Why Are We Conscious?

[Unseen]

jakelafort wrote:

It does not follow that the laws of the universe (like gravity)  are in play or that no matter how refined neuroscience becomes that reductionism will never explain such  phenomenon.

The original question, the topic here, is WHY do we have consciousness? No, not in terms of a physical explanation as an answer to why, because that is really a HOW answer and now a WHY answer.

Consciousness doesn’t appear to be necessary for an entity to appear intelligent, responsive, emotional (ref. Turing machine). If evolution gave it to us, well, evolution sometimes passes along mutations that have no survival value for the mere reason that the trait has no adverse effect on survival.

None of the processing that goes on in my brain goes on consciously. The self as experiencer is little more than an audience. The same goes for how we perceive our activities. Science seems to be telling us that we are meat automata and that our experiencing self is more or less just observing, even when we feel we are acting.

Even if science explains consciousness convincingly and in a testable manner that could be regarded as proof that we understand how consciousness comes about, that still wouldn’t make it necessary. So, why do we have it? Is it just an accident of evolution? A trait that happened but that evolution didn’t eliminate because its survival value was a wash?

• This reply was modified 7 years ago by Unseen.

[_Robert_]

Self awareness at least seems to come along for the ride with higher brain functionality. Crows, elephants, some whales and higher primates all have self awareness. Neanderthal probably had consciousness.

[jakelafort]

Unseen, WHY and not HOW questions are perhaps of greatest interest to us but those Whys are applicable and equally compelling as to the existence of the universe, the genesis of life, relativity and a host of mysteries as we humans linger in the cave and continue to see shadows on the wall.  We won’t answer WHYs, only HOWs.

Since we have become increasingly aware of our similarity to other animals who similarly have a rich subjective inner world, intelligence and emotions and must be considered conscious i suspect that consciousness is indeed necessary. It is likely a result of a higher functioning brain and that is consistent with the theory of consciousness that Reg linked.

What we ought to do when we do not know is to reserve judgment, rather than shoot sparks haphazardly, particularly when those sparks lead us to mystical thinking.

[Simon Paynton]

Unseen wrote:

Now, whichever view you adopt, it turns out that thoughts such as decisions and judgments should not be considered to be conscious.

He’s “cleverly” defined consciousness out of existence.  I’m looking at the computer, and having thoughts, consciously.

[Simon Paynton]

I was wrong, he says that decisions and judgements are unconscious (I think), which I agree with.  I’m not sure why you posted that quote as a reply.

[Simon Paynton]

jakelafort wrote:

We won’t answer WHYs

In this case, what does “why” mean anyway?  What is the purpose of consciousness?  I don’t understand.

Why are things conscious rather than unconscious?  Why is there a light on in our heads?  Is that the question?

In a human mind this space is filled with language, but the purpose of the whole thing is self-preservation.

[Simon Paynton]

Isn’t it one part of the brain (the executive decision-making part) talking to the rest?

We are conscious because it serves a purpose.

[Unseen]

_Robert_ wrote:

Self awareness at least seems to come along for the ride with higher brain functionality. Crows, elephants, some whales and higher primates all have self awareness. Neanderthal probably had consciousness.

That’s more of a HOW answer than a WHY answer. So, maybe a consciousness gene arose at some point in mammalian prehistory as an accident and there was no reason for natural selection to eliminate it. That doesn’t make consciousness necessary at all.

What evidence can you offer that anyone other than you (assuming you are conscious) are interacting with conscious people and not high-functioning meat automata who behave but have no internal experiences.

I can’t think of any arguments that aren’t analogies, and analogies are simply not probative.

[Unseen]

jakelafort wrote:

Since we have become increasingly aware of our similarity to other animals who similarly have a rich subjective inner world, intelligence and emotions and must be considered conscious i suspect that consciousness is indeed necessary. It is likely a result of a higher functioning brain and that is consistent with the theory of consciousness that Reg linked.

You actually don’t know, in the richest sense of the word, that animals or other people have “rich subjective internal world(s).”

