Evolution Is Just An Emergent Property Of the Action Of Consciousness

[origin]

The OP is insistent that consciousness is the factor that couples pain to survival.

It seems like he wants to get into some 'deep' philosophical discussion that will end up just being about semantics. Not interested...

 

[Steve Klinko]

False. There are critters that have no consciousness - and no mind - yet experience pain.


The OP is insistent that consciousness is the factor that couples pain to survival.

But the definition of Pain is that it is a Conscious Experience. I think you are inserting Intelligence into the Meaning of Consciousness.

 

[Steve Klinko]

Yet i better understand Steve Klinko's speculation, i agree that saying that intervention of Pain or Pleasure or any other emotional states take part in the evolution process, is trivially true.



Ok, its much more clear and it is an interresting tought.

At some point you are right but the conscious part you talk about is not necessary.
You talk about pain, pleasure and so on, but you could also talk about all perceptions the brain or any brainlike structure permit, seeing, hearing etc and other abilities the brain permit like learning, having some behaviour etc.
So yes, per example the reflex any animal has, if something hurt his body intervien in the evolutionary process, but this is true too with anything that has to do with the neural cells (or cells... because some cells arent neural but permit the perception).

Therefore, if i do a synthesis about what you claim (or speculate), you state that the behavior of the "machinery" of a living body has some impact on his evolutionary process.
Yes, thats true... and trivial.

But now the good news.
You can think that a body is determined, like a machine, to do things, and "you" the observer (conscious about some of your behaviour or part of your body) are only some guest, doing nothing by yourself : You have the illusion of... free will.

But, if you had free will and this would not be an illusion, this would implie that, as you say, you can have an action on the evolutionnary process of your specie (and also on the evolution of the world around you).

Difficult to answer if there is free will or not, in a scientific manner (this implie good comprehension of physic).

The point that I am trying to make is that there are Phenomena (Pain, Pleasure, and all Conscious Experience) that affect the Evolution of Organisms and Animals. These Phenomena are largely Ignored and even Hidden and covered up by the larger Evolutionary Science community.

 

[Steve Klinko]

It seems like he wants to get into some 'deep' philosophical discussion that will end up just being about semantics. Not interested...

You are missing the point, which is that there are Phenomena (Pain and Pleasure, plus all the other Conscious Experiences) that could be driving Evolution. It is virtual Blasphemy to Evolutionary Doctrine that something like Conscious Experience could be affecting Evolution. Evolutionary Scientists want Blind Mechanical Mechanisms to be the only thing driving Evolution. I'm not trying to solve the whole problem of Consciousness here (don't need a deep Philosophical discussion), but rather I'm just trying to say that Evolution could be more dependent on Conscious Experience than the Scientists will admit or even understand.

 

[Dicart]

The point that I am trying to make is that there are Phenomena (Pain, Pleasure, and all Conscious Experience) that affect the Evolution of Organisms and Animals. These Phenomena are largely Ignored and even Hidden and covered up by the larger Evolutionary Science community.

Not at all.
It is you that misses the point that all these phenomena, conscious or not, are taken in account in "the evolutionary community".
Per example, take a look here : https://books.google.fr/books?hl=fr&lr=&id=_uJ4BJ77bZAC&oi=fnd&pg=PP2&dq=behaviour in evolution&ots=1eMUDse8NO&sig=HnkNcc5EDfqQbtulDx3zZgufnNA#v=onepage&q=behaviour in evolution&f=false

I think your missbelieve come from that you suppose that because someone is conscious of something it means he has the control on "his toughts".
There is no scientific proof of that (altought you can yourself, like me, have a personal opinion on this point without claiming it as a scientific fact).

The speculation you propose is : Free will permit to act against the processus driven by physical laws.

 

[Steve Klinko]

Not at all.
It is you that misses the point that all these phenomena, conscious or not, are taken in account in "the evolutionary community".
Per example, take a look here : https://books.google.fr/books?hl=fr&lr=&id=_uJ4BJ77bZAC&oi=fnd&pg=PP2&dq=behaviour in evolution&ots=1eMUDse8NO&sig=HnkNcc5EDfqQbtulDx3zZgufnNA#v=onepage&q=behaviour in evolution&f=false

I think your missbelieve come from that you suppose that because someone is conscious of something it means he has the control on "his toughts".
There is no scientific proof of that (altought you can yourself, like me, have a personal opinion on this point without claiming it as a scientific fact).

The speculation you propose is : Free will permit to act against the processus driven by physical laws.

