Consciousness against Evolution?

Discussion in 'Biology & Genetics' started by 786, Jan 22, 2015.

  1. 786 Searching for Truth Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,089
    First of all we don't know much about consciousness, but anyways I feel that its actually against evolution.

    Consciousness allows you to be stupid, dumb, makes you do things that are harmful for survival.

    You could easily be a collection of 'inputs and outputs' like a 'robot' of sorts with the computing powers of our brain, and you'd go through life pretty nicely. A lot of species survive without having 'consciousness'.

    1. Consciousness is first of all unnecessary, it provides no benefit over a robot with the computing capabilities that of our brain.

    2. It creates cases of harm to survival as well.

    3. Consciousness provides no extra meaningful information to be useful

    I would argue if you have 2 species of humans, one with consciousness and one without, holding all other things constant like the ability to process information. That the one who is unconscious is better fit to survive.

    So where are the unconscious human 'robots'

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,451
    Flipping burgers?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    There are two centers of consciousness within the human brain. What you are talking about is ego consciousness which has will power and choice. As you pointed out, this center, due to choice and will power, can also choose that which is unnatural, thereby going against evolution.

    The unconscious mind has another center called the inner self. This center is genetic based and is more consistent with the need of evolution. Character is a way of life that integrates people through wisdom. Character connects the ego to the ways of the inner self; human extension. Being a character or celebrity is more about choices of the ego where one copies behavior to create an illusion that is on the surface, instead of deep in the core; inner self.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888
    I see your point. That explains why humans are not successful.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  8. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    Nonsense. No one knows the location of consciousness or can even be sure it is not an emergent distributed function of the brain. Also "ego" is term Freud invented, not a location. The now abandoned "ice pick" operations do show that ones personality changes if large part of the frontal lobes is destroyed. Also a large unilateral parietal stroke usually makes half the world cease to exist for its victim. They soon adapt to hearing voices that originate in the half of the world they can not perceive.
     
  9. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    There are many abilities in the brain that function only when conscious. Mathematics is one, writing is another, as is translating from one language to another--if you find yourself speaking a foreign language in your dreams, then congratulations: you have achieved fluency.

    Human culture as we know it, including the recent (beginning about 10KYA) invention of the technology of civilization, could not have been created by unconscious people.

    As far as I know, all warm-blooded vertebrates (mammals and birds) toggle between consciousness and unconsciousness (what we call "sleep").

    In our species, the toggling is a key factor in our management of our lives. During REM sleep (when we are unconscious), our brain sorts and catalogs all of the experiences of the day, integrating them into our knowledge and linking them to other experiences. There was a quantum increase in REM sleep when our (pre-sapiens) ancestors discovered the technology of controlled fire. Suddenly it was possible to sleep longer, without worrying about predators attacking. The domestication of dogs, who could keep most predators from coming close and could easily wake us up by barking if necessary, extended our sleep even further. The deep sleep of our distant ancestors probably lasted less than one hour. Today we have two REM periods, each lasting about twice that long.

    Be grateful for your conscious mind. Without it you'd still be running around naked, trying to figure out how to attach a pointed piece of flint to a stick.
     
  10. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,057
    You can't predict what is "better" for survival. Being rooted in one place may be good for survival or being able to run away from predators may be good for survival.

    The ability to do stupid things also includes the ability to do smart things, which is sometimes beneficial for survival. The stupid things we do seem to be more of a danger to the other (robotically-programmed) species than to our own.
     
  11. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    Most associate Rapid Eye Movement (REM sleep) with dreaming and it certainly is not necessary to move the eyes behind closed eye lids for the brain to "sorts and catalogs all of the experiences of the day, integrating them into our knowledge and linking them to other experiences."

    While that is a popular reason postulated* as to why sleep is so essential there are other suggestions too.

    I must admit I'm surprised you link sleeping longer/ deeper to discovery of fire. I would have expected you to note the need to sleep, even when there were hungry predators around, was a "strong socializing factor" or even part of the first "barter economy." I. e. "You stand watch tonight & I'll do it tomorrow night."

    * By Watson or Crick of double helix fame, but I forget which.

    BTW, I and many consider dreaming a form of consciousness. The main difference is that it is more creative / only weakly guided by environmental stimulus and also mainly decoupled form major muscular activity, although some do walk in their sleep. I.e. Evolution did not need to select against thinking in a dream that you could fly out the window to go to the nearby building. She just cut the brain's ability to move major muscles off when you sleep.

    I'm not a big fan of the idea we sleep to consolidate memories of the day - Most of the brain's activity, by far, is unconscious parallel processing. I see no reason why that consolidation could not be done in parallel with conscious activity while awake - I. e. not to me a convincing argument as to why we must sleep.

