[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

2022-11: Warosu is now out of maintenance. Become a Patron!

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
View page     

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
File: 702 KB, 714x907, 1678416573716385.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15284179 No.15284179 [Reply] [Original] [archived.moe]

What can we say about the evolutionary origin of consciousness?
We know most humans have consciousness. We know most animals don't. So when, why and how did it evolve?

>> No.15284207

Define consciousness.
Presumably, most animals do have it, but it's a spectrum of developing features we align with whichever model of consciousness.
As for "why", Combination of selective advantages / lack of disadvantages is "why" anything evolves.

>> No.15284208


>> No.15284222

Well, what is the evolutionary advantage of experiencing consciousness?

>> No.15284225

and by consciousness I mean qualia

>> No.15284226

Anti-science anti-materialist idealists obsessed with taking over this board will flock to tell you that it's special and primordial as it's their final god of the gaps, promoting pseuds like Langan

>> No.15284232

>most animals do have it
Maybe some higher mammals like monkeys or dogs do. But insects were proven not to have it, and even among vertebrates it's safe to say that reptiles and birds have no consciousness.

>> No.15284233

Lol into the trash you go (inb4 anti-materialists false flagging by pushing Dennett as some kind of materialist authority)

>> No.15284240

Theory of mind and simulating awareness has numerous advantages for anything to do with social behaviors or group activity, planning, etc. It'd be easier to list what advantages it doesn't have, if I could even think of any.
When you say "birds have no consciousness" all you're telling me is you've never had or met birds. I assure you, crows, ravens, numerous exotic birds, absolutely do.
>and by consciousness I mean qualia
That's meaningless. Dan Dennett has thoroughly demonstrated this. I've zero interest in what amounts to faith claims.

>> No.15284249

What is Dennett's argument against qualia?

>> No.15284259

>What is Dennett's argument against qualia?
No clue how in-depth you want. So have the overview https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia#Daniel_Dennett
tl;dr like the concept of "soul" it perpetually moves away from any falsification as a concept and is rendered meaningless by its utter lack of, for lack of better word, testability or falsifiability. What utility it does have if you ask me is limited to "placeholder for thing that can't be tested to escape falsification".

>> No.15284269

>We know most animals don't.
no the fuck we don't. stop trying to make yourself feel better about your meat-eating habits.

>> No.15284270

keep fighting the good fight.

>> No.15284276

There is nothing unethical about eating bugs.

>> No.15284286

The anti-bug eating shit is usually spammed by anti-materialist /pol/tards calling everyone around them "anti-human" as if their definition of "human" was something intrinsically good.

>> No.15284287

Facts about reality do not necessitate a given moral position. This topic is not "is it ethical to eat animals" make your own thread if that's your beef, and preferably on the right board for it.

>> No.15284293

>qualia are hard to grasp
>therefore they must be wrong
Into the trash.

>> No.15284298

>flapdoodle is hard to grasp therefore flapdoodle exists
Anti-science anti-materialist idealist schizos, everybody

>> No.15284303

That's one way to admit you don't understand anything I wrote, I suppose. Try asking questions next time.

>> No.15284308

>Atheist materialism
Not even once.

>> No.15284311

You didn't write anything meaningful. You linked wikipedia and mentioned the hardness of the hard problem. You didn't answer the question how Dennett argues against qualia.

>> No.15284321

>You linked wikipedia and mentioned the hardness of the hard problem.
Oh, so on top of not understanding what I wrote, you didn't even read the wiki. Man you're pathetic.
>>Dennett's argument revolves around the central objection that, for qualia to be taken seriously as a component of experience – for them to even make sense as a discrete concept – it must be possible to show that (a) it is possible to know that a change in qualia has occurred, as opposed to a change in something else; or that (b) there is a difference between having a change in qualia and not having one.
Not hard at all. Your standard need for the notion to be falsifiable somehow to be meaningful. Note (a).

>> No.15284330

>Dennett's objection is that for qualia to be taking seriously first the hard problem must be solved
That's circular. Does he have any actual objection? So far he only underlined the hardness of the hard problem.

>> No.15284335

>That's circular.
Nope. First you must demonstrate such a problem exists. What can emergence not explain? Usually, people immediately refer back to "Qualia". That's the circularity. Nice projection.
>Does he have any actual objection?
Yes. Claiming the hard problem is contingent on qualia is nonsense. See above.
>So far he only underlined the hardness of the hard problem.
So far you seem to understand nothing about anything.

>> No.15284337

dennett is a complete pseud, he believes in free will. once you know that about him, you know not to take him seriously.