There is no Conscious or Not stipulation. I am specifically talking about the Conscious Experience of Pain. I have seen writings about Sensory Input relative to Evolution before. The book treats Sensory Input as an Electrochemical process and nothing more. It is a very Physicalist explanation. But that is what it has to be since nobody has a Clue about actual Conscious Experience.

I am directly inserting the Conscious Experience of Pain as a thing in itself. It is a Phenomenon of Consciousness. That is the point. There is something happening in the Universe and in Evolution that Science has completely been unable to Explain even to the level of the first Clue.

I say nothing about Free Will anywhere. I simply say, the Conscious Experience of Pain will increase the Survival Rate of Animals and other Organisms, thus increasing the frequency of their Genetics in the larger population. There is no Intelligent Willfulness involved in what I am saying. It's all really Obvious and Simple.

 

[Dicart]

I say nothing about Free Will anywhere. I simply say, the Conscious Experience of Pain will increase the Survival Rate of Animals and other Organisms, thus increasing the frequency of their Genetics in the larger population. There is no Intelligent Willfulness involved in what I am saying. It's all really Obvious and Simple.

Ok then, as already said by me and other intervenants (and you replied we would miss the point), you say something trivialy true.
Whats the point then ?

Concerning pain, and coming from my personnal experience (so it is not scientific data, but if it can help) i observed that there was pain when the body changed suddently and he try to avoid the change (this avoiding part occur in the brain).
So you can reduce or even make pain disapear if you mentaly accept "the pain" or "the change".

 

[Steve Klinko]

Ok then, as already said by me and other intervenants (and you replied we would miss the point), you say something trivialy true.
Whats the point then ?

Concerning pain, and coming from my personnal experience (so it is not scientific data, but if it can help) i observed that there was pain when the body changed suddently and he try to avoid the change (this avoiding part occur in the brain).
So you can reduce or even make pain disapear if you mentaly accept "the pain" or "the change".

What I say is trivially true, but what I say is rejected by the Evolutionary Science community because it is not part of their Physicalist Doctrine. They will not have Consciousness be involved in Evolution even when it is trivially true that it is.

Finding ways to reduce Pain is a good goal for research.

 

[Dicart]

What I say is trivially true, but what I say is rejected by the Evolutionary Science community because it is not part of their Physicalist Doctrine. They will not have Consciousness be involved in Evolution even when it is trivially true that it is.

You are wrong about that.
Only the free will part if not taken in accound in evolutinary domain, altought the possibility of free will is discussed among the scientist using the most recent physic knowledge.

Per example (and if you search for it you will find plenty of these research around the web) :

Evolution of Consciousness: Phylogeny, Ontogeny, and Emergence from General Anesthesia

Are animals conscious? If so, when did consciousness evolve? We address these long-standing and essential questions using a modern neuroscientific approach that draws on diverse fields such as consciousness studies, evolutionary neurobiology, animal psychology, and anesthesiology. We propose that the stepwise emergence from general anesthesia can serve as a reproducible model to study the evolution of consciousness across various species and use current data from anesthesiology to shed light on the phylogeny of consciousness. Ultimately, we conclude that the neurobiological structure of the vertebrate central nervous system is evolutionarily ancient and highly conserved across species and that the basic neurophysiologic mechanisms supporting consciousness in humans are found at the earliest points of vertebrate brain evolution. Thus, in agreement with Darwin's insight and the recent “Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness in Non-Human Animals,” a review of modern scientific data suggests that the differences between species in terms of the ability to experience the world is one of degree and not kind.

Evolutionary biology forms a cornerstone of the life sciences and thus the neurosciences, yet the emergence of consciousness during the timeline of evolution remains opaque. As the theory of evolution began to eclipse both religious explanations and Enlightenment doctrines regarding the singularity of human consciousness, it became clear that consciousness must have a point of emergence during evolution and that point likely occurred before Homo sapiens. “How,” Darwin questioned, “does consciousness commence?” His post-Beagle research on this question evidently caused him violent headaches. One such headache can be expressed as the 20th century philosophical distinction of phenomenal consciousness and access consciousness (Block, 2007). Phenomenal consciousness relates solely to subjective experience, whereas access consciousness includes (among other processes) the ability to report such experiences verbally (other distinctions related to consciousness can be found in Table 3.1). Thus, the scientist looking for objective indices of subjective events is primarily limited to humans manifesting access consciousness, an obstacle in studying the evolution of consciousness antecedent to our species. We could, however, take solace in the dictum that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny and search for clues in developing humans. Unfortunately, Haeckel's theory of recapitulation is not scientifically sound and, even if applicable in this case, we would still be constrained by the high probability that babies develop phenomenal consciousness before access consciousness. To overcome the limitations in identifying the birth of consciousness, we need a reproducible experimental model in which (i) consciousness emerges from unconsciousness at a discrete and measurable point, (ii) phenomenal consciousness and access consciousness are closely juxtaposed or collapsed, and (iii) assessment of neural structure and function is possible. In this chapter, we consider top-down and bottom-up approaches to consciousness, nonhuman consciousness, and the emergence of consciousness from general anesthesia as a model for the evolution of subjectivity.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK231624/

