organization overpowers the religion.
That is exactly the dishonesty of ID( tmiism) claiming the designer is not divine. Sooner or later it is , or the whole logic fails.
I agree the infinite regress is a good argument for something existing outside our logic. It just does not help which the particular.
Not mine, the witnesses to the alleged Act Of God, familiar with the Miracle of the Sun?
Doesn’t mean their behavior is not identical, one is lying, one is telling the truth?
What kind of consciousness is remembering the feeling of the qualia ?
Would a person who never felt awe at a sunrise make the same inferences from a person who had felt the awe ? The later would have some knowledge of actually feeling awe , that the zombie didn’t have . It is confusing.
Zombies understand what the word means but they cannot be aware whether they lack qualia or have qualia. Also unaware of emotions?
J-Mac,
Then provide a link to the 90% surgical removal story. Don’t expect us to take your word for it.
newton,
Their behavior is identical. Every word that one speaks is uttered by the other at the same time. Same for every verbal tic that they exhibit, every tone of voice they use, and every bead of sweat that forms on their brows.
Their behavior (including involuntary behavior) is necessarily identical, but our judgment regarding their statements is not.
newton,
That’s similar to the question posed in the “Mary the color scientist” thought experiment. Here’s a video explaining the experiment:
newton,
Yes, in the same sense. They’re intellectually aware of them, they can report having them, but they have never actually felt — for example — the heat of anger.
newton,
If you’re re-experiencing the qualia then it would have to be phenomenal consciousness.
Again, what you are doing here is dismissing the notion of one brain condition equals one outcome. Its an illogical position when it comes to the real keiths making a decision (as if one brain condition can equal two outcomes) and its just as illogical when it comes to Zombie keiths brain being in “lie” condition when the real Keiths brain is in “truth” condition.
Heck, if you had a “brain” reader which showed which parts of the brain light up, you obviously would get two different results from the two brains.
And actually, the more I think of this, the more the whole scenario could never make sense. Is zombie keith basing his answer on what keiths says, or what he predicts keith will say? If you are saying he does it on what he predicts the real keiths will say, then again ONE BRAIN CONDITION CAN ONLY EQUAL ONE OUTCOME. Either you believe that or you don’t (we still are unsure whether you believe that). If you don’t believe that, then how can Zombie ketihs predict what real keiths will say?
And if you do believe it (contrary to all your statements) then zombie keiths did not learn the brain condition for lying from keiths, he had to learn it elsewhere. Where?
phoodoo,
Neither. ZK is not some super tracker/predictor that is trying to mimic QK. In fact, the two Keiths need not be aware of each other’s existence. They’re just living their lives, and their physical identity automatically guarantees that their behavior will match, given that the two universes are identical.
Don’t you see the problem? The physical identity of lying must be different than the physical identity of telling the truth. How can they be the same? So they don’t have the same “physical identity”, as you call it.
You are still trying to avoid the – 1 physical identity=1 outcome problem.
phoodoo,
It’s a conundrum of his own making. The mental gymnastics involved make my eyes water. 😁
Perhaps Keiths will correct any misunderstanding. What I see as his position is qK is identical to zK.
So if a) is correct then Q (the total of qualia possessed by qK) is zero or b) is correct and there is a discernable difference between qK and zK. Keiths seems to want to claim both are correct.
No harm done.
No, it is a mere acknowledgement of the fact that, as far as we are aware, “thinking” always requires a physical substrate.
Koch is a panpsychist — he embraces that implication of Tononi’s IIT.
From the transcript, slightly edited to clean up, of this video (about 1:13)
“I [Koch] became familiar with an ancient philosophical doctrine panpsychism. The panpsychism dating back to Plato teaches that that the soul or consciousness psyche can be found everywhere. As a physicist and a card-carrying neurobiologist i believe that that panpsychism is the intellectually most coherent explanatory framework for the universe.
I find myself in and i’m going to try to explain to you that briefly therefore the three reasons
– one reason is biological
– the second reason is a metaphysical
– a third reason is it’s a computational”
How do you know that the physical world is real? By what process did you acquire that knowledge?
By choice. I don’t see any reason to reject everything my senses tell me.
Are you a solipsist?