As for Reg’s link, I’ll repeat a paragraph from it:

“There is a sense, according to some, that sooner rather than later computers may be cognitively as good as we are – not just in some tasks, such as playing Go, chess, or recognising faces, or driving cars, but in everything,” says Tononi. “But if integrated information theory is correct, computers could behave exactly like you and me – indeed you might [even] be able to have a conversation with them that is as rewarding, or more rewarding, than with you or me – and yet there would literally be nobody there.” Again, it comes down to that question of whether intelligent behaviour has to arise from consciousness – and Tononi’s theory would suggest it’s not.

 

[Unseen]

Simon Paynton wrote:

jakelafort wrote:

We won’t answer WHYs

In this case, what does “why” mean anyway? What is the purpose of consciousness? I don’t understand. Why are things conscious rather than unconscious? Why is there a light on in our heads? Is that the question? In a human mind this space is filled with language, but the purpose of the whole thing is self-preservation.

I can’t believe that people, five pages in, still don’t understand a simple question. Why do we have consciousness when it appears we don’t need it. Our consciousness, brain science is showing us, is passive and always a brief period of time behind the what goes on in the neurons and actually causes our thoughts and actions. Why don’t we just behave without being aware? What is the function of this unnecessarily passive experiencing of ourselves?

[Unseen]

Simon Paynton wrote:

Isn’t it one part of the brain (the executive decision-making part) talking to the rest? We are conscious because it serves a purpose.

That purpose, is the answer to the question I’m asking. What is that purpose, because being conscious and having experiences doesn’t seem to contribute anything.

Descartes showed me that my own consciousness is undeniable. His proof doesn’t apply to other people. A lot of my daily actions are done unconsciously. Some are reflexes. Some are habits. Some are attributable to the autonomic nervous system. I don’t beat my heart; my heart beats. I can hold my breath, but most of the time I breathe without thinking about it. I even breath while sleep. I’m even aware of my surroundings because loud or unfamiliar sounds can awaken me.

I’m experiencing all sorts of things, but consciousness seems to be entirely composed of passively-received experiences. Anything I consciously do, was decided would be done shortly before I became aware.

[Simon Paynton]

What makes you think it’s like a passive TV set?  Don’t you think it does anything in and of itself?

If you experience an emotion, you can name the emotion, and doing so passes experience of it into conscious thought.  Then you can reappraise the emotion and maybe change your behaviour from a quick knee-jerk reaction into more considered slow-cognition activity.

[jakelafort]

No, i don’t know or can’t be certain of the rich internal subjective world of others. But it is a safer wager than the wager you are making about consciousness being an unnecessary add-on.  I am a human. I have it. Other humans are closely related and it is unlikely that i am unique. We observe sameness, consanguinity and connection among our species.  Other intelligent animals share so many genes and similar brain structure and common ancestor and exhibit behavior that suggests a rich internal subjective world. Thus it is a good wager that i am not alone and others of my and other species have that subjective experience.

You on the other hand are turning a scientific question into a philosophical question. And you are doing it prematurely. The evidence is missing that explains consciousness. If one is to speculate in an intelligent way about consciousness one needs to understand how it arose and how it operates.

We have examples of organs that were once thought vestigial but in fact have functions and we have examples of genes that were considered throwaway and yet are vital. So just wait before you shoot sparks. You have no way to judge of whether consciousness is a gratuitous phenomenon or whether it is a necessary phenomenon.

As to the quote from Reg’s link relating to AI indicating that a conversation with such might be more enriching and yet there is literally nobody there, i take exception. If and when AI sprouts consciousness it may be qualitatively better than what we have. PURE, It will not undergo the evolution that our forbears underwent and therefore it may not have to function through systems that have served species that came tens of millions of years ago. It may not be functioning on a primarily unconscious level as we are.  Furthermore it is more of the bullshit special creation thinking. If it is not organic and it is not human nothing or nobody is there! That is so presumptuous.  AI may with greater justification reply that it is you, miss and mister human who is not really there!

[Simon Paynton]

Simon Paynton wrote:

a passive TV set

In Buddhism they talk about two modes of being: observational, and active.  Or, seeing and doing.  I think you’re talking about the first kind only – “awareness”.

[Simon Paynton]

Simon Paynton wrote:

two modes of being

in the mind.

[Author]

Posts