    I'm more inclined to think the sleep state's main survival value comes from not being trapped inside some thought pattern box. Thoughts are less constrained / more free / when asleep. I know from personal experience that if I fall asleep thinking about some problem I was not able to solve the eve before, it is not uncommon after some coffee clears my head, that suddenly a new approach to the problem just "pops into my conscious thoughts."
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 22, 2015
  12. Jason.Marshall Banned Banned

    Messages:
    654
    That is because it is non local and does not exist in the 3rd dimension. I have read your article on free will you wrote roughly ten years ago I think you were accurate in your assumption.
     
  13. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,635
    Sure does. So people who are so stupid and dumb that they die before reproducing do not reproduce - and whatever genes were associated with those traits die with them.

    I've watched robots batter themselves against walls until their batteries died. So being a robot isn't always the best idea.

    I disagree. The species without the ability to "put themselves in the other's shoes" will get wiped out almost immediately by the species with a better ability to plan.
     
    Jason.Marshall likes this.
  14. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    Thanks. Wish more would read it.* BTW, your "does not exist in 3D" is a very good point, I didn't think to mention, but if my article on perception and even ourselves as existing within a Real Time Simulation running in parietal cortex when we are awake or dreaming is correct that explains why despite a decades of neurological research, no one has found the "neural correlates of consciousness"

    * http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=905778&postcount=66 where I explain and justify my RTS view of perception with focus on showing genuine free will is not necessarily inconsistent with the natural laws that control the firing of every nerve in your body. Then see:

    http://www.sciforums.com/threads/wh...e-will-an-illusion.104623/page-5#post-2644660 and posts 84,86 & 94 where I clarify my POV more
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 22, 2015
    Jason.Marshall likes this.
  15. Jason.Marshall Banned Banned

    Messages:
    654
    I suspect poster 786 was playing devils advocate to stir up a discussion.
     
  16. Jason.Marshall Banned Banned

    Messages:
    654
    precisely
     
  17. Buckaroo Banzai Mentat Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    333
    The whole question seems to be assuming the theoretical possibility of "philosophical zombies" (even though at some points it gets somewhat incompatible with that point) -- identical entities at every physical level, that do everything just the same, but still lack an inner conscious experience. One can entertain this as a "possibility" just for the sake of leisure discussion, but it's far from incontrovertible that it's a real possibility (rather than merely a seemingly "logical" possibility).

    Both "epiphenomenalism" and "functionalism" are more parsimonious as they don't take seriously the idea that you could "remove" consciousness, either because it's intrinsic to the functioning of the machine (functionallism), or intrinsically collateral to it's physics (epiphenomenalism) -- Aldous or Thomas Huxley made the weak analogy with the whistle or the whole sound of a steam locomotive.

    So, there are no unconscious humans robots because "conscious experience" is either a functional part of the mental faculties, more or less just like "emotions" are and one could try to argue that they're unnecessary and even detrimental (while just assuming the evolutionary possibility of a functional emontionless "Vulcan"), or it's just a byproduct of the physics involved, more or less like the waste of body temperature.
     
  18. Buckaroo Banzai Mentat Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    333
    But aren't really them finding?

    There must be somewhat obvious differences in neuronal activity between blindsight and "just sight", with the "benefit" that the severed pathway is sort of known, so you can clearly see something different happening with actual sight that's not happening in blindsight, and what's common to both. Also, there are things like known common patterns between dream and awake states, not found in plain unconsciouss states. Also more minute activity patterns of somes specific elements of visual perception.
     
  19. Dinosaur Rational Skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,885
    Consciousness might be merely a byproduct of the complexity of the mind, including the mind of various animals. I am sure that squirrels & other mammals are conscious, but am not sure about reptiles & birds. My belief in the consciousness of mammals is based partially on observation of squirrels & interpretation of their activities. For example:

    I keep a large quantity of walnuts to feed squirrels. One day, a large, old, & slow dog was walking toward the place where I had thrown the walnuts. A squirrel on his way to the walnuts stopped & seemed to be thinking about the situation. He ran to the nuts & picked one up. Normally, he ate a nut without moving away from the others. This time, he moved to a spot which was not in the predicted path of the dog.​

    The above seems to be mind over ruling the instinct to run from a potentially dangerous animal. It suggests consciousness to me.

    My opinion is based partially on evolutionary thoughts. It does not seem correct to believe that primates were
    the first creature to have consciousness.

    BTW: There seems to be no human mental or physical activity which could not be performed by an advanced robot who was not conscious.
     
  20. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888
    Only if we can program them to be irrational.
     
  21. krash661 [MK6] transitioning scifi to reality Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,973
    yes. true. but look into melanie boly's work.
     
  22. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    I've never really investigated but some evidence recently come to light I don't think the two things are correlated.
     
  23. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,635
    Crows do that too, instinctively. Many animals have structures in their brains designed specifically to "simulate" the actions of another animal, allowing them to predict behavior and act on that prediction.
     

Share This Page