 

[Steve Klinko]

You are wrong about that.
Only the free will part if not taken in accound in evolutinary domain, altought the possibility of free will is discussed among the scientist using the most recent physic knowledge.

Per example (and if you search for it you will find plenty of these research around the web) :

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK231624/

The book is about the emergence of Consciousness in Life Forms. There is no mention of the Primacy of Consciousness in Evolution. I am saying that it is irrelevant when or how Consciousness started. The important thing is that after Consciousness exists then things like the Experience of Pain can start changing the direction of Evolution. The book continues to talk about Consciousness as an emergent Phenomenon that has no real impact on Evolution itself. But Pain and Pleasure are just two examples. Consciousness produces many more Motivational Experiences like Hunger, Fear, and Anger that can affect the path of Evolution.

 

[Dicart]

The book is about the emergence of Consciousness in Life Forms. There is no mention of the Primacy of Consciousness in Evolution. I am saying that it is irrelevant when or how Consciousness started.

Yes, but this is what we talk about when we talk about consciousness within the scientific domain.
We use the physicalist representation saying that consciousness emerge from complexity, and there are some models that differs form another to try to explain more in detail how this compexity lead to consciousness (of some sort or other, because as you surely have read, we distinguish some different consciousness form).
No neurophysiologist says he know what counciousness is, they "only" create a definition that permit to say "here we are observing consiousness" associated with a mecanistic modelisation of what we observe.

You, on other hand, like many other (me included), are not satisfied with this circular definition of consciousness, that appear somewhat distant with "what you experience " as an individual.
Yes, but science can not deal with the individual internal feeling, like pain, pleasure, fear etc, but at least, if you agree that science work add something to your comprehension, it is more then nothing.
Science know the symptom, but has not the ability to talk about "what it is for who experience it".

The important thing is that after Consciousness exists then things like the Experience of Pain can start changing the direction of Evolution. The book continues to talk about Consciousness as an emergent Phenomenon that has no real impact on Evolution itself. But Pain and Pleasure are just two examples. Consciousness produces many more Motivational Experiences like Hunger, Fear, and Anger that can affect the path of Evolution.

On a physicalistic point of view, consciousness doesen't differ with any other physical phenomenom, like having longer legs or better dentition.

Thats the point i think you haven't already admit.
If, as i think you arge, cousciousness is more than that, so it says that natural laws are not reliable, spirit or how you want to name it, can change the physical laws.

It is like Uri Geller saying he can bend some spoon with the power of his mind...

Uri Geller, Israeli illusionist, “spoon bender” and self-proclaimed “psychic”

https://hungarytoday.hu/hungarian-roots-uri-geller-spoon-bender-85635/

 

[river]

But the definition of Pain is that it is a Conscious Experience. I think you are inserting Intelligence into the Meaning of Consciousness.

Without the conscious of pain , conscious can not evolve . If consciousness ignores pain , then it will ignore many threats to the body and brain .

 

[Dicart]

Without the conscious of pain , conscious can not evolve . If consciousness ignores pain , then it will ignore many threats to the body and brain .

Without pain, consciousness could evolve too, i dont think that the evolution of consciousness depend only of pain.
Furthermore, talking about consciousness as if there were only one type of it is not sufficient.
We have to define wich consciousness we talk about.