>> No.15284343

He's a subset of compatibilists who insist on reusing the term "free will" to mean bog standard deterministic "freedom from coercion". Last I knew anyway. No, I do not agree with that.

>> No.15284348

Nta and I don't care to argue with you, just dropping by to say that if you're genuinely curious about Dennett's position, I recommend reading his paper Quining Qualia. If you just want to shitpost idealism vs materialism, ignore my post.

>> No.15284349

>First you must demonstrate such a problem exists.
This is trivially obvious to anyone experiencing qualia.

>What can emergence not explain?
Emergence never explains anything. It's a weasel word for computational irreducibility. It just means "somehow correlated but we can't explain the mechanism".
>Claiming the hard problem is contingent on qualia is nonsense.
The hard problem is the question of explaining qualia.

>> No.15284350

in what way is that "bog standard" though?

>> No.15284352

>We know most animals don't.
we do NOT know that

>> No.15284353

I read that text a long time ago and found no arguments in it.

>> No.15284359

>This is trivially obvious to anyone experiencing qualia.
First you claim your requirement to define qualia is circular, then when asked to define what the hard problem is you refer back to qualia. Obvious clown is obvious.

>> No.15284361

ok, fine. it seems as though insects aren't conscious. but we definitely haven't proven it, which we need to do before making any such knowledge claims.

>> No.15284363

Not even bad arguments? I don't believe you have read the text then.

>> No.15284364

As is self evident by circularly referring to qualia to define the hard problem to define qualia, he's a troll.

>> No.15284368

Your inability to understand the concept of qualia doesn't invalidate it.

Some good arguments against his own point actually. He has some nice thought experiments underlining the hardness of the hard problem. Or maybe that was in his book "consciousness explained".

>> No.15284371

>Your inability to understand the concept of qualia doesn't invalidate it.
Your circularity does. You masked-off too easily.

>> No.15284376

There is no circularity in my post. You're strawmanning hard.

>> No.15284380

Sound like you didn't read the paper then. You can prove me wrong by telling me what definition if qualia he uses and what kind of methods he employs in testing it.

>> No.15284395

It's been more than 10 years and I'm not gonna reread his shitty texts. His definition consists of 4 or 5 adjectives. Ineffable and private were on the list, the others I forgot. His "arguments" are of the form "you cannot know whether the qualia you experience today are the same you experienced yesterday". While this actually only shows the volatility of qualia he incorrectly jumps without further justification to the conclusion that it somehow (how?) invalidates the entire concept of subjective experience. Also a lot of strawman fallacies about magic and qualia being "things" or whatever.

>> No.15284398

Init, these dumb kiddy fucks and consciousness.

>> No.15284401

>he incorrectly jumps without further justification to the conclusion that it somehow (how?) invalidates the entire concept of subjective experience
He never does this. You have not read the paper, you looked up a summary.

>> No.15285188

Nta but I just read it and anon is right. Dennett randomly conflates qualia sometimes with perceptional information and sometimes with value judgments, talks about personal accounts of qualia as some kind of proof that they're not ineffable, insists himself in explicitly demanding the property "intrinsic" only to dismiss it later as not sufficiently definable and then declaring himself the winner (top lel), declares direct accessibility of qualia defeated only because you can't be sure about your past qualia, and believes qualia are not private because the perceptual events triggering them are external. It's a load of cringeworthy semantic bullshit fallacies and language games. What a waste of time.

>> No.15285230

Imagine being this much of an NPC.

>> No.15285378

I can't imagine being Dennett. Just like I will never know what it feels like to be a bat, I will also never know what it feels like to be an NPC.

>> No.15285385

>We know most animals don't.
Please elaborate, i know you cant.

>> No.15285411

> what is the evolutionary advantage of experiencing consciousness?
Why does there have to an advantage? As long as a trait does not hinder a species it will remain in the population.

>> No.15286836

Does it matter? At the end of the day we exist to reproduce and grow the same as bacteria.

>> No.15287358

Why do you assume that consciousness is some sort of emergent process of materialist atheism?

>> No.15287455

I never assumed this. You are strawmanning.

>> No.15287464

Thinking there's an evolutionary advantage to something presupposes an evolutionary cause.

>> No.15287470

>idealist cuck doesn't understand evolution
Many such cases. Sad. Read Langan. He explains it. If your IQ is high enough.

>> No.15287474

Langan is a Creationist, anon. His theory explicitly posits that natural life was intelligently designed by God.

>> No.15287478

That's midwitted fake news spread by people who never read him.

>> No.15287484

It's something he literally said in an interview, anon.

Delete posts
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.