Emil

If consciousness has a use for the species that appear to possess it then maybe consciousness is actually a distributed god. Now I am sure we are not the first one to think of this. I am sure deepak chopra has been all over this already.

Yeah, what if consciousness DOES HAVE A USE FOR the species that appear to possess it?

Oh, HORRORS! And we heard that genes are selfish ! ! !

PB, your analysis merits some thinking.

But those cotton-picking habits of speech….

”…is consciousness just a byproduct of intelligence or did (does?) it serve a purpose for the species that appear to possess it?”

I would write “…is consciousness just a byproduct of intelligence or did (does?) it have a use for the species that appea…[Read more]

I’m personally not ready to completely define “consciousness”, or for that matter not even “intelligence”. I’m more comfortable breaking them down into components, most of which we can agree on. Also, like @TomS, I’ll avoid the word “purpose” just like Reg cautions against use of the word “forward” in the context of evolution; i.e. maybe I’m just…[Read more]

The question that intrigues me…is consciousness just a byproduct of intelligence or did (does?) it serve a purpose for the species that appear to possess it? A computer chock full of AI doesn’t need consciousness yet I see no purpose to it for biologics other than it may facilitate a higher level of cooperation.

I strongly suspect that the rushed breeding of those foxes have detrimental effects, e.g. like disease effects we see in highly bred dogs (and cats, I’m betting). It is appropo to point out how breeding can affect (to varying extents) personality, and probably other aspects of consciousness. I remember reading a few years ago that some genes t…[Read more]

See this article too.

PopeBeanie wrote:
I think we’re going mostly backwards..

Just a minor point with the word “backwards”. I know what you mean in using it but strictly speaking it conveys something which Evolution is not. That is, it has no direction. It does not seek to improve any trait any species has. We may eradicate (say) polio or genetically modify a d…[Read more]

I think there are a lot of good points here.
_Robert_ wrote:

Have we even been subjected to natural selection for the past hundreds of thousands of years? Before laser surgery I was blind to anything beyond three feet away.

I think we’re going mostly backwards, with medicine usurping “natural” (i.e. pre sapiens evo/cultural explosion) selective…[Read more]

The fact that a loud, unusual, or unexpected event (not just sound, but light) can wake a sleeping person up seems to indicate that we are conscious to some degree even when we are sleeping.

PopeBeanie wrote:
(And I intentionally allowed another variability here, regarding “sleep”. How conscious are we when sleeping or fading in and out of sleep; is dreaming merely an evolutionarily beneficial function that’s useful in unconscious and/or conscious processes?)

Is/isn’t dreaming a kind of “consciousness”? It’s certainly a kind of awareness.

I tend to gravitate to evolution as the prime driver for biological answers. With humans, I am not so sure these days. Have we even been subjected to natural selection for the past hundreds of thousands of years? Before laser surgery I was blind to anything beyond three feet away. Not a lot of near-sighted fish swimming around. The more socially…[Read more]

I, too, think the author doesn’t have a complete understanding of his proposal(s), but as you point out Davis, the meta-conciousness construct is useful to consider when describing consciousness. I think we still need more depth in understanding various types of self-awareness, e.g. more than just being able to recognize ourselves in the mirror,…[Read more]

Indeed Robert but the questions I’m talking about start with his question but then go beyond the authors argument and not limiting consciousness to the “experience, rerepresentation, cognitive realisations and evocation.

I admire the guy and his interesting proposal. In any case, we shouldn’t take this article too too seriously. All writings on…[Read more]

Of course the possibility that a baby in the womb has some level of consciousness, no matter how underdeveloped…well; you know where I am going. The awareness component may not be there yet…that is the distinction the author seems to make.

Great article. I particularly like his explanation of mistaking meta-consciousness with consciousness.

When infants become conscious/meta-conscious (assuming they weren’t when born) is part of one of the annoying pesky questions about consciousness. If children aren’t born conscious then there must be a moment that they become conscious and d…[Read more]

Consciousness Goes Deeper Than You Think
Awareness can be part of it, but it’s much more than that

An article on the neuroscience of infant consciousness, which attracted some interest a few years ago, asked: “When does your baby become conscious?” The premise, of course, was that babies aren’t born conscious but, instead, develop conscio…[Read more]