Types of consciousness

Ned Block argued that discussions on consciousness often failed to properly distinguish phenomenal (P-consciousness) from access (A-consciousness), though these terms had been used before Block.[35]

P-consciousness, according to Block, is simply raw experience: it is moving, colored forms, sounds, sensations, emotions and feelings with our bodies and responses at the center. These experiences, considered independently of any impact on behavior, are called qualia. A-consciousness, on the other hand, is the phenomenon whereby information in our minds is accessible for verbal report, reasoning, and the control of behavior. So, when we perceive, information about what we perceive is access conscious; when we introspect, information about our thoughts is access conscious; when we remember, information about the past is access conscious, and so on. Although some philosophers, such as Daniel Dennett, have disputed the validity of this distinction,[36] others have broadly accepted it. David Chalmers has argued that A-consciousness can in principle be understood in mechanistic terms, but that understanding P-consciousness is much more challenging: he calls this the hard problem of consciousness.[37] Kong Derick has also stated that there are two types of consciousness: high level consciousness, which he attributes to the mind, and low level consciousness, which he attributes to the submind.[38]

Some philosophers believe that Block's two types of consciousness are not the end of the story. William Lycan, for example, argued in his book Consciousness and Experience that at least eight clearly distinct types of consciousness can be identified (organism consciousness; control consciousness; consciousness of; state/event consciousness; reportability; introspective consciousness; subjective consciousness; self-consciousness)—and that even this list omits several more obscure forms.[39]

There is also debate over whether or not A-consciousness and P-consciousness always coexist or if they can exist separately. Although P-consciousness without A-consciousness is more widely accepted, there have been some hypothetical examples of A without P. Block, for instance, suggests the case of a "zombie" that is computationally identical to a person but without any subjectivity. However, he remains somewhat skeptical concluding "I don't know whether there are any actual cases of A-consciousness without P-consciousness, but I hope I have illustrated their conceptual possibility." [40]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness

 

[river]

↑

Without the conscious of pain , conscious can not evolve . If consciousness ignores pain , then it will ignore many threats to the body and brain .

Without pain, consciousness could evolve too, i dont think that the evolution of consciousness depend only of pain.

Agreed. Senses that sense the environment . Without pain .

Furthermore, talking about consciousness as if there were only one type of it is not sufficient.
We have to define wich consciousness we talk about.

For example .

 

[river]

To the OP

Does Paleontology agree ?

 

[Dennis Tate]

The Evolution of Animal life on this Planet is probably directly driven by Conscious experience. Any organism that experiences Pleasure will seek out that Pleasure. Any organism that experiences Pain will try to avoid that Pain. Without the existence of these basic Conscious experiences there would be no motivation for any organism to react. There's nothing like a little Pain to motivate you to adjust what you are doing. This applies to simple organisms and to Humans. It would seem that Evolution is directly guided by Conscious experience. Using this perspective we might be able to say that Evolution does not even exist as a Thing in Itself, but rather Evolution is just an Emergent Property of the Action of Consciousness in the Universe.

That is an intriguing idea indeed!

 

[Steve Klinko]

To the OP

Does Paleontology agree ?

I think all of Science, Paleontology, Evolution, and etc. needs a big revision regarding the effect of Consciousness.

 

[Steve Klinko]

Yes, but this is what we talk about when we talk about consciousness within the scientific domain.
We use the physicalist representation saying that consciousness emerge from complexity, and there are some models that differs form another to try to explain more in detail how this compexity lead to consciousness (of some sort or other, because as you surely have read, we distinguish some different consciousness form).
No neurophysiologist says he know what counciousness is, they "only" create a definition that permit to say "here we are observing consiousness" associated with a mecanistic modelisation of what we observe.

You, on other hand, like many other (me included), are not satisfied with this circular definition of consciousness, that appear somewhat distant with "what you experience " as an individual.
Yes, but science can not deal with the individual internal feeling, like pain, pleasure, fear etc, but at least, if you agree that science work add something to your comprehension, it is more then nothing.
Science know the symptom, but has not the ability to talk about "what it is for who experience it".



On a physicalistic point of view, consciousness doesen't differ with any other physical phenomenom, like having longer legs or better dentition.

Thats the point i think you haven't already admit.
If, as i think you arge, cousciousness is more than that, so it says that natural laws are not reliable, spirit or how you want to name it, can change the physical laws.

It is like Uri Geller saying he can bend some spoon with the power of his mind...

https://hungarytoday.hu/hungarian-roots-uri-geller-spoon-bender-85635/

I understand the Blindness of the Physicalist Doctrine. I want to cure the Physicalists of their Physicalist Delusions.

 

[sideshowbob]

I want to cure the Physicalists of their Physicalist Delusions.

Might wanna check for a beam in your own eye first.

 

[Michael 345]

It is like Uri Geller saying he can bend some spoon with the power of his mind..

You mean it is like a lie, since he has been shown he can not bend spoons with his mind and I understand he as said as much saying it was nothing more than a magic trick